Quotes of the Day - Supreme Court

Considering that the U.S. Supreme Court justices have completed their hearings on Obamacare are in now in the process of writing their decision, I thought these quotes from Chief Justices were especially relevant.  And here's a bit a trivia for you:  the title is Chief Justice of the United States, not Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

"The power of the state to impose restraints and burdens upon persons and property in conservation and promotion of the public health, good order, and prosperity is a power originally and always belonging to the states, not surrendered to them by the general government, nor directly restrained by the constitution of the United States, and essentially exclusive."  ~  Justice Melville Fuller, Chief Justice of the United States (1888-1910)

"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. ... Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description, as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass. No direct general power over these objects is granted to Congress, and, consequently, they remain subject to State legislation."  ~  Justice John Marshall, Chief Justice of the United States (1801–1835)

"To hold that Congress has general police power would be to hold that it may accomplish objects not intrusted to the general government, and to defeat the operation of the 10th Amendment, declaring that 'the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.' "  ~  Justice Melville Fuller, Chief Justice of the United States (1888-1910)

Quote of the Day - Jefferson was right

You have to wonder if he was psychic, or just very, very smart as, clearly, we have become what he warned against.

"The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in ... the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing it’s noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. ...when all government... in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." ~ Thomas Jefferson

Guest Column: Let states regulate fracking

The following is a guest column from Rep. Bob Latta who serves on the House Energy and Commerce Committee:

Latta Op-Ed: “Let states regulate fracking”

Too often, Washington ignores the complexities inherent in our vast and diverse nation and reverts to a one-size-fits-all approach in which Washington “knows” best.

Most federal agencies operate under this assumption. The Environmental Protection Agency provides a perfect example. It sets uniformstandards for the effects of energy production on air and water, regardless of the characteristics of different localities. The obvious problem with this is that many of these municipalities are as dissimilar as my hometown, BowlingGreen, Ohio, and San Francisco, entirely different geographically and demographically.

EPA’s impulse to regulate first and ask questions later is contrary to the wishes of many states, which have spent years crafting stringent, well-tailored regulatory frameworks at the state level and desire little intrusion from Washington.

In the past decade, the combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing — techniques used to extract shale gas from tight pockets deep underground — has allowed access to large volumes of natural gas that were not accessible just a few years ago.

The production boom of natural gas from shale formations has sparked a vigorous debate about how much regulation is necessary and who should oversee it — Washington bureaucrats or state regulators who reside in the communities they regulate and have detailed knowledge of local geologic formations?

State regulators know their natural resources. They know the local geology, geography and production characteristics, making them bettersuited to regulate local energy producers than distant federal bureaucrats.

The fundamental question that must be asked is: Who is best suited to protect the health and safety of Ohioans — experienced Ohio regulators and geologists, or somebody in Washington?

Today (Monday, Nov. 14th), I’ll ask this question at a natural gas forum in Washington at which we will hear from esteemed energy experts and industry leaders who can help us better understand the natural gas revolution that’s changing our energy landscape for the better.

At a similar forum that I co-hosted in Ohio, I posed this question to state regulators, shale oil and gas development companies and end-users.

The answer was loud and clear: Ohio has it under control, no need for Big Government to step in.

Dave Mustine, director of Jobs Ohio, a nonprofit focused on business development, said, “We have a very advanced oil and gas law that was updated in the last General Assembly. We believe we have the regulatory framework in place to provide effective oversight to this industry, protecting the environment, doing it right — and we’re very proud of that here in our state.”

In 2010, the Ohio Legislature approved the most stringent oil and gas laws in the country that address every phase of shale development: site preparation, drilling and well completion, hydraulic fracturing, production, treatment and storage, waste management and disposal, plugging and restoration and orphaned well sites.

Still, Ohio’s work appears to fall on deaf ears in Washington, where the EPA is spending taxpayer money to study the need for federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing, despite Administrator Lisa Jackson’s recent statements that she’s not “aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water.”

EPA also recently announced its intention to set new regulations for shale wastewater, a process that Ohio has already perfectedwith numerous well-regulated and EPA-approved underground injection wells. As the old adage goes, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Kathryn Klaber, president of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, reiterated the point, stating, “EPA’s announcement was yet another Washington solution in search of a problem.”

Rick Simmers, statewide enforcement manager with Ohio Department of Natural Resources, who oversees wastewater management, says Ohio’s 28-year-old state-run wastewater disposal program, composed of 180 underground injection wells, is a safe, well-managed, disposal program. Thesystem in Ohio has been run so efficiently and effectively that drilling operations in Pennsylvania pay for wastewater disposal services in Ohio.

Still, Washington bureaucrats ignore the success of state regulatory bodies. This is especially troubling because one-size-fits-all EPA rule making could jeopardize the expected creation within the next four years of 204,500 jobs in Ohio and annual state tax revenues of $478.9 million, according to the Oil and Gas Energy Education Association.

To avoid a scenario of cavalier regulations by federal agencies, Washington should take the advice of Tom Stewart of the Ohio Oil and Gas Association and allow states “to follow the state review process,” a program that has demonstrated success.

The practice brings together a variety of stakeholders — the environmental community, state and federal regulators and industry — who go to state governments and peer critique one another’s programs, finding out what works well and what doesn’t. Based on their evaluations, they recommend how to make state-specific improvements. This is the most effective way to ensure the needs of states and their citizens are accounted for.

Finally, we have to understand that when we talk about regulations, we are discussing potential threats to employment opportunities at a time when our country needs new jobs more than ever. Right now, we are seeing an influx of Americans moving to towns across America in which shale deposits have been discovered.

As a father of two, I want my kids to be proud of their home state and to find jobs that allow them to stay in Ohio. But this can only happen if the federal government allows Ohio to manage its resources and foster an environment conducive to job creation. We need more jobs than more job-killing federal regulations.

Government cannot create jobs, but government can help create an environment that attracts job creators and allows them to hire workers. We have all the tools we need to spur an economic recovery and rejuvenate our society if we can get the right regulatory environment in place.

Our forefathers meant for states to be laboratories for experimentation with the right governance. Regulation of hydraulic fracturing is the perfect example of a process better left to state governments, whichhave the best, firsthand knowledge of how to deal with their specific circumstances.

Sunday round-up

* Do you blame companies for making decisions based upon politics? Or do you blame the politicians?

This column by Thomas J. Borelli, PhD., the editor of FreeEnterpriser.com, takes a look at two companies, Whole Foods and GE, that are, indeed, making politics a core component of their business decisions - with drastic results. The fact that such considerations are contemplated is part of the problem. If government and various elected officials didn't write laws to benefit or harm particular industries/groups, there'd be no need for political considerations in the first place.

I wonder what our Founding Fathers would think of this...

* Patrick Henry is known by most people for his 'Give me liberty or give me death' rallying cry. But do you know what got him so angry as to make such a statement? Samantha Hagan, Director of the Patrick Henry Legacy Program at the Patrick Henry Center, has the background in this column, "Liberty and Gunpowder."

You see, Lord Dunmore, the royal governor of Virginia, seized a town's community supply of gunpowder and ordered the disabling of weapons stored in the public magazine. He did so following his disbanding of what today we'd call a house of representatives and the rallying of the public to Henry as a result of his impassioned speech.

"Patrick Henry demanded the return of the gunpowder, or failing that, he called for compensation to replace the colony’s fleeced supply. Lord Dunmore feared Henry and his men, and from the security of the palace he threatened to destroy the town should any hostilities begin.

For days the standoff continued until a deal was finally brokered in which a sum that both sides agreed upon was paid from the royal account to replace the stolen gunpowder."

Property rights, a core basis of our free nation, were also at the heart of the Revolution.

* From CNSNews.com:

"A new Government Accountability Office (GAO) study says that all levels of government – federal, state, and local – will have to come up with a total of $16.6 billion in additional revenue to purchase carbon allowances, if cap-and-trade – to allegedly combat global warming -- is enacted into law. Experts say this could prompt increases in taxes.

This is the second government report to estimate that the proposed climate-change legislation, formally known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, will eventually cost consumers more.

A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study published on June 19 revealed that the House cap-and-trade bill, passed by a 219 to 212 vote on June 26, would cost an estimated $175 per household every year."

How much are you willing to pay in additional taxes to *potentially* lower the temperature by a fraction of a degree???

* Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, has this scary perspective on Eric Holder's Hidden Agenda. For a long time, I have been concerned about actions by those in the federal government and the courts that seem to indicate a willingness to subject our sovereign nation to the whims of others. While we have a global economy, we do not (yet) have a global government - and that's a good thing. For the same reason I support states rights, I support the ability of nations to govern themselves. If people in positions of authority in our nation's government are not willing to support our nation's laws over all others, they don't deserve their places in that government. You cannot uphold our Constitution if you're willing to place it below the rules and laws of others.

Again I wonder what our Founding Fathers would think. Would the word 'treason' enter their minds?

* This is sick! Melissa Lafsky, at The Huffington Post, speculates on what Mary Jo Kopechne might think about the life of Sen. Edward Kennedy. She writes:

"Who knows -- maybe she'd feel it was worth it."

I think there's something wrong with any individual who would make such a comment. Perhaps I've misunderstood the post, but I find it hard to believe that the Kopechne family would agree - and I'm sure they knew Mary Jo much better than Lafsky.