Is the Texas Attorney General unfamiliar with the US Constitution?

Favorite Answer

I've found that generally speaking, people who shout about things not being in the constitution (usually conservatives, especially Teabaggers) often haven't actually read the document. A good example is Christine O'Donnell, who claimed to be a constitutional expert (because she took a weeklong class on the constitution from a right-wing think tank), yet didn't even realize that the consitution effectively establishes the separation of church and state.

Personally I also think that people put too much emphasis on what's in the constitution and what's not. The constitution is a living document, and we some of the laws it contains are not applicable to modern society. To me the question is not whether something is in the constitution, the question is whether it *should be* in the constitution. It's not 1787 anymore.

I'm not terribly familiar with the constitution myself. liberal is citing the supremacy clause, while most deniers are citing the 10th amendment. So let's take a look at them:

The Supremacy Clause asserts and establishes the Constitution, the federal laws made in pursuance of the Constitution, and treaties made by the United States with foreign nations as "the Supreme Law of the Land"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

The Tenth Amendment explicitly states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The Tenth Amendment is indeed what the Texas Attorney General is using to challenge the EPA's mandate to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/cap-and-trade/

Now as liberal notes, the US Supreme Court already ruled on this issue. In Massachussetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._Environmental_Protection_Agency#Stevens.27_opinion_for_the_Court

That's where the Supremacy Clause comes in. The EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under a federal law, as the Supreme Court ruled. So it seems to me like this issue has already been settled, and the Texas AG (and all the deniers siding with him in their answers) are disagreeing with the US Supreme Court. Since the Supreme Court has already ruled on this subject, I don't see how they could possibly win this case. No doubt the Texas AG is following in Ken Cuccinelli's footsteps, trying to make a name for himself with frivolous lawsuits pertaining to global warming.

*edit* Excellent answer from Matt as well.

*edit @ Expeller* 1st amendment, buddy. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" (Christine O'Donnell was provided with this exact quote and didn't recognize it, by the way). The Supreme Court (yeah those bastards again) have interpreted this as establishing the separation of church and state.

Nice to hear that when the government collapses, it will be taken over by gun-toting nutjobs like yourself. Very reassuring. I can't wait for the USA to look like one of the military-run African nations. I bet you make Glenn Beck dictator....Show more

He'll unlikely have any success. I'm sure he's aware of the Supremacy Clause, and also Article 1 Section 8, though he's arguing that the 10th Amendment trumps this. Historically this almost never comes to pass. Nevertheless, too, the arguments for an interstate effect are in my mind strong, and I have not heard arguments from the other side to convince me otherwise. The constitution gives the federal government jurisdiction over federal matters, interstate matters, and those matters dealing with (and here's where it gets fuzzy on occasion) the carrying-out of the general welfare and common defense (Art 1 Sec 8). In this case, the Supremacy Clause and 1.8.3 rule (interstate trade regulation). It is NOT unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to rule that the EPA must exercise power under a law that has already passed. Congress does not need to create a new law for this. Congress can stop it de facto by cutting funding (unlikely that will happen with a Dem-controlled Senate and Executive), or de jure by passing a law nullifying it. That too is unlikely, since we have precedent with the previously failed "Dirty Air Act," and Obama will likely veto anyways.

As I said in another question, Texas has the right to pursue legal action and sue, but do they have a chance of winning? Precedent and constitutional law say "no."...Show more

As 95% of the Constitution has to do with the nuts and bolts of government, and nobody has ever held that there's some problem with, as for instance the presidential oath of office*, or that no title of nobility be granted. Almost all conflicts seen to center around money....generally because some party believes that some law will cause them to have to shell out a few buck or they'll be deprived of some amount of income. The big polluters don't want any laws that would restrict them from polluting...it ain't the 'Constitution'...it's about MONEY! They spend millions every year on 'campaign contributions' to get folks like the Texas AG to pimp for them. Like we don't already know this! They use arguments like 'job killer', not constitutional, it's a plot by the commies or some other bull #$% when ALL of their real reasons center on the bucks. The right wing radio dummies, who also pimp for 'big money' also wade in with the 'unconstitutional' BS just to muddy the waters. Here's the real scoop: The Constitution is an AFFIRMATIVE DOCUMENT. That is, if it's not forbidden it's allowed. Abortion is legal subject to time place and manner. Owning firearms likewise. Indulging in religious ceremonies...same thing. Church and state are separated by the fact that the Constitution clearly states that Congress shall make NO law. To put up a 500 foot cross or a one foot cross on federal property would REQUIRE that some government official sign off on the construction. That signing would amount to a federal regulation...and a LAW would have to be passed to allow for that regulation. The 'wingers need to give this up and at least try to understand that things have to be done about pollution...the Constitution isn't a suicide pact....Show more

The supreme court has ruled also some of the following

Dred Scott V Sanford

Three of the justices also held that a black “whose ancestors were … sold as slaves” was not entitled to the rights of a federal citizen and therefore had no standing in court.

Plessy Vs Ferguson

“equal but separate accommodations” for blacks on railroad cars did not violate the “equal protection under the laws” clause of the 14th Amendment. By defending the constitutionality of racial segregation,

I am not suggesting that this ruling is of the same nature. However if one were to agree with every law and did not challenge laws we feel are wrong our country would not be free.

Just because it is a law does not make it just nor should one follow the blind lady calle djustice...Show more

I am ashamed of the responses I have seen on this site regarding the United States Constitution. I appears to me that you have not the slightest idea of what is at stake in this situation. The Attorney General and the Governor of the great State of Texas, the only state which was a Republic before it became a state, are very aware of what the Constitution says, and what it stands for. Am I the only one posting here who has taken an oath to protect the Contitution from enemies both foreign and domestic?
I find all ignorance apalling, but yours is especially that. You have never served in the armed services I take it. Too bad, you would have more respect....Show more