Political Crossfire Forums

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Cities join California in taking independent action on global warming ~ August 3, 2006
Quote: LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Los Angeles, London, New York, Seoul and 18 other cities joined forces on Tuesday in a global warming project aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Launched by former President Bill Clinton's foundation, the initiative will allow cities to pool their purchasing power and lower the price of energy-saving products and provide technical assistance to help them become more energy efficient. Urban areas are responsible for more than 75 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions, making reduced energy crucial in the effort to slow the pace of global warming. Energy-efficient traffic lights, street lighting, the use of biofuels for city transport, and traffic congestion schemes were some of the practical steps that cities are expected to take to reduce greenhouse gases. "The world's largest cities can have a major impact on this. Already they are at the center of developing the technologies and innovative new practices that provide hope that we can radically reduce carbon emissions," said London Mayor Ken Livingstone, who launched the initiative in Los Angeles with Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The Clinton Foundation said it hoped that coordination between major cities will boost efforts now being made by some areas on an individual basis. The partnership with the foundation began with the participation of 22 cities -- Berlin, Buenos Aires, Cairo, Caracas, Chicago, Delhi, Dhaka, Istanbul, Johannesburg, London, Los Angeles, Madrid, Melbourne, Mexico City, New York, Paris, Philadelphia, Rome, Sao Paulo, Seoul, Toronto and Warsaw.
See: UK Takes the Lead on Reducing Carbon Emissions

California, Britain sign climate pact
Quote: LONG BEACH – Britain and California formed a partnership yesterday to address global warming, bypassing the Bush administration to explore ways to curb greenhouse gas emissions and promote clean-burning fuels.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced the pact against the backdrop of an oil tanker in the Port of Long Beach.
~snip~
“We see that there is not great leadership from the federal government when it comes to protecting the environment," Schwarzenegger said. “We know there is global warming, so we should stop it."
~snip~
The world's only mandatory carbon-trading program is in Europe. Created in conjunction with the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 international treaty that took effect last year, it caps the amount of carbon dioxide that can be emitted from power plants and factories in more than two dozen industrialized countries.
~snip~
As long as the cap is met, companies can trade rights to pollute directly with one another or through exchanges located around Europe. Canada, one of more than 160 nations that endorsed Kyoto, plans a similar program.
~snip~
There was strong opposition to Kyoto in the U.S. Senate, and Bush rejected the treaty in 2001.


~@~
Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States
Quote:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Now, although I agree with the notion of taking our fate into our own hands when the Federal Government does not.
I have the sense that this type of arrangement is unconstitutional.

Do you see, what I see? (No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;)

[John Galt]

But it's a "pact" not a "treaty" nor "alliance" nor "confederation"!

I would say it seems to be unconstitutional for the state of California to be doing this. Entangling alliances are bad enough for the Federal government to be involved in.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

John Galt wrote: But it's a "pact" not a "treaty" nor "alliance" nor "confederation"!

I would say it seems to be unconstitutional for the state of California to be doing this. Entangling alliances are bad enough for the Federal government to be involved in.

"pact" : to agree, contract; COMPACT; especially : an international treaty

"alliance" : : the state of being allied; an association to further the common interests

Are we not merely parsing words ?

[psholtz]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Now, although I agree with the notion of taking our fate into our own hands when the Federal Government does not.
I have the sense that this type of arrangement is unconstitutional.

Do you see, what I see? (No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;)
It's an interesting area of ConLaw..

In general, I think States should have the right to enter into independent agreements, etc, w/ various foreign nations, and my understanding is that this was more or less the norm until the Civil War, when a lot more power was consolidated and centralized in Washington.. This is, after all, supposed to be a "united States" of America.. and the "united States of America are going to do such and so", not the "United States of America is"..

Anything that decentralizes power is good.

People often talk about how the three branches of government are supposed to "check and balance" each other, but what many people forget is that States Rights vs. Federalism is likewise supposed to be a "check and balance".. Properly managed, States Rights can be one of the most potent and powerful of checks and balances, imho...

[John Galt]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: John Galt wrote: But it's a "pact" not a "treaty" nor "alliance" nor "confederation"!

I would say it seems to be unconstitutional for the state of California to be doing this. Entangling alliances are bad enough for the Federal government to be involved in.

"pact" : to agree, contract; COMPACT; especially : an international treaty

"alliance" : : the state of being allied; an association to further the common interests

Are we not merely parsing words ?

I thought my sarcasm would have been easily seen by the second statement I made.

[John Galt]

psholtz wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Now, although I agree with the notion of taking our fate into our own hands when the Federal Government does not.
I have the sense that this type of arrangement is unconstitutional.

Do you see, what I see? (No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;)
It's an interesting area of ConLaw..

In general, I think States should have the right to enter into independent agreements, etc, w/ various foreign nations, and my understanding is that this was more or less the norm until the Civil War, when a lot more power was consolidated and centralized in Washington.. This is, after all, supposed to be a "united States" of America.. and the "united States of America are going to do such and so", not the "United States of America is"..

Anything that decentralizes power is good.

People often talk about how the three branches of government are supposed to "check and balance" each other, but what many people forget is that States Rights vs. Federalism is likewise supposed to be a "check and balance".. Properly managed, States Rights can be one of the most potent and powerful of checks and balances, imho...

What treaties did South Carolina or New York enter into pre-Civil War? I am most interested.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

John Galt wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: John Galt wrote: But it's a "pact" not a "treaty" nor "alliance" nor "confederation"!

I would say it seems to be unconstitutional for the state of California to be doing this. Entangling alliances are bad enough for the Federal government to be involved in.

"pact" : to agree, contract; COMPACT; especially : an international treaty

"alliance" : : the state of being allied; an association to further the common interests

Are we not merely parsing words ?

I thought my sarcasm would have been easily seen by the second statement I made.

Sorry John, I'm just now smoking my first joint of the day.
I'm rather cranky before that :roll:

^See the difference it makes?^ :shock:

[psholtz]

John Galt wrote: psholtz wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Now, although I agree with the notion of taking our fate into our own hands when the Federal Government does not.
I have the sense that this type of arrangement is unconstitutional.

Do you see, what I see? (No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;)
It's an interesting area of ConLaw..

In general, I think States should have the right to enter into independent agreements, etc, w/ various foreign nations, and my understanding is that this was more or less the norm until the Civil War, when a lot more power was consolidated and centralized in Washington.. This is, after all, supposed to be a "united States" of America.. and the "united States of America are going to do such and so", not the "United States of America is"..

Anything that decentralizes power is good.

People often talk about how the three branches of government are supposed to "check and balance" each other, but what many people forget is that States Rights vs. Federalism is likewise supposed to be a "check and balance".. Properly managed, States Rights can be one of the most potent and powerful of checks and balances, imho...

What treaties did South Carolina or New York enter into pre-Civil War? I am most interested.
Treaties have a special meaning in that they carry the same weight as the "Law of the Land".. but the States did enter into various independent agreements, esp w/ Great Britain. The South sold cotton to the British for cheap, who in turn sold textiles to the North. The North wanted to get the cotton for itself, and bar British textile manufacturers.

In large part, this was one of the major causes of the Civil War (i.e., trade policy).

It's been a while since I've read on this topic... I'll see if I can look up some references.

[Medius]

I think this is one of those bits of the constitution that is self-resolving. What I mean by this is that the actual entering of the pact isn't going to cause the problem, the problem will be if the pact ever conflicts with California's duties as a state of the union.

What I am trying to say is that the pact itself is null and void due to the fact that a state cannot enter into one. Where conflicts do not arise, however, a state may choose its own course and may line that course up with whatever it so chooses (in otherwords, they may work towards common goals with other countries so long as their goals don't supercede the powers vested in the state).

[bigstick61]

The reason why this was prohibited in the Constitution was that if the States were to become one nation, then one should not be able to adversely affect the others internationally, whether unintentional or not, and was also why such powers were reserved for the central government.

[gary the cheater]

they're not making a treaty. treaties are agreements made between sovereign powers. and california is not a sovereign state. it is only sovereign in those areas the constitution says it is, and that doesn't include the right to negotiate international treaties

they could go and make all kinds of deals with tony blair and tokyo and france, and arnold could fulfill the agreement by tightening california's smog laws and whatever else. but if the next governor of california didn't like the 'treaty', he could just change the laws back.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

gary the cheater wrote: they're not making a treaty. treaties are agreements made between sovereign powers. and california is not a sovereign state. it is only sovereign in those areas the constitution says it is, and that doesn't include the right to negotiate international treaties

they could go and make all kinds of deals with tony blair and tokyo and france, and arnold could fulfill the agreement by tightening california's smog laws and whatever else. but if the next governor of california didn't like the 'treaty', he could just change the laws back.

You only speak of 1/3 of the amendments restrictions.
"alliance" : the state of being allied; an association to further the common interests

This arrangement is most certainly an alliance.

What say Ye now?

[Jirwin]

[quote="Richard Owl Mirror"]Cities join California in taking independent action on global warming ~ August 3, 2006
Quote: LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Los Angeles, London, New York, Seoul and 18 other cities joined forces on Tuesday in a global warming project aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Launched by former President Bill Clinton's foundation, the initiative will allow cities to pool their purchasing power and lower the price of energy-saving products and provide technical assistance to help them become more energy efficient. Urban areas are responsible for more than 75 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions, making reduced energy crucial in the effort to slow the pace of global warming. Energy-efficient traffic lights, street lighting, the use of biofuels for city transport, and traffic congestion schemes were some of the practical steps that cities are expected to take to reduce greenhouse gases. "The world's largest cities can have a major impact on this. Already they are at the center of developing the technologies and innovative new practices that provide hope that we can radically reduce carbon emissions," said London Mayor Ken Livingstone, who launched the initiative in Los Angeles with Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The Clinton Foundation said it hoped that coordination between major cities will boost efforts now being made by some areas on an individual basis. The partnership with the foundation began with the participation of 22 cities -- Berlin, Buenos Aires, Cairo, Caracas, Chicago, Delhi, Dhaka, Istanbul, Johannesburg, London, Los Angeles, Madrid, Melbourne, Mexico City, New York, Paris, Philadelphia, Rome, Sao Paulo, Seoul, Toronto and Warsaw.

This is bad how? I see it as California looking for ways to help clean its air and water.

[quote]See: UK Takes the Lead on Reducing Carbon Emissions

California, Britain sign climate pact
Quote: LONG BEACH – Britain and California formed a partnership yesterday to address global warming, bypassing the Bush administration to explore ways to curb greenhouse gas emissions and promote clean-burning fuels.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced the pact against the backdrop of an oil tanker in the Port of Long Beach.
~snip~
“We see that there is not great leadership from the federal government when it comes to protecting the environment," Schwarzenegger said. “We know there is global warming, so we should stop it."

Are you against this because a Republican is taking the intiative to do something positive in their state?

Quote: ~snip~
The world's only mandatory carbon-trading program is in Europe. Created in conjunction with the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 international treaty that took effect last year, it caps the amount of carbon dioxide that can be emitted from power plants and factories in more than two dozen industrialized countries.
~snip~
As long as the cap is met, companies can trade rights to pollute directly with one another or through exchanges located around Europe. Canada, one of more than 160 nations that endorsed Kyoto, plans a similar program.

This is probably the most assinine thing I have ever read. As long as I am willing to give someone a few bucks I can pollute as much as I wanted. So London becomes a smog filled s**t hole, while some Dictator in Africa gets a few bucks because the companies in London paid for some credit.

Quote: ~snip~
There was strong opposition to Kyoto in the U.S. Senate, and Bush rejected the treaty in 2001.


Actually this was killed while Clinton was President, the Senate rejected it then. President Bush just refused to revisit it and send it back for approval which never would have happened seeing the Senate shot it down once already. Include China and India as well as other devloping nations in the treaty and the US would sign on. I am willing to bet $500 if those two countries were included that we would see the treaty signed the day after by the US.
Quote:
~@~
Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States
Quote:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Now, although I agree with the notion of taking our fate into our own hands when the Federal Government does not.
I have the sense that this type of arrangement is unconstitutional.

Do you see, what I see? (No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;)

I see a state that is trying to do something positive for its citizens.

[bigstick61]

Just like the Federal government should not surpass its authority, neither should the States. The power to deal with other nations was left to the Federal government alone for a very good reason. We are a republic, not a confederation. States should not enter into agreements with other nations; it is both improper and also illegal.

[Jirwin]

These are cities around the world not nations coming to California. Surely you are giving California to much credit on the world stage as to think that Nations would come and negotiate with them.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Jirwin wrote: These are cities around the world not nations coming to California. Surely you are giving California to much credit on the world stage as to think that Nations would come and negotiate with them.

I didn't realize Britain was a city !
Which CITY is British Prime Minister Tony Blair representing?

California, Britain sign climate pact
Quote: British Prime Minister Tony Blair and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced the pact against the backdrop of an oil tanker in the Port of Long Beach.

[Jirwin]

You should read your article more carefully here let me help you out with it...

Quote: Los Angeles, London, New York, Seoul and 18 other cities joined forces on Tuesday in a global warming project aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions

Quote: "The world's largest cities can have a major impact on this. Already they are at the center of developing the technologies and innovative new practices that provide hope that we can radically reduce carbon emissions," said London Mayor Ken Livingstone, who launched the initiative in Los Angeles with Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Quote: The partnership with the foundation began with the participation of 22 cities -- Berlin, Buenos Aires, Cairo, Caracas, Chicago, Delhi, Dhaka, Istanbul, Johannesburg, London, Los Angeles, Madrid, Melbourne, Mexico City, New York, Paris, Philadelphia, Rome, Sao Paulo, Seoul, Toronto and Warsaw.

As this is the newest article of the two you posted it is the most relevant. The States have the right to make whatever laws they want that pertain to their individual state. The only laws they can not pass are those that regulate interstate trade. I do not see how California passing stricter laws and coming into agreement with other major polluters the world over, IE major cities, will violate the constitution.

I bet your "outrage" is more to do with a Republican taking the stage away from the Democrats on the one thing they feel they have a monopoly on that being the Environment. This makes a Republican look good in a state that is quite green and will surely buy him some votes. He is just playing by the rules you all have set into place. Guess the Democrats better come up with a better plan, the "We hate Bush" will not hold as the elections draw near. Unless of course you wish to keep saying "Hey we got 48% of the vote, we did better than we thought"

ETA: If you are "outraged" about the state over stepping its Consitutional boundry, you should be just as "outraged" that an Ex-President who does not have the power to negotiate treaties, pacts or anything official for the US, unless given specific powers by the current Congress or President, butting in and helping facilitate this.

[bigstick61]

First of all, a city does not have the authority to make such agreements, and the States are not authorized to allow them to do so. This is due to the fact that this is prohibited by Section 10, Article I, of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits several things from being able to be done by the States; it reads as follows:

Sec.10, Art.I, USC wrote: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws; and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

[Jirwin]

bigstick61 wrote: First of all, a city does not have the authority to make such agreements, and the States are not authorized to allow them to do so. This is due to the fact that this is prohibited by Section 10, Article I, of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits several things from being able to be done by the States; it reads as follows:

Sec.10, Art.I, USC wrote: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws; and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.



Nothing there on a State's right to pass laws pertaining to the health of its citizens. You are trying to insert your belief on what the founders meant.

I read nothing in the article or anything else in the research I did that would violate the constitution. If you are looking at the part where it says "No state shall, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foriegn power" I still do not see how this will violate the consitution. Besides if Congress feels that California overstep it boundry they can step in and cancel the deal.

Wanna take a bet on when that will happen?

[bigstick61]

Since it is a compact or agreement, it is hence unconstitutional. Since all of the authority which local and municipal governments in a State possess originates from the State, the city doesn't have the authority to enter compacts or agreements with foreign or out-of-State cities either. The compact may pertain to the health of its citizes, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a compact with a foreign government. As has been seen, Congress doesn't obey the Constitution; what makes you think they'd enforce it? If a city, county, or State wishes to enter into such a compact, by law it must seek permission from Congress prior to doing so.