Governors pledge to fight global warming together

Enlarge

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.

Similar stories from PHYSorg:

Schwarzenegger to sign order boosting clean power

Sep 15, 2009 | 3.7 / 5 (3) | 2

Schwarzenegger to issue renewable energy order

Sep 14, 2009 | 5 / 5 (1) | 0

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

   

• GrayMouser - Nov 20, 2008
  • Rank: 2.1 / 5 (7)
  States are prohibited from entering in to agreements between themselves. In this case that would be good because it would stop them from doing something incredibly stupid.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• deepsand - Nov 21, 2008
  • Rank: 3 / 5 (4)
  No, States are prohibited only from entering into compacts with Foreign Sovereigns without the approval of Congress, which need not be express, but may in fact be tacit or otherwise implied.
  
  Within the U.S. each State is a true Sovereign, and can deal with other such Sovereigns as it sees fit, expect where superseded by Federal Law pursuant to the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, or where such act(s) of said Sovereigns would violate the Due Process Clause of same.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Velanarris - Nov 21, 2008
  • Rank: 3 / 5 (1)

  No, States are prohibited only from entering into compacts with Foreign Sovereigns without the approval of Congress, which need not be express, but may in fact be tacit or otherwise implied.
  
  Within the U.S. each State is a true Sovereign, and can deal with other such Sovereigns as it sees fit, expect where superseded by Federal Law pursuant to the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, or where such act(s) of said Sovereigns would violate the Due Process Clause of same.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.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• GrayMouser - Nov 24, 2008
  • Rank: 2 / 5 (4)

  No, States are prohibited only from entering into compacts with Foreign Sovereigns without the approval of Congress, which need not be express, but may in fact be tacit or otherwise implied.
  
  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.

  
  
  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.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Roach - Nov 24, 2008
  • Rank: 3 / 5 (6)
  More important than the legal crap, since a Dem White House, House and Senate is not going to go against an AGW agreement even if it involved a trade agreement between California and Cuba, is the important fact that now the brilliant scientific mind of The Terminator is now a respected mind in the AGW camp.
  
  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".
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• deepsand - Nov 24, 2008
  • Rank: 3 / 5 (4)

  Any of these can be construed to preventing an organization of States from entering in to such an agreement as this.

  
  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.
  
  

  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.

  
  Immaterial with respect to the inter-State compact itself.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• MikeB - Nov 25, 2008
  • Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
  Deep,
  You just cannot admit when you are wrong... States are not sovereign, why not just admit you screwed up? We all make mistakes...
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Velanarris - Nov 26, 2008
  • Rank: 2 / 5 (3)
  States certainly aren't sovereign but they do have the ability to pass interstate treaties with each other and enter agreements.
  
  If they didn't have that ability none of us would legally be able to drive as we'd require federal driver's licenses.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• deepsand - Feb 22, 2009
  • Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
  The United States are most certainly Sovereigns.
  
  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 .
  
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Velanarris - Feb 23, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet

  The United States are most certainly Sovereigns.
  
  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 .
  

  Yes but in the context of the discussion states are not sovereign in the right to pass actionable items with foreign powers.
  
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• deepsand - Mar 02, 2009
  • Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
  Within the context of the article, no mention was made of any compacts, but only of a joint "declaration."
  
  Furthermore, the States are Sovereigns with respect to the ability to engage in inter-State compacts.
  
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5