EPA's New Coal Pollution Rules: More Death, More Asthma

[theQuincunx5]

Quotes from the U.S. Supreme Court:

Regarding the DCUS: "The term "District Courts of the United States," as used in the rules, without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic significance. It describes the constitutional courts created under article 3 of the Constitution. Courts of the Territories are legislative courts, properly speaking, and are not District Courts of the United States. We have often held that vesting a territorial court with jurisdiction similar to that vested in the District Courts of the United States does not make it a "District Court of the United States." U.S. Supreme Court, Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145, 98 U. S. 154

Regarding the USDC: "The United States District Court is not a true United States court established under article 3 of the Constitution to administer the judicial power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under article 4, 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United States courts, in offering an opportunity to nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence, does not change its character as a mere territorial court." U.S. Supreme Court, Mookini v. United States, 303 U.S. 201

Care to try again?

Looks like your quote there "The United States District Court is not a true United States court established under article 3 of the Constitution to a..." is from Balzac rather than Mookini, but both together are apparently misinterpretted to support this particular conspiracy theory. Apparently what was meant by that was that the District court of Arecibo is not an Article III court.

While it is fun to read Patriot Conspiracy Theory stuff espoused as if reality I have little time for it in general. I apologize for engaging you in this discussion if this is where you are coming from.

 

[ananda]

Looks like your quote there "The United States District Court is not a true United States court established under article 3 of the Constitution to a..." is from Balzac rather than Mookini, but both together are apparently misinterpretted to support this particular conspiracy theory.

I disagree with your misinterpretation & conspiracy theory.

Apparently what was meant by that was that the District court of Arecibo is not an Article III court.

The point is that there are certainly separate & different Article III and Article IV courts in the United States, possessing different jurisdictions.

Feel free to demonstrate which Article you believe the "U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland" was established under, if not Article IV (Legislative tribunal).

 

[theQuincunx5]

I disagree with your misinterpretation & conspiracy theory.

The point is that there are certainly separate & different Article III and Article IV courts in the United States, possessing different jurisdictions.

Feel free to demonstrate which Article you believe the "U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland" was established under, if not Article IV (Legislative tribunal).

It appears to be a federal district court. You know, like all 94 of the Federal District Courts.

http://www.uscourts.gov/court-locator/maryland-district-court-baltimore

It does not appear that there is a difference between USDC and DCUS. They are interchangable terms.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Marshall was only one delegate, and a federalist, who happened to be in power as Chief Justice. There were other delegates, anti-federalists, who opposed such clauses.

If the anti-federalists were opposed to such clauses because they were overly broad, then you must be conceding that the leeway afforded congress by this clause is, in fact, rather broad. If the clause's scope is narrow, then what is there to object to?

Additionally, whether or not Marshall agreed with the clause's being included in the constitution is irrelevant. What's relevant is whether he was in a position to understand the clause's originally-intended meaning. As a delegate to the convention and a legal professional contemporary to the framers, he most certainly was - moreso even than Bouvier (whom I still contend does not contradict my position).

 

[ananda]

It appears to be a federal district court. You know, like all 94 of the Federal District Courts.

http://www.uscourts.gov/court-locator/maryland-district-court-baltimore

It does not appear that there is a difference between USDC and DCUS. They are interchangable terms.

My question was not "is it a federal district court?", but: "is it an Article III federal district court, or an Article IV federal district court?"

 

[ananda]

If the anti-federalists were opposed to such clauses because they were overly broad, then you must be conceding that the leeway afforded congress by this clause is, in fact, rather broad. If the clause's scope is narrow, then what is there to object to?

The objection is that the federalists gained ascendancy and imposed their interpretation.

he was in a position to understand the clause's originally-intended meaning

He merely understood and ruled based on the federalist meaning, as a federalist.

 

[SimplyMe]

Marshall was only one delegate, and a federalist, who happened to be in power as Chief Justice. There were other delegates, anti-federalists, who opposed such clauses.

And I think you hit on a key point that many "originalists" basically have to ignore -- the fact is that the Founding Fathers were not some monolithic group that agreed on everything. There were huge disagreements, just like today -- though they did do a better job of trying to come to a compromise, they knew they had to if the country was to succeed.

But because of this, people who quote mine individual Founding Fathers on various topics are showing the opinion of just one of the Founding Fathers, and not necessarily in context. There is also the fact we have a wealth of writing by individuals such as Adams, Jefferson, and other presidents -- we often don't have the written opinions of some of the lesser known Fathers, whose voices had been just as loud.

Now, there are a couple of exceptions to that rule -- we give Madison some extra "authority" since he penned The Federalist Papers, which give us insight into the reasoning and discussions that occurred in the Constitutional Convention. We also give some added insight when we know a particular founders ideas were used to draft a portion of the Constitution -- the biggest here is the use of Jefferson's ideals and the freedom of religion he drafted for Virginia being used to help craft a similar protection in the First Amendment. So, when we are talking Freedom of Religion, the words of Jefferson are given added weight.

As for the Commerce Clause, I have to think the Supreme Court has fairly established that it gives broad authority to the Federal Government. Even "Originalists," such as Scalia, sided with the idea that the Commerce Clause tended to give a great deal of cover to the Federal Government -- such as siding with the US government and claiming a woman who grew marijuana strictly for her own personal medicinal use, which was legal by state law in California, fell under the Commerce Clause and that she was bound by federal law.

 

[iluvatar5150]

The objection is that the federalists gained ascendancy and imposed their interpretation.

The argument made in antifederalist paper 46 isn't that the wording is ambiguous regarding how much power it gives Congress, but rather that the wording is so broad that it gives Congress too much power:

For surely it cannot be justly said that they have no power but what is expressly given to them, when by the very terms of their creation they are vested with the powers of making laws in all cases -necessary and proper; when from the nature of their power, they must necessarily be the judges what laws are necessary and proper.​

He merely understood and ruled based on the federalist meaning, as a federalist.

Your anti-federalist "Old Whig" took the broad language to mean the same thing, which is why he objected to it.

If you don't like it, fine, that's your business. But as the originalists are wont to tell us, our preferences don't change what the text says or what the intent behind it was.

 

[theQuincunx5]

My question was not "is it a federal district court?", but: "is it an Article III federal district court, or an Article IV federal district court?"

Why would Maryland District Court be a "Territorial Court"?

Maryland District Court is part of the Article III courts (although, unlike the Supreme Court which was established by the Constitution, the District Courts were established by Congress.)

Here, you can read about it from the US Dept. of Justice itself so you can figure out how the District Courts are structured --> https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/federal-courts

 

[Viren]

. We cannot afford the speed up this will cause to global warming . We’re already almost on a runaway train to environmental disaster . Trumps people just ignore science.

It doesn't look like a runaway to me.

 

[iluvatar5150]

It doesn't look like a runaway to me.

1/2 a degree in 30-some years isn't insignificant.

But either way, "runaway" means "out of control," not necessarily "fast".

 

[ananda]

And I think you hit on a key point that many "originalists" basically have to ignore -- the fact is that the Founding Fathers were not some monolithic group that agreed on everything. There were huge disagreements, just like today -- though they did do a better job of trying to come to a compromise, they knew they had to if the country was to succeed.

But because of this, people who quote mine individual Founding Fathers on various topics are showing the opinion of just one of the Founding Fathers, and not necessarily in context. There is also the fact we have a wealth of writing by individuals such as Adams, Jefferson, and other presidents -- we often don't have the written opinions of some of the lesser known Fathers, whose voices had been just as loud.

Now, there are a couple of exceptions to that rule -- we give Madison some extra "authority" since he penned The Federalist Papers, which give us insight into the reasoning and discussions that occurred in the Constitutional Convention. We also give some added insight when we know a particular founders ideas were used to draft a portion of the Constitution -- the biggest here is the use of Jefferson's ideals and the freedom of religion he drafted for Virginia being used to help craft a similar protection in the First Amendment. So, when we are talking Freedom of Religion, the words of Jefferson are given added weight.

As for the Commerce Clause, I have to think the Supreme Court has fairly established that it gives broad authority to the Federal Government. Even "Originalists," such as Scalia, sided with the idea that the Commerce Clause tended to give a great deal of cover to the Federal Government -- such as siding with the US government and claiming a woman who grew marijuana strictly for her own personal medicinal use, which was legal by state law in California, fell under the Commerce Clause and that she was bound by federal law.

"the fact is that the Founding Fathers were not some monolithic group that agreed on everything" is correct. I am not claiming that they agreed on everything at all. I am merely sharing what seems reasonable to me, just like everyone else here in the thread.

 

[ananda]

Why would Maryland District Court be a "Territorial Court"?

My reasoning is straightforward: It is clearly named "The United States District Court for the District of Maryland". As described by the Supreme Court, a "United States District Court is not a true United States court established under article 3 of the Constitution".

What is your reasoning that it is not an Article 4 court?

 

[Viren]

1/2 a degree in 30-some years isn't insignificant.

But either way, "runaway" means "out of control," not necessarily "fast".

1/2 a degree rise over 30 years has happened many times in the past.

Out of control implies a continued rise for the rest of the century. This almost never happens when it comes to climate as it moves in waves. We'll see if it can move above the 1998 high, but it's still below that.

 

[Brightmoon]

The first chart is from GISS who actually deals with climate change at NASA. Not sure where the second one is from but they’re both on the global warming Wikipedia article . As usual this is a SCREENSHOT. As you can see a 1/2 degree is not insignificant

 

[theQuincunx5]

My reasoning is straightforward: It is clearly named "The United States District Court for the District of Maryland". As described by the Supreme Court, a "United States District Court is not a true United States court established under article 3 of the Constitution".

What is your reasoning that it is not an Article 4 court?

Ummm, because

1. There isn't a difference between a USDC and a DCUS
2. The reasoning so far presented is apparently based on a misreading of Balzac
3. The state of Maryland is NOT a US Territory (like Guam). It is a state.
4. It is listed in the US Justice Dept website as a District Court

 

[ananda]

Ummm, because

1. There isn't a difference between a USDC and a DCUS
2. The reasoning so far presented is apparently based on a misreading of Balzac
3. The state of Maryland is NOT a US Territory (like Guam). It is a state.
4. It is listed in the US Justice Dept website as a District Court

Do you have primary sources that states that "The United States District Court for the District of Maryland" is an Article III district court, and not an Article IV district court?

 

[theQuincunx5]

Do you have primary sources that states that "The United States District Court for the District of Maryland" is an Article III district court, and not an Article IV district court?

It is listed as a US District Court on the Justice Department site I provided.

But more important why is this so important? How do you think any ruling from the District court in Maryland will relate to district courts in general?

Do you think it is somehow outside of the usual US court system?

 

[ananda]

It is listed as a US District Court on the Justice Department site I provided.

But more important why is this so important? How do you think any ruling from the District court in Maryland will relate to district courts in general?

Do you think it is somehow outside of the usual US court system?

If it was a ruling from an Article IV court, it indicates that the federal government does possesses full authority to regulate its territories (which I agree that it does).

 

[essentialsaltes]

Cost of New E.P.A. Coal Rules: Up to 1,400 More Deaths a Year

"WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Tuesday made public the details of its new pollution rules governing coal-burning power plants, and the fine print includes an acknowledgment that the plan would increase carbon emissions and lead to up to 1,400 premature deaths annually."

1,400 dead Americans was too great a price to pay, so.... the EPA wants to change the formula used to calculate air pollution deaths to make them go away. On paper, anyway.

The different method for evaluating health impacts, according to the [failing New York Times], is notable "because it discards more than a decade of peer-reviewed EPA methods and relies on unfounded medical assumptions."