Warmists Are Suddenly Super Enthused By Federalism When It Comes To Paris Climate Agreement

Leftists have long been annoyed by the notion of the 10th Amendment, which states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” They would prefer that all powers go to the federal government, rather than the states and the People. Except when it interferes with their Progressive notions, then they’re all for pushing their own Rights. Which is what we’re seeing in the aftermath of Trump being elected, and since he announced he’s done with the Paris Climate Agreement

Oregon Will Join Climate Change Coalition To Meet Paris Goals

Gov. Kate Brown said Friday she is confident that Oregon and other progressive states can still meet the Paris climate goals for the U.S. — despite President Donald Trump’s decision to pull the country out of the international accord.

The Democratic governor told the City Club of Portland that Oregon will join a coalition of states led by California, Washington and New York working to reduce carbon emissions.

The new coalition was quickly announced after Trump held a White House ceremony Thursday to announce that he would begin the process of pulling out of the 195-nation accord. The president said the accord could hurt the U.S. economy, and he said he would seek to negotiate a better deal.

Brown told reporters after her talk that states representing a significant share of the country’s population and economic activity are ready to step up in the place of the federal government. And she said she was “absolutely” confident they could meet the climate goals laid out in the accord.

Again, they are more than welcome to do this. This is part of what makes up States’ Rights. Not too give a civics lesson, but, there’s a reason they are called states. The original 13 colonies were essentially the size of most Old Europe nations, and what do we call the leader of a nation? Head of State. Chief of State. They’re arrive on a state visit. We have the State Department. Countries are often referred to as nation-states. The federal government was supposed to bind us together, but, never be as strong as it is. State, county, and local governments were meant to be the primary government in people’s lives, as they would be more responsive. I’ll give it a rest there.

So, let them do this. We can laugh at them as their economies are damaged, but, there is one big question none of the state and city leaders are failing to answer: what about all the money involved in the Paris agreement? All that taxpayer money that Obama promised to redistribute? Will these same Warmists pony up the money, as well? Paris wasn’t just about reducing carbon footprints.

Let’s see these states and cities pony up their own money and give it to the United Nations to spread around to “developing nations” and 3rd world dictators. The citizens won’t mind that, right? Because this is really the Number 1 thing in the Paris Agreement.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

11 Responses to “Warmists Are Suddenly Super Enthused By Federalism When It Comes To Paris Climate Agreement”

  1. Zachriel says:

    William Teach: Leftists have long been annoyed by the notion of the 10th Amendment

    Not everyone on the political left is a federal statist, such as left-wing anarchists.

    However, the states have often denied basic human rights to those under their protection, and the federal government has been instrumental at protecting those rights, by ending slavery, enacting equal protection under the 14th Amendment, and then with the civil rights acts of the mid-twentieth century.

  2. david7134 says:

    Z,
    The original intent of our government in its founding was to keep the Federal government from doing the things that you listed, I don’t find that list to be such a great series of good deeds and many others don’t as well. I can argue that civil rights legislation actually took freedom away from many people, slavery was ending before the Federal government decided to make it a major political issue, there is nothing good about the 14th amendment. The Federal government was assigned certain powers, Lincoln reversed this and took away many of our freedoms and set the ground work for much more excesses by a central government. Now, liberals are directly tied to the concept of a central government and the seizure of our wealth, redistribution, restriction and in general any thing that can be done to tell others what to do in their grand scheme of things. I suspect that you and your group and a little high school group and have little real knowledge of the things that you pontificate about, so don’t quote internet web site if you answer.

  3. Jeffery says:

    civil rights legislation actually took freedom away from many people

    dave,

    When a privileged group is challenged by those they oppress the privileged feel as if they are victims of discrimination. That’s what you felt with the civil rights movement.

    It’s telling that you feel the government shouldn’t interfere with the privileged’s enslavement of other human beings, but we understand that you consider certain groups to be inferior and deserving of enslavement.

    Your position that President Lincoln started the downfall of America by preserving the republic and by stopping the enslavement of your fellow humans is, fortunately, a minority position, held by a few neo-confederates.

    Can you list what you consider the 5 most serious violations of your sovereign rights perpetrated by the US government and what should be done to alleviate your suffering?

    • Dana says:

      1 – The violation of individual rights of freedom of religion and association by federal and state government requirements that individuals provide goods and services for things about which they have fundamental religious or moral objections.
      2 – The violation of property rights by restrictions imposed by wetlands regulations.
      3 – The violation of privacy rights by government mandating the computerization and transferability of medical records.
      4 – The violation of due process rights by the federal government pushing on schools to punish those accused of harassment or sexual aggression by going around the criminal justice system.
      5 – The violation of the privacy rights of the majority by favoring the claims of the mentally-ill ‘transgendered.’

      • drowningpuppies says:

        -Obama’s Justice Dept. wiretapped/surveilled reporters such as James Rosen and the AP.

        -Obama’s IRS abused the rights of taxpayers.

        -Eric Holder sold the guns to Mexican criminals and some were used to kill Americans.

        -Janet Reno, under Bill Clinton, used a tank to kill Branch Dividians.

        -Obama had SWAT teams raid a Gibson guitar factory and seize property, on the purported basis that Gibson had broken India’s environmental laws—but no charges were filed.

        Why’d that little guy run away, Dana?

    • david7134 says:

      I am sorry jeff, I was tired last night and blew off your usual screed of communistic crap. I love the way that you come up with personality traits and extreme beliefs from those that comment and don’t agree with your excessive moral position, or your bigotry or your lack of knowledge on any subject being discussed. Five violations:
      1. interference into the medical industry and virtual seizure of the industry
      2. taking away right to private property
      3. seizure of wealth and redistribution
      4. elimination of the 4th amendment
      5. violation of every single constitutional amendment
      6. list is too extensive to continue.

      Fact is that we need a new government. Your knowledge of Lincoln and the war of northern aggression fits with your general lack of knowledge and understanding of all issues.

      As to slavery, I don’t give a flip about that as I don’t currently own slaves. If I had a plantation or large farm and could not get workers and needed labor and slavery was legal, then I would consider it. I would not discriminate, just as the people in the South did. Lincoln did not preserve the republic, he destroyed it. Even Marx sent him a letter congratulating him on the effort.

      As to the civil right legislation, it robs many people of there liberty and method of conducting business. The reason you get upset is that it is a holly grail of politics. This written by one of the worst of the racist (LBJ). From my prospective, the civil rights legislation was nothing more than a power grab by a minority that persist in using the color of their skin to get largesse and benefits not available to the general citizen. They are still doing it, much legislation and rules are written to give extra power and benefit and money to this generally nonproductive 13% of our population. Now, not all are unproductive as you will try to insert, but 80% are. Oh, did you know that blacks were big in the slave trade and ownership? That means that many white with the CSA were fighting for their black neighbors. Also, are you aware that the north was big into the slave trade and shipping of slave to the US? Likely not.

  4. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    You would not understand, too much white guilt. And I was not addressing you.

  5. Jeffery says:

    dave,

    That’s what we thought. Anti-government extremists whine that the federal government is oppressing them but cannot come up with any examples.

    Do you find paying federal taxes to be oppressive and unConstitutional?

    How about that southern states couldn’t easily suppress Black voters (until recently)?

    Is it that the federal government limits your access to fully automatic weapons and rocket launchers?

    Is it that our Supreme Court found abortion to be Constitutional?

    Is it that our Supreme Court found same-sex marriage to be Constitutional?

    Is it that our First Amendment disallows christian favoritism?

    • Dana says:

      How amusing. Jeffrey issues a challenge, time stamped 10:20 PM, and then posts again, at 11:49 PM, same day, that “Anti-government extremists whine that the federal government is oppressing them but cannot come up with any examples.” Don’t know about anyone else, but I was in bed by those times. Perhaps not all of our esteemed host’s readers spend every waking moment on the computer.

  6. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    You are a repugnant jerk with little real knowledge or ability. If you haven’t figured it out yet, I don’t care what you think.

  7. Dana says:

    Remember when the left were so ecstatic when the courts held that only the federal government had any authority concerning immigration law?

    Hey, if Governor Moonbeam and the California left want to impose their own carbon legislation, that’s fine with me; I was born in Oakland, but didn’t live there past the second grade. It will simply make goods produced in the Pyrite State a bit more expensive, putting them at a competitive disadvantage with goods produced in places where people are smarter.

Bad Behavior has blocked 6332 access attempts in the last 7 days.