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

[RetiredGySgt]

The plan does not kill the coal industry.

Really? It states its purpose is to get rid of all coal fired plants in the US. Exactly where does that leave the coal industry? Further how exactly will 40 percent of our electric needs be replaced in 2 years?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The plan does not kill the coal industry.

Really? It states its purpose is to get rid of all coal fired plants in the US. Exactly where does that leave the coal industry? Further how exactly will 40 percent of our electric needs be replaced in 2 years?

You can quote the Clean Power Plan as getting rid of all coal fired plants?

I need to see that.

 

[Neotrotsky]

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


no doubt, he thinks we need to throw Papa Obama back into the hopper
when it comes to his education

 

[NYcarbineer]

The plan does not kill the coal industry.

Really? It states its purpose is to get rid of all coal fired plants in the US. Exactly where does that leave the coal industry? Further how exactly will 40 percent of our electric needs be replaced in 2 years?

You can quote the Clean Power Plan as getting rid of all coal fired plants?

I need to see that.

Dang. I guess we won't be seeing that....

 

[mudwhistle]

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?

Why don't you ask him?

 

[mudwhistle]

The plan does not kill the coal industry.

It will. And it necessarily will cause energy costs to skyrocket, which is the part of the plan anyway. Driving up energy costs on Americans.

First he stagnates income, then he drives up the costs of everything causing us to have to depend on government to survive.

 

[rightwinger]

I wonder who gets to decide if it is Constitutional

Maybe the Perfessor could tell us

So far obuthole has been wrong.

Doesn't seem that way

Remember Obamacare?

Obama care IS Unconstitutional, the One con that voted for it was being told his Legacy depended on it. And he bought it. The Government has no authority to force Citizens to buy Health care.

Rightwing Butthurt claimed it was unconstitutional, the Supreme Court obviously disagreed

Guess you still can't get over it

 

[mudwhistle]

The plan does not kill the coal industry.

Really? It states its purpose is to get rid of all coal fired plants in the US. Exactly where does that leave the coal industry? Further how exactly will 40 percent of our electric needs be replaced in 2 years?

You can quote the Clean Power Plan as getting rid of all coal fired plants?

I need to see that.

Dang. I guess we won't be seeing that....

Jesus Christ on a stick. You're answering yourself.
How dumb can you get?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The plan does not kill the coal industry.

Really? It states its purpose is to get rid of all coal fired plants in the US. Exactly where does that leave the coal industry? Further how exactly will 40 percent of our electric needs be replaced in 2 years?

You can quote the Clean Power Plan as getting rid of all coal fired plants?

I need to see that.

Dang. I guess we won't be seeing that....

Jesus Christ on a stick. You're answering yourself.
How dumb can you get?

I bumped the post because your idiot pal dodged it. Would you like to help him out? Can you quote anything in the Clean Power Plan that demonstrates a goal of getting rid of all coal fired plants?

Have you even seen the Clean Power Plan?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The plan does not kill the coal industry.

It will. And it necessarily will cause energy costs to skyrocket, which is the part of the plan anyway. Driving up energy costs on Americans.

First he stagnates income, then he drives up the costs of everything causing us to have to depend on government to survive.

You've obviously never even seen the plan.

Answer this:

According to the plan, by the year 2030, what will be the two leading sources of electricity generation,
and what percent of all generation will be from those sources?

lol. google fast lol.

 

[mudwhistle]

The plan does not kill the coal industry.

Really? It states its purpose is to get rid of all coal fired plants in the US. Exactly where does that leave the coal industry? Further how exactly will 40 percent of our electric needs be replaced in 2 years?

You can quote the Clean Power Plan as getting rid of all coal fired plants?

I need to see that.

Dang. I guess we won't be seeing that....

Jesus Christ on a stick. You're answering yourself.
How dumb can you get?

I bumped the post because your idiot pal dodged it. Would you like to help him out? Can you quote anything in the Clean Power Plan that demonstrates a goal of getting rid of all coal fired plants?

Have you even seen the Clean Power Plan?

Have you?

 

[mudwhistle]

Like everything the Obama Administration does, it's all wrapped up in tortured language and causes the reader to have to wade through reams of paperwork to get the point. They spent pages upon pages telling us all of the wonderful things they want to accomplish without telling us anything rational on how or why they should. Since the whole premise of global climate change is based on pure fantasy, this is all designed to drive up the costs of energy production in this country. Nobody with half a brain would attempt this. European countries are using nuclear plants to produce energy but the treehuggers in this country won't allow us to. So we're left with wind-power, solar-power, and natural gas. The national register states that the Clean Power Plan is a move away from fossil fuels totally ignoring the fact that Natural Gas is a fossil fuel. It's total nonsense. We can't use hydroelectric plants because it hurts the little fishes, and we can't use coal, which is plentiful, because it's dirty.

The primary purpose of this is raising the cost of electricity in this country. We have a vindictive prick in the WhiteHouse that has a problem with every person in America. He must feel we need to be punished, those rich, white, bastards, and he's the man to do it. So the guy lives like a king, spending our tax money while screwing us collectively in the ass.

 

[Stephanie]

Well, Every PROMISE that Obama has kept has been the ones to hurt us and our livelihoods



what a President huh. You put him in office and he unleashed this government on us like a wild pack of dogs. from 1000's of new regulations, new taxes, and a brand new government entitlement that cost BILLIONS to set up, and

from the: IRS, EPA, BLM, etc

 

[hipeter924]

Just more NaziCon bullshit being pushed by The Heritage Foundation. Coal is killing the planet.

Most countries are switching to natural gas, nuclear, or renewables. China, India and so on are trying to move away from coal, so in the long term it is a shrinking and increasingly less profitable product.

 

[Stephanie]

If it can hurt us Obama is all for it. He could care less what we have to pay or if we have jobs out of it

SNIP:
Obama Fracking Rules Cut Against Growth Message
12:55 PM, Mar 20, 2015 • By MICHAEL WARREN





To hear administration officials tell it, the "fourth quarter" of the Obama presidency will be focused on economic growth and what the president calls “middle-class economics.” Brian Deese, senior advisor to the president on climate and energy, emphasized this at a Friday breakfast with reporters sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor.

“We are in a moment where we are seeing durable momentum in the economic recovery,” said Deese. “One of our key questions is how can we—as an administration, the executive branch and the president—position ourselves to be maximally effective at encouraging increased economic growth, but also growth where the benefits are broadly shared.”

Deese’s comments come on the day the Department of Interior is expected to announce new rules regarding the use of hydraulic fracturing to mine oil and natural gas on federal lands. As Politico reported, the new rules represent the “most comprehensive foray to date toward regulating the technology at the heart of the U.S. oil and gas boom.” Here are some details:

The regulations will include standards for well construction, responding to worries about fracking fluids being able to seep into nearby drinking water supplies, sources said. They will also include rules for the disposal of the liquid fracking waste known as “flowback,” and requirements for companies to disclose the chemicals they use in the fracking process. At the same time, the rules will offer some room for states to remain in charge, as long as BLM certifies that existing state regulations are sufficient to comply with federal standards.

How do these new restrictive regulations on fracking, which has contributed significantly to the domestic energy production boom of recent years, translate into economic growth?

“We believe that in order to have a durable industry in the future, you need to strike an appropriate balance between protecting public health and safety, and allowing for responsible production. If you look at the rules that the Department of Interior will put out later today, they appropriately strike that balance, and they are focused on pragmatic but very important steps, like disclosing fluids that are being used in the fracking process,” he said, noting that just 11 percent of fracking in the U.S. occurs on federal lands where these new rules will be implemented. “What we’re putting out today reflects a responsible approach to our obligation to balance those issues.”

It’s a revealing answer, insofar as Deese doesn’t really address the question about economic growth. Disclosure of fracking fluid, for instance, may be an important goal, even though several states have established laws requiring certain levels of disclosure and many companies disclose their chemicals voluntarily. But increasing regulation on the energy industry, particularly on the innovative practice of hydraulic fracturing, doesn’t sound much like being “maximally effective” at encouraging growth. It sounds more like being maximally effective at putting the brakes on fracking entirely.

In fact, that may well be the intent of this executive action. Federal legislation that would enact these forthcoming fracking rules has stalled in Congress, meaning the Obama administration, pressured by environmental groups to curb fracking, has had to resort to making its own new rules.

all of it here:
Obama Fracking Rules Cut Against Growth Message The Weekly Standard

 

[NYcarbineer]

Really? It states its purpose is to get rid of all coal fired plants in the US. Exactly where does that leave the coal industry? Further how exactly will 40 percent of our electric needs be replaced in 2 years?

You can quote the Clean Power Plan as getting rid of all coal fired plants?

I need to see that.

Dang. I guess we won't be seeing that....

Jesus Christ on a stick. You're answering yourself.
How dumb can you get?

I bumped the post because your idiot pal dodged it. Would you like to help him out? Can you quote anything in the Clean Power Plan that demonstrates a goal of getting rid of all coal fired plants?

Have you even seen the Clean Power Plan?

Have you?

I've seen it and read enough of it to know that the intent is not to end coal use.

 

[mudwhistle]

Just more NaziCon bullshit being pushed by The Heritage Foundation. Coal is killing the planet.

Most countries are switching to natural gas, nuclear, or renewables. China, India and so on are trying to move away from coal, so in the long term it is a shrinking and increasingly less profitable product.

Link

 

[mudwhistle]

You can quote the Clean Power Plan as getting rid of all coal fired plants?

I need to see that.

Dang. I guess we won't be seeing that....

Jesus Christ on a stick. You're answering yourself.
How dumb can you get?

I bumped the post because your idiot pal dodged it. Would you like to help him out? Can you quote anything in the Clean Power Plan that demonstrates a goal of getting rid of all coal fired plants?

Have you even seen the Clean Power Plan?

Have you?

I've seen it and read enough of it to know that the intent is not to end coal use.

The goal is clearly stated to end the use of fossil-fuels.
Can't you understand English?

 

[OKTexas]

Just more NaziCon bullshit being pushed by The Heritage Foundation. Coal is killing the planet.

Okay. Then read this left wing stuff instead.

It pretty clear that the EPA doesn't have the legal or constitutional authority to do this, but when has that ever stopped this regime? It's way past time to abolish the EPA, but you know the dear leader will never allow that as long a he's in office.

 

[OKTexas]

Just more NaziCon bullshit being pushed by The Heritage Foundation. Coal is killing the planet.

Okay. Then read this left wing stuff instead.

I'm not gonna click on that. It could be a virus!!!!


I think g5000 has cooties!!!

It's just a pdf of the congressional hearing.