Tag: Congress

Congress and Courts enable Energy and Climate Fantasy and Tyranny 

Instead of three co-equal divisions of government, the powers and functions of America’s Legislative and Judicial Branches have steadily been subsumed into an ever expanding, progressive and aggressive Executive Branch. Many legislators and judges have acquiesced or actively participated. 

Supreme Court should end “Chevron deference” to restore checks, balances and reality 

Paul Driessen 

The left end of the political spectrum is relentlessly pursuing the transformation of America’s society, history, economy, speech, borders, governing systems, healthcare, energy and living standards. What it cannot secure via the ballot box and alliances with the legacy media and academic institutions, it works to impose through rule by unelected, unaccountable Executive Branch bureaucrats, collusive sue-and-settle legal actions, and court decisions that too often rubberstamp agency rules. 

Instead of three co-equal divisions of government, the powers and functions of America’s Legislative and Judicial Branches have steadily been subsumed into an ever expanding, progressive and aggressive Executive Branch. Many legislators and judges have acquiesced or actively participated. 

The federal workforce has swollen to two million non-military employees, who “liberally” interpret, apply and enforce laws and policies. The Federal Register of regulations, explanations and justifications has ballooned from 50,998 pages in 1984, to a Jabba-the-Hutt 90,402 pages in 2023. Few can read, much less comprehend and comply with the intricate edicts. 

Members of Congress want to be seen “doing something” to address perceived problems, often by passing new laws and spending more money. However, instead of actually tackling difficult, controversial issues, they frequently make policy declarations, enact deliberately ambiguous statutory provisions, and rely on Executive Branch cohorts to interpret, stretch or even rewrite the vague language, mostly advancing agency powers and agendas. 

The US Supreme Court’s landmark 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council expanded this centralization of power even more significantly. 

The “Chevron deference doctrine” holds that – when faced with regulations that are based on ambiguous, or nonexistent, statutory text – lower courts should always defer to administrative agencies’ interpretations of the text, as long as the interpretations are “reasonable.” 

Chevron deference has let federal agencies expand their domain and control in hundreds of instances. Affected citizens often have little recourse, as long as the impact of an individual rule can be viewed as small and the agency interpretation as not patently unreasonable. 

In those situations, the 2022 Supreme Court decision in West Virginia v. EPA is of little help, because it only addresses “major questions,” agency decisions that have “major” economic or political significance. 

However, the Court recently heard oral arguments on two cases that give it an opportunity to curtail or end this wholesale deference to federal agencies. Both cases ask whether small fishing boats can be required to pay $700 per day to take observers along with them, to ensure the boats are following fisheries rules. Relevant law allows the government to require fishing boats to carry observers – but does not say the boats must pay for them, and Congress never appropriated any funds to cover observers. 

So, on its own, the National Marine Fisheries Service decided it had the authority to compel boats to shoulder the cost. The case could have enormous implications for the perpetually expanding Deep State. 

The Justices could rule in favor of NMFS, even though monetary impacts that are small by federal governing and budgetary standards are major, even potentially ruinous for fishing boats. 

They could hold that the agency interpretation in this single instance was “unreasonable” – and overturn this single rulemaking out of thousands issued since 1984, while leaving the Chevron doctrine intact and available for future abuse. 

Or they could overturn Chevron. Doing so would end the appalling deference to powerful government agencies; reduce the growing imbalance between the Executive and Legislative Branches; and make it harder for circuit and appellate courts to support activist regulators. 

A reversal might even prod Congress to enact laws that tackle hard questions, use precise language, and tighten the reins on unelected regulators, especially when they serve presidents who want to “fundamentally transform” our energy use, immigration system, economy and military. 

The third option would also help America curb climate and energy fantasy and tyranny. 

It’s certainly true that most federal actions taken to “save our planet from the existential threat of manmade climate change” are “major” or “significant” in their societal, economic, ecological and national security impacts – and thus subject to the Supreme Court’s “major questions doctrine.” 

However, that Court has not defined “major.” Moreover, even actions that most Americans would call “major” can end up being upheld, and agencies can claim significant actions are actually “minor” or can simply ignore court decisions that don’t apply explicitly to the agency or action in question. 

Even in the climate and energy arena alone, hundreds of “minor” decisions can coalesce into massive disruptions and costs. It’s certainly reasonable to argue that questions of Chevron deference should examine the totality of impacts – and whether a decision can actually pass a rational, evidence-based “reasonableness” test. To cite just a few examples, is it reasonable to defer to federal agencies that: 

* Impose government-wide mandates to terminate America’s coal, oil and natural gas extraction and use, based on computer models whose scary forecasts: (a) are built on the assumption that climate change and weather events are driven by fossil-fuel-related carbon dioxide and methane, which together represent barely 0.042% of Earth’s atmosphere; and (b) are not supported by actual, real-world data on temperatures, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, droughts and sea levels? 

* Keep oil and gas locked in the ground before they have any workable plan for replacing feed stocks for plastics, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers and thousands of other vital products? 

* Compel families and businesses to replace gasoline vehicles and gas ovens, stoves, furnaces and water heaters with electric models – while regulators replace reliable, affordable fossil fuel power with intermittent, weather-dependent wind and solar power? 

* Close down coal and gas-fired generators before sufficient, reliable, affordable replacement electricity is available – and before a single project anywhere in the world has demonstrated that wind, solar and battery electricity alone can power even a small village? 

* Demand that families purchase supposedly energy- or water-efficient washing machines and dishwashers, even though the new machines must run longer or even twice to get clothes or dishes clean – thereby requiring more electricity and water?  

* Effectively mandate electric vehicles before there are sufficient charging stations, electricity for those stations, or even metals and minerals to manufacture all the EVs, charging stations, wind turbines, solar panels and transmission lines? 

* Assert that wind, solar and battery power are clean, green, renewable and sustainable, while ignoring the monumental amounts of mining and processing – and attendant habitat and wildlife destruction, toxic air and water pollution, and child labor – involved in obtaining the nonrenewable metals and minerals for those technologies? 

* Insist that the United States slash or eliminate its fossil fuel use, while China, India and 100 other countries (including Germany) are extracting and burning more oil, gas and coal every year? 

Courts should not view government actions in a vacuum. Many agency decisions are reasonable only in an alternative universe where individual and cumulative economic, ecological and social realities play no role. The era of Chevron deference should be brought to a close. 

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor to the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, pollution, climate change and human rights. 

The Big Fed Lie

The eight most disingenuous words used these days by federal agencies are intended to hide their criminal activity: “I can’t answer. The matter is under investigation.”

From  CFACT

By William Kovacs 

The eight most disingenuous words used these days by federal agencies are intended to hide their criminal activity: “I can’t answer. The matter is under investigation.”

These words are used to obstruct, mislead, delay, and discourage congressional investigations into the legality of Executive Branch activity. In effect, they are saying: “Your question is impertinent, inconvenient, and intolerable. How dare you question anything Executive Branch agencies are doing?”

Unfortunately, this simple statement often achieves its goal of obstructing efforts by Congress to obtain information that it and the American people need and deserve to have to ensure “government of, by, and for the people,” instead of the federal bureaucracy.

While Congress may be upset with the response, it is often cowed into accepting the assertion that presidents can protect their people from being investigated even for criminal conduct. However, fortunes and precedents can be reversed.

If Republicans win the White House with a presidential candidate who sincerely wants to uphold the rule of law, restore justice to the legal system and hold the “Deep State” accountable, that president can make it happen.

The leading Presidential candidates for the Republican nomination have promised to fire the FBI director and clean house at the Department of Justice. If a Republican wins the presidency in November 2024, FBI Director Wray and Attorney General Garland will resign long before they can be fired.

So, candidates, please, stop pandering. No one will be fired. It’s all pablum – worthless, insipid, oversimplified assertions, threats, and promises.

Suppose a new president truly wants to clean up the deep, dark, corrupt state at the DOJ, FBI, and other federal agencies. In that case, the Republican president need only waive Executive Privilege and issue an executive order declassifying all investigatory materials sought by the current Republican House of Representatives. Let Congress bleed the truth out of those subverting the Constitution.

Executive compliance is simple. When Congress requests documents, the Executive should order them produced. When testimony is sought, provide it without asserting objections. Cooperate with the Republican House to find the truth and restore our republican form of government.

Since the Nixon administration, presidents have asserted Executive Privilege thirty times to block congressional investigations. Presidential assertions included protecting the president’s brother (Billy Carter), girlfriends (Monica Lewinsky), mismanagement of funds (Solyndra), foreign affairs (Benghazi), gun running (Fast and Furious), and tape recordings (Watergate).

Democrat and Republican administrations have routinely acted as though providing Congress with requested information concerning an investigation will somehow diminish their manhood.

Finding and eliminating corruption is for the benefit of the nation. Hiding corruption does not assist the president in the faithful execution of the law.

The DOJ/FBI’s long-running minuet of never sharing information with congressional committees is a mechanism of deceit, not of protecting the independence and effectiveness of law enforcement, safeguarding informant identities, avoiding pre-trial publicity, or interfering with prosecutorial discretion.

The Supreme Court has long recognized the “…implied power [of Congress] to investigate and to compel the production of information” from the Executive branch.

“Executive Privilege for presidential communications is limited to the quintessential power and nondelegation of Presidential power, and those are the core functions in the Constitution.” It should only be asserted to preserve those core constitutional functions. Claiming it beyond the core constitutional functions is a delaying tactic that often allows illegal conduct to continue.

As to declassifying all documents related to alleged criminal activity in the Executive branch, no president should ever intentionally or unintentionally cover it up. The American Bar Association has written: “Under the U.S. Constitution, the president as Commander-in-Chief is given broad powers to classify and declassify such information, often through executive orders.”

While there are procedures for declassifying the materials, except for certain materials such as nuclear secrets, a president has almost total control to declassify records by executive order. Presidents at all times have the power to shine sunlight on government corruption. When they choose not to expose corruption, it is an intentional coverup.

Unfortunately, since the Nixon administration in the early 1970s, the Executive Branch has forced Congress to issue subpoenas to secure requested documents. Presidents achieve their goal of protecting corruption by requiring years of legal battles to enforce the subpoena.

Hopefully, there will be a Republican Congress, or at least a Republican House sworn in on January 3, 2025, and on January 20, 2025, a Republican president. Between January 3, 2025, and January 20, 2025, the Republican Congress can prepare the appropriate investigative letters to the incoming president, requesting the information needed to root out corruption, especially in the DOJ and FBI, but also in the EPA and CDC over climate, energy, and Covid fear-mongering, disinformation and censorship.

On January 20, when the Republican president enters the White House, his first order of business should be to issue an executive order waiving executive privilege and formally declassifying the documents relating to all congressional investigations.

These waivers should encompass all alleged DOJ/FBI corruption, as described in the Durham, Mueller, and Horowitz Reports, records of payments received by Joe and Hunter Biden and their family members from foreign countries, all matters associated with the development of a two-tier system of justice, efforts by the federal government to force social media companies to manipulate or censor information distributed to the public, and all other matters of high-level DOJ, FBI, EPA, and CDC corruption.

By taking this approach, the president will tremendously assist the congressional investigation of executive agency misconduct, without investigating the departments he leads. If Congress finds evidence of criminal or unethical activity, it will refer the evidence to new appointees at a DOJ for appropriate prosecution.

Suppose Executive Branch personnel refuse to testify, or “take the Fifth” to protect their constitutional right not to be a witness against themselves.

In that case, Congress can grant the Use Immunity, which compels their testimony but provides immunity to the witness for the new information provided. A witness who refuses to testify after being given Use Immunity can be cited for contempt of Congress and imprisoned.

It’s time for the federal government to get serious about corruption in government.

More intriguing and overdue would be having a president who followed the advice humbly presented here. The nation might uncover who is actually running the Deep State.

Author


William Kovacs

Bill Kovacs has been involved in the nation’s policymaking process for over four decades. He is an award-winning author for his book, Reform the Kakistocracy: Rule by the Least Able or Least Principled Citizens.

Wind farms and Congress – polar opposites

The journalist Robert Bryce identified 31 big wind and 13 big solar projects that local residents across the U.S. vetoed in 2021, and over 320 wind projects that were rejected between 2015 and 2021.

Wind turbines in the Papalote Creek Wind Farm near Taft, TX. Monday, Oct. 28, 2013.

From CFACT

By Duggan Flanakin

The latest poll shows that 78 percent of Americans disapprove of the performance of the U.S Congress, while just 18 percent approve. Yet in the latest poll that matters, Congressional incumbents had a 98 percent win rate. The reason most offered is that, while people despise Congress, they are quite fond of “their” Congress member.

Of course, in the entrenched Congress very few seats are even contestable, and party leaders support those whose votes can be counted on. The entire system is so corrupt that hardly anyone even knows what their representatives are voting on beyond the headlines.

By contrast, while public support for wind power is high (77 percent according to a 2021 poll), huge numbers of people oppose individual wind farms that impact their daily lives. Opposition to onshore and offshore wind spans the political spectrum to include environmentalists, chambers of commerce, fishermen, Native American tribes, ferry operators, airport commissions, business groups, municipalities, and homeowners.

The journalist Robert Bryce identified 31 big wind and 13 big solar projects that local residents across the U.S. vetoed in 2021, and over 320 wind projects that were rejected between 2015 and 2021. Today, the fight against big wind has shifted to offshore projects, with fisheries and wildlife conservationists leading the charge against powerful politicians and billionaires.

East coast fisheries have declared their industry will shut down because the offshore wind farms will disrupt their ability to fish profitably. Others complain more about diminished water quality, coastal erosion, and habitat degradation. Today, the complaints include damages to marine life.

Oregon fisheries deride the impact of wind turbines’ electromagnetic field cables on fish populations that threaten their livelihoods, and the Bureau of Ocean Management ignores their protests. In Hawaii opponents expressed concerns that the turbines would “obstruct Native Hawaiian ocean resources that include reef systems, fishing areas and cultural practices” if placed within 30 miles of the seashore.

While the few who stand to gain financially support wind turbines in “their backyards,” there are plenty of people who have no qualms about placing the noisy, fire-prone bird and bat killers in other people’s backyards. They won’t be affected! Fortunately, across much of America, local citizens retain the power to stop “progress.”

Three reasons for the zeal of the unaffected are the massive subsidies for wind power; the climate crisis campaign that has convinced millions that the planet will die from carbon dioxide poisoning; and a relentless media and “academic” campaign that finds climate change as the cause of every human and animal ill. The plethora of nonsensical diatribes is nauseating.

Investigative reporting in America today is suppressed or demonized in the rare cases in which it is even attempted. In its place we find conjured up stories that reflect a narrative that advances often hidden agendas – and the media, stuffed with “former” politicians and often interlinked with office holders, rubber stamps the agenda without even raising serious questions. Voters who despise Congress (according to the polls) feel powerless to fight the system.

That elites who created and subsidized the wind and solar and electric vehicle industries have the backing of a compliant media that promotes the agenda almost without question. Laws once used against industry and property owners – the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and others – are ignored and blatantly transgressed without the media raising a finger.

The big majorities in favor of wind power live in urban areas which will never see a wind turbine, just as their homes and neighborhoods are relatively unaffected by the hordes who destroy the property, threaten the lives, and disrupt the peace of border towns and ranches – or by the bodies piling up that burden public services.

The negative impacts of offshore wind that are causing the greatest uproar today are the destruction of fisheries and the killing of whales and environmental impact studies that would have sunk mining, farming, and other rural activities in the Heartland are either ignored or not even done for these gigantic intrusions into the near-shore oceans.

Even the courts have tacitly agreed in many cases to ignore the law of the land – because of the “climate crisis” – the same way that election laws were violated during the 2020 election cycle – because of the COVID crisis. Without a declaration of martial law there was no lawful justification for abusing the rule of law. Yet the media gleefully cheered on the violators.

Across the pond, the British government has been accused of allowing wind farm operators to sell electricity to the public at nearly twice the maximum amount specified in their contracts. This despite government claims that relying on wind would lower electric bills.

Even as the media almost daily report that wind energy is super cheap, there are other reports that big players in constructing wind turbines are facing massive losses and write-downs and canceling big offshore wind projects.

What do you do when your life’s work is being tossed into the trash by elected officials – and the bureaucrats they seem to serve? In the rare cases in which courts declare their policies and practices unconstitutional, there is increasing effort to pack the court or just to ignore decisions that do not rubber stamp their unlawful actions.

For decades American children were taught that killing off the passenger pigeon to extinction, the near-extinction of other wildlife and even tiny plants, and any human intrusion into wilderness areas were great sins that must never be repeated.

Yet today even Greenpeace, which built its reputation on ‘saving the whales,” dares not speak against the deaths of scores of endangered right whales, humpback whales, and dolphins that many believe are direct results of the sonar and tidal disruptions from wind turbine construction.

Three years ago the BBC reported that more than 350 scientists and conservationists from 40 countries had signed a letter calling for global action to protect whales, dolphins and porpoises from extinction. The letter singled out the right whale as in grave danger of extinction in the near future. There are only a few hundred right whales left, and several have washed up onshore in areas near wind turbine construction.

Yet CNN assures us that the wind turbines are not responsible – it is the whales’ fault for entering shipping lanes in search of menhaden. Whales only entered those waters recently (by CNN’s logic) when menhaden moved into them. The noise and dirt from turbine base drilling operations had no impact the ability of whales to hear oncoming ships and steer clear of them. Up is down.

Besides, Extinction Rebellion says, the loss of whale species is worth saving the planet from carbon dioxide.

Damn the torpedoes! Build wind turbines and solar arrays, destroy farmland used for livestock and crops, prevent Africans from using their abundant energy reserves to feed and house their increasing populations, and start eating crickets and worms. We don’t need no stinkin’ seafood!

Or – just maybe – we don’t need no stinkin’ bought-and-paid-for members of Congress who put their own profit ahead of the people they were elected to serve.

Author

  • Duggan FlanakinDuggan Flanakin
  • Duggan Flanakin is a Senior Policy Analyst with the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow.
  • A former Senior Fellow with the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Mr. Flanakin authored definitive works on the creation of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and on environmental education in Texas.
  • A brief history of his multifaceted career appears in his book, “Infinite Galaxies: Poems from the Dugout.”