E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Other Energy Issues Seep Into Spill Legislation. Energy legislation advancing in the Senate would force companies to reveal closely held details about the chemical cocktails they use to extract natural gas from shale rock, imposing the first federal regulation on hydraulic fracturing. (chron.com)."
This is a sample of what I mean when I talk about hiding sneaky stuff in legislation.
In this case, we're talking about "proprietary know-how". While we have a nice Patent/Trademark law, government and industry have recognized that corporations and private individuals have a right to secrecy in chemical formulations. An example of this recognition is in the Manufacturer's Safety Data Sheets, which are government mandated for all chemical compositions either offered to the public or used in the environment. For the MSDS, it is sufficient to designate a formulation by trademark without indicating specific chemical compositions, providing toxicity and environmental data showing that all constituents are essentially innocuous.
Forcing corporations and individuals to reveal inapplicable details of their "know-how" would be a significant change from current accepted practice and could be considered an infraction on personal rights. Government is not known for its reliability in retaining confidential information belonging to others. In fact, it has difficulty in avoiding leaks of its own information. The fact that the bill specifically requests the composition of hydraulic fracturing material, may also imply that someone in the federal government anticipates being able to obtain the information and subsequently sell it to industry competitors.
For those who may distrust the submitted MSDS toxicity and environmental data, I would like to remind them that we have in these days very effective analytical techniques. If government feels it needs to know an exact chemical composition of a formulation, it always has the option of a laboratory analysis.
This consideration of chemical cocktails in hydraulic fracturing for natural gas is not grossly significant in itself. It is just another step of imposition of big government on the rights of corporations and individuals.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Arizona's Immigration Law
E-Mail to Congress:
This is a U.S. Constitutional approach to Arizona's controversial immigration law. Sections of the U.S. Constitution and an Amendment are quoted. Each quotation is designated by ". Each of my comments is designated by [.
The Constitution of the United States
Article I - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
[There are 18 specified powers of Congress, none of which pertain to immigration.]
Section 9 - Limits on Congress
"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
[This implies that in the years 1808 and later, Congress may establish immigration laws. However, it is not among the specifically designated 18 Congressional Powers.]
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.
"The powers not delegated to the United States [federal government] by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
[Since the Power to control immigration is not among the 18 designated Powers of Congress and is not prohibited to the States by the Constitution, each State may make and enforce its own immigration laws].
If this case comes to the US. Supreme Court and the above arguments are refuted, we should consider another aspect of the Constitution.
The Constitution of the United States
Article II - The Executive Branch
Section 1 - The President
Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress
"He [the president] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." [If the Supreme Court declares the U.S. Congress immigration law to be valid, the President can be charged with dereliction of duty in not enforcing Congress' immigration law.]
[A President may be impeached if he commits "High Crimes and Misdemeanors". One definition of "High" in the legal parlance of the 18th century means "against the State". A high crime is one which seeks the overthrow of the country, which gives aid or comfort to its enemies, or which injures the country to the profit of an individual or group. In democracies and similar societies it also includes crimes which attempt to alter the outcome of elections.]
In not enforcing Federal Immigration Law, the President can be accused of attempting to alter the outcome of elections.
This is a U.S. Constitutional approach to Arizona's controversial immigration law. Sections of the U.S. Constitution and an Amendment are quoted. Each quotation is designated by ". Each of my comments is designated by [.
The Constitution of the United States
Article I - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
[There are 18 specified powers of Congress, none of which pertain to immigration.]
Section 9 - Limits on Congress
"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
[This implies that in the years 1808 and later, Congress may establish immigration laws. However, it is not among the specifically designated 18 Congressional Powers.]
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.
"The powers not delegated to the United States [federal government] by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
[Since the Power to control immigration is not among the 18 designated Powers of Congress and is not prohibited to the States by the Constitution, each State may make and enforce its own immigration laws].
If this case comes to the US. Supreme Court and the above arguments are refuted, we should consider another aspect of the Constitution.
The Constitution of the United States
Article II - The Executive Branch
Section 1 - The President
Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress
"He [the president] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." [If the Supreme Court declares the U.S. Congress immigration law to be valid, the President can be charged with dereliction of duty in not enforcing Congress' immigration law.]
[A President may be impeached if he commits "High Crimes and Misdemeanors". One definition of "High" in the legal parlance of the 18th century means "against the State". A high crime is one which seeks the overthrow of the country, which gives aid or comfort to its enemies, or which injures the country to the profit of an individual or group. In democracies and similar societies it also includes crimes which attempt to alter the outcome of elections.]
In not enforcing Federal Immigration Law, the President can be accused of attempting to alter the outcome of elections.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
There Are No Innocent Civilians in War
E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "U.S. General Petraeus Vows to Protect Afghan Civilians. The new chief of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan has vowed to protect Afghan civilians as he has been briefing allies and partners at NATO HQ in Brussels before heading to Kabul. (bbc.co.uk)".
Bad move! The above statement implies that Afghan civilians are innocent civilians. In war, there is no such thing as innocent civilians. Civilians are either for you or against you in favor of the locally established government. For example, there were not a significant number of innocent German civilians, during World War II. The people elected Hitler. They fought for Hitler. They worked in factories to produce war goods for Hitler.
In an environment such as Afghanistan, it is difficult to determine who the civilian enemies are. It should be assumed that every Afghani is an enemy, until he proves otherwise. This does not mean that killing civilians should be a high priority item. The first priority is the killing of Afghanis who are obviously bearing arms against us. Civilians are in the second category, to be later divided into local government supporters or our friends, and then handled accordingly. We learned this in Korea and Vietnam. Do we have to sacrifice more GI's to learn it again?
EIN News says, "U.S. General Petraeus Vows to Protect Afghan Civilians. The new chief of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan has vowed to protect Afghan civilians as he has been briefing allies and partners at NATO HQ in Brussels before heading to Kabul. (bbc.co.uk)".
Bad move! The above statement implies that Afghan civilians are innocent civilians. In war, there is no such thing as innocent civilians. Civilians are either for you or against you in favor of the locally established government. For example, there were not a significant number of innocent German civilians, during World War II. The people elected Hitler. They fought for Hitler. They worked in factories to produce war goods for Hitler.
In an environment such as Afghanistan, it is difficult to determine who the civilian enemies are. It should be assumed that every Afghani is an enemy, until he proves otherwise. This does not mean that killing civilians should be a high priority item. The first priority is the killing of Afghanis who are obviously bearing arms against us. Civilians are in the second category, to be later divided into local government supporters or our friends, and then handled accordingly. We learned this in Korea and Vietnam. Do we have to sacrifice more GI's to learn it again?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
