Thursday, May 27, 2010

Time to Fight Back Against the EPA's Power Grab

Time to Fight Back Against the EPA's Power Grab; By Phil Kerpen; FOXNews

President Obama has been very made clear that his top domestic priorities are health care and global warming. We all know what happened on health care. Now the date is set for the key Senate showdown on global warming: June 10. That’s when the Senate will vote on a resolution introduced by Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski (S.J. Res. 26) that would overturn the EPA’s global warming regulations. It’s not subject to filibuster. There is no place for weak-kneed senators to hide. In just two weeks we’ll know where every member of the Senate stands.

As I’ve previously discussed here in the Fox Forum and documented on, the Obama administration is not waiting for Congress to enact a national cap-and-trade program to move ahead with its global warming agenda.

Under the watchful eye of White House Climate czar Carol Browner (who originally developed the legal theory of using the 1970 Clean Air Act as a global warming law, bypassing Congress) the EPA is moving forward on a staggering regulatory power grab that includes about 18,000 pages of appendices and will eventually regulate nearly every aspect of the U.S. economy.

The EPA is out to regulate cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, planes, trains, ships, boats, tractors, mining equipment, RVs, lawn mowers, fork lifts… you get the idea. And there is no control technology for greenhouse gases, so the EPA would require complete redesigns and operational changes.

While there are some promising legal challenges to the EPA regulations being pursued, we can’t count on the courts. After all it was a 5-to-4 2007 Supreme Court decision in “Massachusetts v. EPA” that paved the way for EPA’s global warming mischief.

The Democrats have a huge majority in the Senate, but many Democrats will not walk the party line on this one. To start, three Democrats are co-sponsors of Murkowski’s S. J. Res. 26: Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), and Mary Landrieu (La.).

Read the rest here.

Comment: One of the many consequences of the 17th Amendment, special interest influence. Repeal the 17th and special interest groups lose a major ally in the "mini-presidents" that occupy the US Senate.

No comments: