CANADA, CLIMITE CHANGE, AND CONSTITUTIONALITY
This one is a bit of fun, and as soon as V.T. sent it to me and I saw it, I knew you'd want to read about it too.
Canada, it seems, has a problem with climate change, or to be more precise, the government (if one wants to call it that) of Prime Irritation Justin Turdeau has a problem with its latest climate change law, namely, that it's unconstitutional:
In effect, the Canadian high court ruled that the federal government in Ottawa overstepped its boundaries by trying to turn a matter of provincial jurisdiction into a federal one:
The Supreme Court decided that the federal government had made ‘the scope of the IAA too broad’ by including or ‘designating’ projects that should fall under provincial jurisdiction.
“‘Parliament has plainly overstepped its constitutional competence in enacting this designated projects scheme’, Chief Justice Richard Wagner wrote in the 5-2 majority ruling.”Natural resource projects in Canada fall under provincial jurisdiction, while the transport and communications projects that cross provincial boundaries – such as railways or pipelines – are federal.
...
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Richard Wagner...
(No, not the composer of turgid but nevertheless occasionally thrilling German operas)
...wrote that environmental protection ‘remains one of today’s most pressing challenges’, and that Parliament has indeed the power to ‘enact a scheme of environmental assessment’ to meet this challenge.
Now all this may seem rather academic and, perhaps, even quaint.
Until one considers some much wider implications and ramifications, that is.
Canada's system of laws is similar to America's in two very general ways: (1) both are developments of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence and common law, and (2) both developments occur within federal systems where states or provinces retain a jurisdiction and power of their own apart from that central federal government. In the American system, moreover, the central or general (federal) government's powers are delegated powers of the states which formed it, post-Civil War Lincoln-esque mysticisms about the inviolability of the Union notwithstanding. After all, no union should ever be a "once in never out" suicide pact that require states or provinces to acquiesce to central authority one-size one opinion fits all insanity. I strongly suspect, therefore, that Canada's high court's decision will be but the beginning of something that needs to happen within the wider world of "Anglo-sphere" jurisprudence, namely, the rejection of central authority opinions legislated into one-size fits all dogmas. Recently in the United States the high court struck down the infamous Roe vs. Wade abortion law, which made a one-size fits all opinion the policy of the nation. The overturning of the decision did not suddenly make the practice illegal, it merely returned it to the individual states to decide if they were going to allow it, and under what circumstances.
But imagine such a process now vis-a-vis the rather different issues of climate science (or the lack thereof). Recently central governments throughout the West have through their regulatory authority attempted to enact environmental policy (without much debate) based on the idea that climate change (whatever that is) is "real" and that we must take measures to "combat" it, from abandoning petroleum-fueled vehicles, to going "all electric" (which many argue, in my opinion rightly, is even more energy-consuming and hence even more "destructive" to the environment), to trying to regulate animal methane "emissions" and a host of other nonsense. This is all predicated on an assumption that these things are indeed affecting the environment adversely. Or to put it country simple, a scientific opinion has been transubstantiated into regulatory dogma by the pronunciation of a few mystical formulae. Canada at least clarified the central problem by attempting to do a further transubstantiation from regulatory policy into a law, and ran afoul of jurisdiction and constitutionality.
So here comes the high octane speculation: imagine transforming the whole debate, within American jurisprudence, where the constitutional implications are even more clearly spelled out, by taking the issue out of regulatory policy and the interstate commerce clause, and transforming it into what it really is, a right of free speech: does the "best science" ever rise to the level of being able to close down not only contrary opinion but policy based upon that contrary opinion? Does science ever rise to the status of an infallble ex cathedra pronouncement that must be believed on pain of cancellation and ex consensu populorum? Put that way, I suspect there may be relevant precedents, but none going directly to the issue when phrased that way...
... and thus I suspect that Canada's high court and Chief Justice Richard Wagner just opened up a whole can of legal worms. Time will tell of course, but I for one wouldn't be surprised if, someday, it may happen.
... that's all... have a nice day. I'm going to go listen to the overture of Die Meistersinger...
...See you on the flip side...
No Comments
Help the Community Grow
Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.
Anglo-Saxon law makes use of “landscape suffixes”, to place an object in an abstract realm, which is a topological metaphor, in language construction.
There are 7 or 8 identifiable “landscape suffixes”, of whom some are runes, and technically all the runes can be used that way, which is the point.
When identifying an object, then, that particular object is defined, by its individual trajectory, in the runic run, which reveals man’s position in life.
The 33rd position, in a 32-point compass, is the centre, which is Odin, whose two brothers are the scales: Will & Woe (Elohim & Yahweh).
Landscape suffixes:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/6wn8zkzt56whzv6/topological-metaphor.jpg
(The left out 8th suffix is “-ish”, which I find to be contraction of “Ea’s lic”, which is a frontal collision, against the Roman Catholic Church, that outlaws river spirits, and thereby transfiguration, by flowing elves.)
Climate science is not at a level of certainty where it makes any sense to limit debate on analyzing the cause or effect of climate change.
Achieving a balanced mix of energy sources permits ongoing research and innovation in alternative sources while not eliminating essential oil and gas supplies.
Cheap energy is more important for reducing poverty than any speculative benefit from reducing carbon dioxide. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions may turn out to be a bad mistake.
Sometimes I think the successful traction that the climate change greenhouse theory achieved is due to linking ‘caring about the earth’ to believing the theory. — If you don’t believe the theory you don’t care about the earth. — This resulted in an acceptance of limiting debate on atmospheric analysis and weather systems that contradict the idea of carbon threats. One would risk be shamed as a ‘denier’. We now have to ‘decarbonize’. What we really need to is to detoxify.
I think that most people are so fed up with taxes that an attempt to levy a new carbon tax in the US would not be met with acceptance.
Weather is a phenomenon, and it’s not a quantifiable object in law, and, a false attempt, to objectify a phenomenon, is a golden calf.
Usually, when men try to objectify phenomena, they make idols to worship, which is idolatry, circumventing logic and reason.
The only function of a court is, to balance logic and reason, regarding objects in themselves, and their relations, to other objects.
Originally, Anglo-Saxon law used runes, to define objects, and their relations, before passing judgement, by the scales.
The Supremes just took another case, a ATF brace rule that clearly goes against Supreme Case Law, and the interesting part is that the gov relied on Chevron doctrine of regulatory deference when statutes are vague. Methinks the blacked robed wonderkind will remove another brick from the Chevron foundation, which is based upon general welfare.
“There’s an elephant in the room with us today. We have studiously attempted to work our way around it and even left it unremarked. But the fact is Chevron and Brand X permit executive bureaucracies to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power and concentrate federal power in a way that seems more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers’ design. Maybe the time has come to face the behemoth.[13] ”
—Justice Neil Gorsuch, majority opinion in Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch[23]
1. Odin’s two brothers, Will & Woe, balance the scales, because they ARE the scales.
2. When expressed, as cultural trope, in the biblical records, scales are Elohim & Yahweh.
3. When expressed, in modern lingua franca, scales are Logic & Reason.
The forerunner of Anglo-Saxon law is the dual principle of scales, that is always present, regardless of folkloristic, religious or linguistic attributes.
There is no emotional Meister drama attached, to logic and reason, because the scales either balance, or they don’t. In latter case, social contract is in breach.
There is no bla-bla obligation, to uphold a broken social contract, and one either negotiates a new one, or goes full animal instinct, in territorial dispute.
Ex cathedra Genghis Khanus.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/pnz9jpb73u1gfla/druidry-for-dummies.pdf
Science has become the new smokescreen behind our masters of destruction plan to torture and kill the rest of us with the help of their oldest useful idiot religion and politics.
Science is hardly ‘ex cathedra’ if it must be constantly changed in order to fit the Narrative of the Present Political Situation.
Just A Turd is really making a splash when it comes to ink/”news”.
For Red Commiecrat Puppets, there is no equivalent.
Takes after his Castro progenitor, in way too many ways to Sunday.
When it comes to the never-ending perfection of progre$$,
climate is the ever-gifting/grifting template