Newt has an energy policy

[BeamMeUpScotty]

The question is, where in the constitution is the power over energy
delegated to the Federal government?


Newt is ignoring the constitution like Obama is doing?


--
When it comes to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, there is NO
moderation. To do so is to lose the battle before it has begun.

[Bert]

In news:4F3C9DD2...@blackhole.nebulax.com BeamMeUpScotty

<ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

> Newt is ignoring the constitution like Obama is doing?

Why'd you put a question mark at the end of an obviously correct
statement?

--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN

[Bob LeChevalier]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>The question is, where in the constitution is the power over energy
>delegated to the Federal government?

The Federal government doesn't have power over energy. It has power
over interstate commerce in energy, and power over the use of Federal
lands.

lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 2/18/2012 3:34 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> The question is, where in the constitution is the power over energy
>> delegated to the Federal government?
>
> The Federal government doesn't have power over energy. It has power
> over interstate commerce in energy, and power over the use of Federal
> lands.

Yet there is a Federal Department of Energy? Which is as you say NOT
in the constitution and the Department of commerce has to do only with
commerce NOT other aspects of energy like what new energy is to be
developed or being venture capitalists in Solyndra..... Competing is
NOT regulating is it?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 2/18/2012 3:34 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> The question is, where in the constitution is the power over energy
>> delegated to the Federal government?
>
> The Federal government doesn't have power over energy. It has power
> over interstate commerce in energy, and power over the use of Federal
> lands.

You mean the department of energy is unconstitutional? It is a function
of the department of commerce and the Bureau of land management?

Interesting...

[Bob LeChevalier]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>On 2/18/2012 3:34 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>> The question is, where in the constitution is the power over energy
>>> delegated to the Federal government?
>>
>> The Federal government doesn't have power over energy. It has power
>> over interstate commerce in energy, and power over the use of Federal
>> lands.
>
>Yet there is a Federal Department of Energy?

Yes. So what? It is a name that reflects a variety of functions
performed by the Department.

There is a Department of State, too, and it has nothing to do with the
50 states.

>Which is as you say NOT
>in the constitution and the Department of commerce has to do only with
>commerce

There is nothing in the Constitution that says that all functions
related to commerce must be found only in a "Department of Commerce".

>NOT other aspects of energy like what new energy is to be
>developed or being venture capitalists in Solyndra..... Competing is
>NOT regulating is it?

Incoherent, and probably irrelevant.

[Bob LeChevalier]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>On 2/18/2012 3:34 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>> The question is, where in the constitution is the power over energy
>>> delegated to the Federal government?
>>
>> The Federal government doesn't have power over energy. It has power
>> over interstate commerce in energy, and power over the use of Federal
>> lands.
>
>You mean the department of energy is unconstitutional? It is a function
>of the department of commerce and the Bureau of land management?

It is a function of whatever agency the President and/or Congress as
appropriate says that it is. The President is responsible for
executing the laws. It is his decision as to how he performs that
function, not yours.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 2/23/2012 7:15 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> On 2/18/2012 3:34 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>> The question is, where in the constitution is the power over energy
>>>> delegated to the Federal government?
>>>
>>> The Federal government doesn't have power over energy. It has power
>>> over interstate commerce in energy, and power over the use of Federal
>>> lands.
>>
>> Yet there is a Federal Department of Energy?
>
> Yes. So what? It is a name that reflects a variety of functions
> performed by the Department.

Constitutional functions?

[Bob LeChevalier]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>On 2/23/2012 7:15 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>> On 2/18/2012 3:34 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>> The question is, where in the constitution is the power over energy
>>>>> delegated to the Federal government?
>>>>
>>>> The Federal government doesn't have power over energy. It has power
>>>> over interstate commerce in energy, and power over the use of Federal
>>>> lands.
>>>
>>> Yet there is a Federal Department of Energy?
>>
>> Yes. So what? It is a name that reflects a variety of functions
>> performed by the Department.
>
>Constitutional functions?

Of course.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 2/23/2012 7:17 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> On 2/18/2012 3:34 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>> The question is, where in the constitution is the power over energy
>>>> delegated to the Federal government?
>>>
>>> The Federal government doesn't have power over energy. It has power
>>> over interstate commerce in energy, and power over the use of Federal
>>> lands.
>>
>> You mean the department of energy is unconstitutional? It is a function
>> of the department of commerce and the Bureau of land management?
>
> It is a function of whatever agency the President and/or Congress as
> appropriate says that it is. The President is responsible for
> executing the laws. It is his decision as to how he performs that
> function, not yours.

"he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall
Commission all the Officers of the United States."



No law or power says the President can create what the constitution does
not authorize.

[Bob LeChevalier]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>On 2/23/2012 7:17 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>> On 2/18/2012 3:34 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>> The question is, where in the constitution is the power over energy
>>>>> delegated to the Federal government?
>>>>
>>>> The Federal government doesn't have power over energy. It has power
>>>> over interstate commerce in energy, and power over the use of Federal
>>>> lands.
>>>
>>> You mean the department of energy is unconstitutional? It is a function
>>> of the department of commerce and the Bureau of land management?
>>
>> It is a function of whatever agency the President and/or Congress as
>> appropriate says that it is. The President is responsible for
>> executing the laws. It is his decision as to how he performs that
>> function, not yours.
>
>
>"he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall
>Commission all the Officers of the United States."
>
>
>
>No law or power says the President can create what the constitution does
>not authorize.

The constitution does authorize.

You just quoted it. "Take care that the laws be faithfully executed".
There are no constraints on HOW he is to take that care, except
insofar as the laws themselves impose such constraints (and the Bill
of Rights). The Constitution isn't saying that he has to do all the
executing himself, just that he take care that they ARE executed.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 2/27/2012 12:38 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> On 2/23/2012 7:17 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2/18/2012 3:34 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The question is, where in the constitution is the power over energy
>>>>>> delegated to the Federal government?
>>>>>
>>>>> The Federal government doesn't have power over energy. It has power
>>>>> over interstate commerce in energy, and power over the use of Federal
>>>>> lands.
>>>>
>>>> You mean the department of energy is unconstitutional? It is a function
>>>> of the department of commerce and the Bureau of land management?
>>>
>>> It is a function of whatever agency the President and/or Congress as
>>> appropriate says that it is. The President is responsible for
>>> executing the laws. It is his decision as to how he performs that
>>> function, not yours.
>>
>>
>> "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall
>> Commission all the Officers of the United States."
>>
>>
>>
>> No law or power says the President can create what the constitution does
>> not authorize.
>
> The constitution does authorize.
>
> You just quoted it. "Take care that the laws be faithfully executed".

The law that says Obama can enforce education laws is where?

> There are no constraints on HOW he is to take that care, except
> insofar as the laws themselves

He must obey the law and the constitution.

> impose such constraints (and the Bill
> of Rights). The Constitution isn't saying that he has to do all the
> executing himself, just that he take care that they ARE executed.

He takes ALL the responsibility to make sure ALL constitutionally
enacted laws are equally enforced.

*Obama is a FAILURE*

[Gary Forbis]

On Feb 27, 9:55 am, BeamMeUpScotty

<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> On 2/27/2012 12:38 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> >> On 2/23/2012 7:17 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> >>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 2/18/2012 3:34 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:

Why didn't you speak out when Bush was doing his signing statements?
Didn't you realize that by supporting Bush when he was doing these
things
you set the precedence for Obama's continuation of them? Presidents
seldom
give up power asserted by their predecessors.

The strangest part is I don't know what actions of Obama you are
referring to.
It seems like you are just making random complains without specific
incidents.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

I did speak out, and yet all you put up to run against him was an Al
Gore and the other worthless asshole that changes his mind as fast as he
changes his Gucci shoes. Now look who you put in when all I did was NOT
vote for McCain who was a Bush Clone, we have a bigger mess. We were
better off with Bush because the death of the nation was slower.

[Bob LeChevalier]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>> No law or power says the President can create what the constitution does
>>> not authorize.
>>
>> The constitution does authorize.
>>
>> You just quoted it. "Take care that the laws be faithfully executed".
>
>The law that says Obama can enforce education laws is where?

See the quote just above. It does not say "Take care that the laws be
faithfully executed, except for education laws"

>> There are no constraints on HOW he is to take that care, except
>> insofar as the laws themselves
>
>He must obey the law and the constitution.

Neither impose significant constraints on HOW he is to take that care,
above and beyond the Bill of Rights

>> impose such constraints (and the Bill
>> of Rights). The Constitution isn't saying that he has to do all the
>> executing himself, just that he take care that they ARE executed.
>
>He takes ALL the responsibility to make sure ALL constitutionally
>enacted laws are equally enforced.

Nothing in the constitution about "equally enforced" (there is
something about "equal protection"), nor is there any
"constitutionally enacted" qualifier on "laws" (the courts resolved
this by saying that an unconstitutional law is null). The words are
"faithfully executed".

For a constitutional literalist, you sure like to conjure things that
aren't actually in the text.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/6/2012 1:26 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>> No law or power says the President can create what the constitution does
>>>> not authorize.
>>>
>>> The constitution does authorize.
>>>
>>> You just quoted it. "Take care that the laws be faithfully executed".
>>
>> The law that says Obama can enforce education laws is where?
>
> See the quote just above. It does not say "Take care that the laws be
> faithfully executed, except for education laws"
>
>>> There are no constraints on HOW he is to take that care, except
>>> insofar as the laws themselves
>>
>> He must obey the law and the constitution.
>
> Neither impose significant constraints on HOW he is to take that care,
> above and beyond the Bill of Rights
>
>>> impose such constraints (and the Bill
>>> of Rights). The Constitution isn't saying that he has to do all the
>>> executing himself, just that he take care that they ARE executed.
>>
>> He takes ALL the responsibility to make sure ALL constitutionally
>> enacted laws are equally enforced.
>
> Nothing in the constitution about "equally enforced" (there is
> something about "equal protection"),

SO you consider one person going to jail for a crime of robbery and
another NOT being pursued at all for robbery is equal protection, or
equally enforced?

We had that kind of justice under the King of England, so why did they
go to war to get rid of the King?

"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
the laws."


If you don't enforce them equally you aren't protecting people equally.

["Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."]

[Bob LeChevalier]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>On 3/6/2012 1:26 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:

>>>> impose such constraints (and the Bill
>>>> of Rights). The Constitution isn't saying that he has to do all the
>>>> executing himself, just that he take care that they ARE executed.
>>>
>>> He takes ALL the responsibility to make sure ALL constitutionally
>>> enacted laws are equally enforced.
>>
>> Nothing in the constitution about "equally enforced" (there is
>> something about "equal protection"),
>
>SO you consider one person going to jail for a crime of robbery and
>another NOT being pursued at all for robbery is equal protection, or
>equally enforced?

Did I say that? No, I didn't.

Note that in general, robbery is a state crime, and is prosecuted by
county or state prosecutors. The President doesn't have any say in
the matter, and the constitution says only "equal protection" without
defining what that phrase would mean in this situation (and Congress
has not passed laws clarifying the matter).

As far as whether someone goes to jail and someone else isn't pursued,
it usually is a matter of available evidence and the likelihood of
achieving a conviction, the decision in the latter being up to the
jury and not the prosecutor, with the sentence usually decided by the
judge.

All this is in accordance with the laws of the various jurisdictions.
If it isn't, impeachment of the prosecutor or the judge is an option
in some states.

>We had that kind of justice under the King of England,

No we didn't.

>so why did they go to war to get rid of the King?

A variety of reasons, many of them having to do with rich people
wanting to pay less in taxes.

Not that this has anything to do with the question, since "equal
protection" was not in the Constitution until more than four score and
seven years later.

>"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
>the laws."
>
>If you don't enforce them equally you aren't protecting people equally.

You don't get do define what the phrase means.

>["Amendment IX
>The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
>construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."]

Like the right of women to control their own bodies?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/8/2012 3:50 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> On 3/6/2012 1:26 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>
>>>>> impose such constraints (and the Bill
>>>>> of Rights). The Constitution isn't saying that he has to do all the
>>>>> executing himself, just that he take care that they ARE executed.
>>>>
>>>> He takes ALL the responsibility to make sure ALL constitutionally
>>>> enacted laws are equally enforced.
>>>
>>> Nothing in the constitution about "equally enforced" (there is
>>> something about "equal protection"),
>>
>> SO you consider one person going to jail for a crime of robbery and
>> another NOT being pursued at all for robbery is equal protection, or
>> equally enforced?
>
> Did I say that? No, I didn't.
>
> Note that in general, robbery is a state crime,

Doesn't matter, schools are State and they were forced to integrate by
the federal Government "President" on the premise that the 14th
amendment says equal under the law, which means that if white kids under
the laws could attend the school, then black kids under the same laws
could attend the same school. Government is forbidden from picking and
choosing who they will allow a law to be used to protect.

A law protects all people equally.

Why do you suddenly ignore all the "interpretation" you have been
telling us is in the constitution in this one case?

> and is prosecuted by
> county or state prosecutors. The President doesn't have any say in
> the matter,

Yet you Liberals keep telling us just the opposite.

> and the constitution says only "equal protection" without
> defining what that phrase would mean in this situation (and Congress
> has not passed laws clarifying the matter).

If you can interpret the constitution to fined a right to abortion, you
can interpret it to mean absolutely anything.

> As far as whether someone goes to jail and someone else isn't pursued,
> it usually is a matter of available evidence and the likelihood of
> achieving a conviction,

No... that would indicate that the law was applied.... I'm saying that
one person is protected by the law and the other is ignored. Evidence
is irrelevant because the process to look at that evidence was never
initiated.

> the decision in the latter being up to the
> jury and not the prosecutor, with the sentence usually decided by the
> judge.

You seem hooked on the State employees having the last word and you
Liberals tell us all the time that the Federal government has all the
power. You ignore "amendment 10" and point to the "necessary and
proper" and the "SUPREMACY" clauses.


--
Bread and beer increased prosperity to a level that allowed time for
development of other technology and contributed to the building of
civilizations.[19][20][21][22]

[Bob LeChevalier]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>On 3/8/2012 3:50 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>> On 3/6/2012 1:26 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>
>>>>>> impose such constraints (and the Bill
>>>>>> of Rights). The Constitution isn't saying that he has to do all the
>>>>>> executing himself, just that he take care that they ARE executed.
>>>>>
>>>>> He takes ALL the responsibility to make sure ALL constitutionally
>>>>> enacted laws are equally enforced.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing in the constitution about "equally enforced" (there is
>>>> something about "equal protection"),
>>>
>>> SO you consider one person going to jail for a crime of robbery and
>>> another NOT being pursued at all for robbery is equal protection, or
>>> equally enforced?
>>
>> Did I say that? No, I didn't.
>>
>> Note that in general, robbery is a state crime,
>
>Doesn't matter, schools are State and they were forced to integrate by
>the federal Government "President"

Actually, it was the US Supreme Court. Not that it has anything to do
with robbery.

>on the premise that the 14th
>amendment says equal under the law, which means that if white kids under
>the laws could attend the school, then black kids under the same laws
>could attend the same school. Government is forbidden from picking and
>choosing who they will allow a law to be used to protect.

"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." are the actual words
used.

The first thing that should be clear is that this is primarily a
constraint on the states, and not the Federal government.

>A law protects all people equally.

No. It doesn't protect anyone outside the jurisdiction of a state
that makes such a law.

>Why do you suddenly ignore all the "interpretation" you have been
>telling us is in the constitution in this one case?

I don't.

Indeed when discussing such questions with any seriousness, I make it
a point to check a reference to make sure that I am aware of the
relevant interpretation, such as:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/18.html

You, on the other hand, seem to pull your arguments out of your ass.

>> and is prosecuted by
>> county or state prosecutors. The President doesn't have any say in
>> the matter,
>
>Yet you Liberals keep telling us just the opposite.

I'm not a liberal, and clearly I am not telling you the opposite.

>> and the constitution says only "equal protection" without
>> defining what that phrase would mean in this situation (and Congress
>> has not passed laws clarifying the matter).
>
>If you can interpret the constitution to fined a right to abortion, you
>can interpret it to mean absolutely anything.

It is not up to me to interpret it.

The "right to abortion" is not based on the equal protection clause,
but rather on the right of privacy, which is implied by the Bill of
Rights, and recognized by the courts. The original such recognition
was in Griswold v Connecticut
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=381&invol=479#t6
and among other things identified the 9th amendment as guaranteeing
some rights that are not enumerated in the Constitutional text.

>> As far as whether someone goes to jail and someone else isn't pursued,
>> it usually is a matter of available evidence and the likelihood of
>> achieving a conviction,
>
>No... that would indicate that the law was applied.... I'm saying that
>one person is protected by the law and the other is ignored. Evidence
>is irrelevant because the process to look at that evidence was never
>initiated.

Whether to initiate a formal process (reviewing the evidence) or not
is itself a procedural question.

>> the decision in the latter being up to the
>> jury and not the prosecutor, with the sentence usually decided by the
>> judge.
>
>You seem hooked on the State employees having the last word

In matters of law, they do (subject to review by Federal courts on
appeal).

>and you Liberals tell us all the time that the Federal government has all the
>power.

I'm not a liberal, and I have told you no such thing.

>You ignore "amendment 10"

because it is largely moot in terms of legal effect.

>and point to the "necessary and proper" and the "SUPREMACY" clauses.

When relevant, I do. But neither you nor I gets to decide what is
"necessary and proper", and the supremacy clause applies only when
state laws conflict with Federal law.