Governors pledge to fight global warming together
November 20th, 2008 By SAMANTHA YOUNG , Associated Press Writer
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger speaks at the Governors' Global Climate Summit in Beverly Hills, Calif., Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008. Schwarzenegger, who has advocated strict reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, said he organized the gathering to show local governments in other countries that emissions can be cut without harming the economy.(AP Photo/Nick Ut)
(AP) -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, his counterparts in 12 states and regional leaders from four other countries signed a declaration Wednesday pledging to work together to combat global warming, a move Schwarzenegger said will help push heads of state to curb their nations' greenhouse gas emissions.
Content from The Associated Press expires 15 days after original publication date. For more information about The Associated Press, please visit www.ap.org .
Similar stories from PHYSorg:
Maryland joins greenhouse coalition
Apr 22, 2007 |
4.5 / 5 (6) |
0
States take up global warming fight
Aug 11, 2006 |
3.7 / 5 (7) |
0
Calif. approves nation's 1st low-carbon fuel rule
Apr 24, 2009 |
1.6 / 5 (7) |
2
Midwest governors endorse renewable energy
Nov 16, 2007 |
5 / 5 (3) |
0
Obama likely to clear path for California emissions law
Jan 23, 2009 |
1.8 / 5 (12) |
5
Within the U.S. each State is a true Sovereign, and can deal with other such Sovereigns as it sees fit, expect where superseded by Federal Law pursuant to the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, or where such act(s) of said Sovereigns would violate the Due Process Clause of same.
There are a few caveats to that imposed by the federal government but for the most part the above statement is correct. States can work with other states and set agreements of almost any nature between each other.
1) The states have not been sovereign since they were stripped of representation in the Federal government (by electing Senators by public vote.)
2) Section 10 of Article 1 contains the following lines:
"No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation",
"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.", and
"No state shall, without the consent of Congress, ..., enter into any agreement or compact with another state..."
Any of these can be construed to preventing an organization of States from entering in to such an agreement as this. Since there is some indication that some territories in Canada want to sign a similar agreement with states in the US this would easily be construed as illegal.
I know when I'm looking to follow scientific progress the first thing I look for is which celebrity and steroid freak is backing a hypothesis.
Also, DeepSands, regardless of whose is correct on the technicality, California is clearly oblivious to those "technicalities"
"Since taking office in 2003, he has entered into partnerships with the governors of seven Western states and four Canadian provinces..."
Lastly I typically like the Germans, great cars, good beer, Oktober Fest, Folks Marchs... But with regards tothe suggestion that we use a federal stimulus package for a compartmentalized low return investment, be quite. It's quite clear that the concern on DB's behalf is purely economic. half a trillion dollars.
"While you're struggling to keep you economy out of the toilet please concider giving us all your money."
The worst part of this is that someone will undoubtedly expain how I'm just a denilist because I feel our decendants would be better served by the economic and industrial means to fend for themselves rather than a a collapsed economy and the knowledge that their plight is okay because their ancestors "did the right thing".
Construe as you might, there is a well established body of U.S. Case Law which holds that Congressional approval need not be express, but may in fact be tacit or otherwise implied.
Immaterial with respect to the inter-State compact itself.
You just cannot admit when you are wrong... States are not sovereign, why not just admit you screwed up? We all make mistakes...
If they didn't have that ability none of us would legally be able to drive as we'd require federal driver's licenses.
Perhaps some here are confused by mistakenly believing that there is but a single type of sovereignty. In fact, there are several different types and measures of sovereignty.
See http://en.wikiped...ereignty .
Furthermore, the States are Sovereigns with respect to the ability to engage in inter-State compacts.