The
following was written in November 2013 as a response to the
questionnaire for federal candidates seeking an endorsement from the
Liberty Caucus of the Republican Conference (i.e., the Republican
Party).
Here is the link to the original questionnaire:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwi.rlc.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F05%2FFederal-Candidate-Questionnaire.doc&ei=u3B8UqXbBqPiiwL2ioCoDg&usg=AFQjCNHAzM58Dr-APGVchRKzOkVV0TKRyw&sig2=qStOgZ0RAgXVAbnHi2kFtw
This is my answer to Question #11.
11.
None of the above
(The
federal government should engage in neither standardizing claims
related to clean air and water, purchasing additional land for
National Parks, protecting endangered species, nor participating in -
nor pressuring other nations to participate in - the Kyoto Protocol)
There
is no constitutionally enumerated authority for the federal
government to regulate the environment; therefore there is no
constitutional authority for the Environmental Protection Agency, for
the federal government to (A)
standardize claims related to clean air and water, (B)
purchase additional land for National Parks,
or (C)
protect endangered species.
Several
years ago, actions by the E.P.A. actually served to lowerclean
air standards, when a third of the states were prevented from raising
their motor vehicle fuel efficiency standards. I would vote to
support the abolition of the E.P.A. because it is unconstitutional,
it standardizes mediocrity, and the states have the authority and the
will to implement high (A)
standards for clean air and water themselves,
as well as to set examples for the nation in that area.
It
is not a proper role of the federal government to (D)
participate in and pressure other nations to participate in the Kyoto
Protocol.
The United States should not be a member of the United Nations as it
is, because it subverts our sovereignty (the co-equal sovereignty of
our states' and national governments) by positioning international
law as supreme above national law.
I
believe that the Congress should make treaties and engage
diplomatically with foreign national governments, but it should
primarily be done bilaterally and multilaterally instead of with all
recognized worldwide sovereigns at once. This style of
decision-making gives undue advantages and disadvantages for
countries large and small, rich and poor, and weak and powerful
alike.
In
summary, I would leave the responsibility to (B)
protect and own land now owned by the national government –
and the responsibility to protect endangered species – up to the
states and the localities, rather than to the federal government. I
would support legislation providing for federal regulation of the
environment provided that such legislation were to go through the
amendment process and become part of the Constitution.
For
more entries on environment and climate change, please
visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/09/proposal-for-cooperative-party-of-oregon.html
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/09/proposal-for-cooperative-party-of-oregon.html
No comments:
Post a Comment