Obama's Law Professor Takes Him To School At Congressional Hearing

mudwhistle

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
96,588
Reaction score
24,006
Points
2,220
Location
Tested Negative For COVID-19
Obama is attempting to use the EPA to end the use of coal as an energy source in America forever through new regulations set to be put into place this year. However, his former professor testified that he doesn't have the power according to the US Constitution:

Obama Schooled on Constitution by His Former Law Professor

Katie Tubb / March 19, 2015

President Obama has defended his knowledge and commitment to the Constitution by reminding Americans he used to teach constitutional law courses. When it comes to Obama’s Clean Power Plan, one of his former law professors disagrees.

Laurence Tribe joins the long list of individuals, organizations, and local and state governments opposing the Clean Power Plan. Under the Clean Power Plan, the EPA is attempting to finalize regulations that would require states to meet individual targets to cut CO2 emissions, essentially eliminating the use of coal as an affordable, reliable energy source that provides nearly 40 percent of America’s electricity. Tribe, a Harvard law professor and “liberal legal icon,” had not been shy about his reasons in the past and testified on them before the House Energy and Power Subcommittee on Tuesday.

As Tribe aptly puts it, the Clean Power Plan burns the Constitution.

Tribe’s entire testimony is well worth the read for anyone regardless of what they believe about global warming. His arguments having nothing to do with the “pros and cons” of the EPA’s response to global warming but with the rule of law and the “novel course of action” EPA has chosen to force through the Clean Power Plan. Here are a few notable excerpts from Tribe’s testimony Tuesday:

“At its core, the issue the Clean Power Plan presents is whether EPA is bound by the rule of law and must operate within the framework established by the United States Constitution.”
“EPA’s plan will force States to adopt policies that will raise energy costs and prove deeply unpopular, while cloaking those poli. cies in the Emperor’s garb of state ‘choice’—even though in fact the polices are compelled by EPA. Such sleight-of-hand offends democratic principles by avoiding political transparency and accountability.”
“Accordingly, EPA’s gambit would mean citizens surrendering their right to be represented by an accountable and responsive government that accords with the postulates of federalism.”
“The Affordable Care Act may not compel health insurance consumers to eat or buy broccoli, but EPA seeks to interpret the Clean Air Act to allow it to regulate every watt used in growing broccoli and moving it to the market—as well as every watt used for any other activity within a State.”
“Faced with [the Clean Air Act’s] explicit statutory bar to its Clean Power Plan, EPA advances a variety of arguments in an attempt to circumvent the clear statutory text. Its arguments violate the rules of grammar, ignore the history and structure of the Clean Air Act, and would turn Congress’ handiwork upside down.”

WordPress Installation
 

Lakhota

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
87,804
Reaction score
11,718
Points
2,070
Location
Native America
Just more NaziCon bullshit being pushed by The Heritage Foundation. Coal is killing the planet.
 

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
70,230
Reaction score
10,859
Points
2,040
Obama is a scholar on the Constitution as I am the Queen of England

He never went to school to become a professor either, it was BESTOYED on his part-time lecturing for one day a week or something

the man is such a fake, a manufactured FRAUD. and you put him in as our President

scary
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
25,404
Reaction score
4,011
Points
280
Just more NaziCon bullshit being pushed by The Heritage Foundation. Coal is killing the planet.
What does that have to do with Obama's power grab? I noted your diversion attempt and deflected it.
 

NYcarbineer

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
117,063
Reaction score
13,858
Points
2,210
Location
Finger Lakes, NY
Obama is attempting to use the EPA to end the use of coal as an energy source in America forever through new regulations set to be put into place this year. However, his former professor testified that he doesn't have the power according to the US Constitution:

Obama Schooled on Constitution by His Former Law Professor

Katie Tubb / March 19, 2015

President Obama has defended his knowledge and commitment to the Constitution by reminding Americans he used to teach constitutional law courses. When it comes to Obama’s Clean Power Plan, one of his former law professors disagrees.

Laurence Tribe joins the long list of individuals, organizations, and local and state governments opposing the Clean Power Plan. Under the Clean Power Plan, the EPA is attempting to finalize regulations that would require states to meet individual targets to cut CO2 emissions, essentially eliminating the use of coal as an affordable, reliable energy source that provides nearly 40 percent of America’s electricity. Tribe, a Harvard law professor and “liberal legal icon,” had not been shy about his reasons in the past and testified on them before the House Energy and Power Subcommittee on Tuesday.

As Tribe aptly puts it, the Clean Power Plan burns the Constitution.

Tribe’s entire testimony is well worth the read for anyone regardless of what they believe about global warming. His arguments having nothing to do with the “pros and cons” of the EPA’s response to global warming but with the rule of law and the “novel course of action” EPA has chosen to force through the Clean Power Plan. Here are a few notable excerpts from Tribe’s testimony Tuesday:

“At its core, the issue the Clean Power Plan presents is whether EPA is bound by the rule of law and must operate within the framework established by the United States Constitution.”
“EPA’s plan will force States to adopt policies that will raise energy costs and prove deeply unpopular, while cloaking those poli. cies in the Emperor’s garb of state ‘choice’—even though in fact the polices are compelled by EPA. Such sleight-of-hand offends democratic principles by avoiding political transparency and accountability.”
“Accordingly, EPA’s gambit would mean citizens surrendering their right to be represented by an accountable and responsive government that accords with the postulates of federalism.”
“The Affordable Care Act may not compel health insurance consumers to eat or buy broccoli, but EPA seeks to interpret the Clean Air Act to allow it to regulate every watt used in growing broccoli and moving it to the market—as well as every watt used for any other activity within a State.”
“Faced with [the Clean Air Act’s] explicit statutory bar to its Clean Power Plan, EPA advances a variety of arguments in an attempt to circumvent the clear statutory text. Its arguments violate the rules of grammar, ignore the history and structure of the Clean Air Act, and would turn Congress’ handiwork upside down.”

WordPress Installation
So does Tribe know how to resolve issues of constitutionality?
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
212,634
Reaction score
38,550
Points
2,190
I wonder who gets to decide if it is Constitutional

Maybe the Perfessor could tell us
 

Siete

Platinum Member
Joined
May 19, 2014
Messages
34,325
Reaction score
3,971
Points
1,130
everytime Obama opens his mouth the RW's slobber .. unconstitutional !

none of the crap they sling has stuck so far , so let the SC decide.
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,827
Reaction score
9,853
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina

Siete

Platinum Member
Joined
May 19, 2014
Messages
34,325
Reaction score
3,971
Points
1,130
see what mean?

lmao
 

Jackson

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2010
Messages
27,428
Reaction score
7,799
Points
290
Location
Nashville
Faced with [the Clean Air Act’s] explicit statutory bar to its Clean Power Plan, EPA advances a variety of arguments in an attempt to circumvent the clear statutory text. Its arguments violate the rules of grammar,ignore the history and structure of the Clean Air Act, and would turn Congress’ handiwork upside down.”

Just as Obama circumvents Congress
Just as Obama violates the correct pronunciation of words
Just as Obama ignores the history and structure of our Constitution and government
Just as any good works that Congress has done, Obama vetoes.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top