Who Is Going To Pay For Ignoring Climate Change While Building Infrastructure In The U.S.?

Photo: ERO Resources

President Trump last week stood up at a podium in the White House and spoke about his new infrastructure building plan, which involves changing legislation to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).  NEPA is an environmental law that ensures that any new construction or infrastructure change in the United States involves the following regulations (i.e., rules and restrictions).  Which is to say, the NEPA ensures that changes are regulated by laws which encompass the regulations put into place by various agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) along with others.

You may ask yourself the following question: What changes can President Trump make to NEPA that would cause significant concern?

If you consider environmental groups (for one example), you may be surprised to hear that the regulations set in place by NEPA mandate that corporations need to take into consideration 'climate change' as a factor when making infrastructure changes in the United States.  Sounds reasonable, right?



To give context to the above introduction, shown below is the opening introduction to the Wikipedia page for the National Environmental Policy Act:

  

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a United States environmental law that promotes the enhancement of the environment and established the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The law was enacted on January 1, 1970.[2] To date, more than 100 nations around the world have enacted national environmental policies modeled after NEPA.[3]

Prior to NEPA, Federal agencies were mission oriented. An example of mission orientation was to select highway routes as the shortest route between two points. NEPA was necessary to require Federal agencies to evaluate the environmental effects of their actions.[4]:2–3 NEPA's most significant outcome was the requirement that all executive Federal agencies prepare environmental assessments (EAs) and environmental impact statements (EISs). These reports state the potential environmental effects of proposed Federal agency actions.[5] Further the U.S. Congress recognizes that each person has a responsibility to preserve and enhance the environment as trustees for succeeding generations.[6] NEPA's procedural requirements do not apply to the President, Congress, or the Federal courts since they are not a "Federal agency" by definition.[5][7] However, a Federal agency taking action under authority ordered by the President may be a final agency action subject to NEPA's procedural requirements.[4]:117–118 A U.S. District Court describes the need for even the President to have the NEPA analysis information before making a decision as follows:

"No agency possesses discretion whether to comply with procedural requirements such as NEPA. The relevant information provided by a NEPA analysis needs to be available to the public and the people who play a role in the decision-making process. This process includes the President." "And Congress has not delegated to the President the decision as to the route of any pipeline."[8]

The above excerpts indicate that NEPA gave rise to the 'EIS' or 'Environmental Impact Statement.'  Any project in the United States needs an 'EIS' before the start or completion of the infrastructure project.  Imagine what the world was like before that requirement?  The 'Environmental Impact Statement' can vary and be weakened, which is what the Trump administration is trying to accomplish last week.  There are consequences, though, to that action.

As an example, take building the homes in Houston (Texas) on a flood plain before Hurricane Harvey.  Construction corporations should have been wary of building houses on an actual flood plain.  A location is known to flood.  Why would a corporation build homes and let a company sell them when the next flood would wipe them out?  President Trump gave the 'go-ahead' to the construction, and the disaster is what followed as a result of the destruction caused by Hurricane Harvey.  

First-time homeowners were sold homes without flood insurance (What are the chances this area will flood?).

Someone Has To Pay?

According to reporting by Politico Agriculture, depending on the amount of consideration of climate change in infrastructure proposals, the taxpayer can expect to pay the difference.  What?  Yes, insurance corporations will pass on the cost of not sufficiently accounting for climate change into new projects onto taxpayers.  

Any structure or project which is built by less than desirable regulated permits will be questioned by insurers.  If the project is found to have been created by not taking into account relevant climate change effects, the taxpayer will provide the difference in cost.  Why would we (as taxpayers) let corporations get by without paying (and planning) for expected climate change impacts in a given infrastructure project? Unbelievable.

Groups are speaking up in both directions!

Groups are coming out of the woodwork in support (or opposition) of the changes to NEPA.  Contractors and construction agencies love what the new changes entail.  While environmental groups are scared that the fall-out of not considering climate change into the policies and regulations will have dire consequences.  

The result will be that everyone's insurance policies will increase by an appropriate amount to make up for the lack of (financial) consideration for climate change in policies and regulations while building new infrastructure.  If you do not mind paying for the consequences of not considering environmental changes that would harm or danger new infrastructure, then there is no problem. 

On the other hand, if you are not comfortable with policies and regulations which lack the consideration of climate change, then the current changes should be worrisome.  Call your local state and federal elected official and express your concern. We tax-payers should not be on the hook for the misguided policies of the federal government.

Related Blog Post:




Pesticide Atrazine: Benefits Outweigh Potential Harm To People?


Hemp Growers Now Is Your Chance To Comment On USDA Regulations


Mitigating Pollution from Slaughter Houses -- Why Not Try If Technology Exists?

Pesticide Atrazine: Benefits Outweigh Potential Harm To People?

Photo: KCET

Are there instances in a society where the benefit to the people outweighs the dangers?  Especially when the consumer side of the community is considered?  For example, if a chemical performs very well.  But the threat to society is high by exposing people to this chemical.  What is the right avenue to proceed down?  As a regulator, should the compound be allowed to be incorporated into a given product?  If there are inherent dangers?  What if there is no alternative chemical to the dangerous one?



In brief from Politico Agriculture, the announcement that EPA will still renew the use of the dangerous pesticide Atrazine was reported on:

EPA PUTS ATRAZINE RENEWAL ON THE TABLE: In the same announcement, the agency slid in that it's preparing to re-approve and issue new guidelines for the widely used herbicide atrazine, which is mostly used on corn but also on sugarcane and sorghum. It's also used to fight broadleaf weeds on lawns and turf.

Some research links atrazine to birth defects and cancer, and it's commonly found in waterways and drinking water. Atrazine is banned or being phased out by 35 countries, including the European Union.

To reduce hazards to humans, the EPA said it's proposing a lower use rate for residential turf applications, new protective equipment and handling requirements, and label language intended to mitigate spray drift. The agency also proposed ending an ongoing atrazine water-monitoring program.

"Although there are potential risks of concern associated with the use of atrazine, with the adoption of the mitigation measures ... any remaining potential worker and/or ecological risks are outweighed by the benefits associated with use of atrazine," the agency wrote in its proposed decision.

Green groups were quick to criticize EPA's decision. "It's absolutely shameful that while other countries are banning atrazine, the Trump administration is opening up the tap," said Nathan Donley, a scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity, in a statement. "This disgusting backward step ignores decades of research and will inflict untold damage on people, wildlife and waters across the country."

Regulators need to jump on the EPA for press releases like the one shown above.  Here, a cancer-causing (in some cases) agent is not only being allowed to be used on crops.  The same dangerous agent is going to be discontinued for monitoring in the local water supply surrounding the geographic region of choice.  What?  No more tracking in the local water supply for a dangerous chemical?  Why is Congress not stepping in and taking action?  Is Congress even aware that the decision on behalf of the EPA has been made?



Unbelievable.  The regulation does not need to be overarching and restrictive in all cases.  But having little to none results in the behavior described above. The next time that an elected leader is visiting; ask why the decision by the EPA is let to stand?  Each of us should be entitled to clean water.



Related Blog Posts:


Low Carb Action Network Wants To Change Federal Diet Advice?


Ralph Nader: Boeing’s Perilous Bungling Requires New Leadership


With Globalization, Scientists Should Be Minimizing Carbon Footprints


President Trump Goes After SNAP Recipients to Save Money?


Hemp Growers Now Is Your Chance To Comment On USDA Regulations


Mitigating Pollution from Slaughter Houses -- Why Not Try If Technology Exists?

FDA Stance On PFAS: Study Findings and Survey Results

More Congressional Hearings on PFAS, when can Americans expect Action Taken by Regulators?


Update: EPA Throws Journalists Out Of PFAS Conference - Why?


Update: Congress asks Federal Agencies about Dangerous Chemicals -- PFOA and PFOS


Congress Asks Defense Department and Environmental Protection Agency about Dangerous Chemicals

Ralph Nader: Full Impeachments for Trump will Shake Senate Republicans from Kangaroo Court

Photo: Common Dreams

President Trump has once again endangered Americans by the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani last weekend.  I wrote a blog earlier this week discussing the fact that big oil companies stated that a few oil workers would stay in the Middle East. Although the United States of America has around 45,000 troops in the Middle East.  That figure is on the low end of the estimate.  While the President quickly targeted General Soleimani as a "terrorist," what he failed to recognize is that the single action set into play a series of steps.  Which would endanger any American in the Middle East.



These actions are based on the fact that the label of "terrorist" sets into play a breakdown of agreements.  Agreements that make up the 'rules of engagement' between the United States and other NATO countries along with Middle East Countries.  When the 'rules of engagement' break down, new rules have to be drawn.  What laws can the U.S. hope to bring when the leader of the free world has just assassinated a top Iranian General.  This action is one of many that President Trump has done to put the United States in danger.  Consumer Activist Ralph Nader has laid out appropriately, the egregious violations which have made him rise to the level of history's most Impeachable President in the history of the United States:

Full Impeachments for Trump will Shake Senate Republicans from Kangaroo Court

Many Americans have forecasted that the outlaw Donald Trump will commit even more illegal acts to increasing his support in the 2020 presidential year. Remember Wag the Dog, a film about using a fabricated war to draw attention away from presidential misdeeds. Those Americans have been proven right by Donald Trump’s attempt to provoke an unlawful war with Iran. Likewise, Trump has illegally ordered his staff or ex-staff to ignore Congressional subpoenas to testify and provide documents.

As the most impeachable president in American history, Trump continues to shred our Constitution and its critical separation of powers. Trump has repeatedly, brazenly seized Congressional authority in an attempt to turn the presidency into a monarchy.  Trump once went so far as to say, “I am the chosen one.”

Unlike Nixon, who slinked away because of the Watergate scandal, every day Trump is providing more evidence to the Congress about his impeachability. He never stops. He never expresses remorse or apologizes for violating the Constitution or federal criminal statutes, such as the Antideficiency Act. Likewise, Trump has shown no respect for international treaties to which the U.S. is a solemn signatory.

Trump’s mantra of usurpation is clear. He declared that because of Article II of the Constitution, “I have the right to do whatever I want as President.” Trump seems to have neglected Article I, which gives Congress the exclusive authority to declare war, to appropriate funds, and to conduct investigations of the Executive branch with the plenary authority, i.e. issue and enforce subpoenas. Congress is the primary branch of government, not a co-equal branch.

Trump has refused to turn over his tax returns, unlike previous presidents who released them every year. Trump has much to hide in terms of entanglements with foreign entities. He is a walking violation of the Emoluments Clause (Article I, section 9, paragraph 8), which prohibits any president from profiting from foreign interests. Trump profits when foreign dignitaries patronize his hotels and other properties.

The Constitution requires Trump to faithfully execute the law. Instead he is destroying health, safety, workplace, and environmental laws through his corrupt henchman. The Trump regime is dismantling congressionally mandated federal agency law enforcement programs and, in so doing, is removing lifesaving protections. At the same time, Trump is corruptly raising money from the corporate interests that want to dismantle these agencies, from Wall Street to Houston’s oil barons.

The most morally distinguishing impeachable offenses come under the heading of what Alexander Hamilton called “abuse of the public trust.”

Consider these abuses of the public trust:

1) Trump’s chronic, obsessive, pathological lying and falsifications (he has made over 15,000 false or misleading claims since January 21, 2017);

2) Trump’s history of being a serial sexual predator working to delay numerous court cases and escape demands for depositions under oath by many victims;

3) Trump’s endless racism and bigotry in words and deeds. Since becoming president, Trump has backed voter suppression aimed at minorities; and

4) Trump’s incitement of violence on more than one occasion.

5) Trump should be impeached and convicted. If the supine Republican-controlled Senate fails to convict Trump, the voters should landslide him in November.

It is almost as if Trump looks to setting records in how many parts of the Constitution he can violate. He interceded with the Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu to prevent two members of Congress visas to Israel. Trump’s actions prevented these members of Congress from exercising their oversight responsibilities under the Speech and Debate Clause (Article I, section 6, clause 1). No president has ever dared such an intervention.

For the elaboration of twelve impeachable counts under one major Article, see the letter by me, constitutional law experts Bruce Fein, and Louis Fisher in the Congressional Record (December 18, 2019, page H 12197).

Speaker Pelosi must add some of these impeachable offenses, backed by constitutional law specialists, or Trump will trumpet that though she had the votes to do so, she didn’t because they are “fake, lies.” Exonerating him will prove to be a devastating precedent for future presidents behaving similarly, as the standards for presidential behavior keep dropping lower and lower into lawless immunity and impunity.

Conservative Fox News commentator, constitutional law scholar, and former Judge Andrew Napolitano has said if he were the Democrats, he would reopen the impeachment case “on the basis of new evidence. That would justify holding onto the articles of impeachment [from the Senate] the articles of impeachment [abuse of power and contempt of Congress] because there’s new evidence and perhaps new articles.”

Pelosi can strengthen her hand constitutionally by enlarging the impeachment case against Trump. This move would give millions of Americans a stake in impeachment because it would directly relate to protections and services they lost because of lawless Trump.  In addition, more articles of impeachment would make the Senate Republicans led by “Moscow Mitch” McConnell far less able to hold a hasty kangaroo court trial without witnesses.

Fein, Fisher, and I have written Speaker Pelosi and Senator McConnell urging that the trial’s procedures should be established by Chief Justice John Roberts, subject to Senate majority repeal, to assure not only fairness, but the perception of fairness (See the letter here). Right now in the Senate there is too much bias, prejudgment, and conflict to avoid a farce.

Moreover, when will the American Bar Association, with over 194,000 lawyer-members, insist on constitutional observance and the rule of law? When will all those original members of Trump’s cabinet, whom he fired in favor of “yes men,” stand up patriotically for America? When will Colin Powell, George Shultz, and other leading figures from past administrations stand tall and speak out? When will former President Barack Obama stand up to Donald Trump? All of these people are privately worried sick over what Trump is doing and will do to our country.

These are very dangerous times for our Republic, its democratic processes, and our freedoms. Trump is going to “wave the flag” and try to intimidate and bully his opponents and the citizenry. Don’t fall for it America!

Related Blog Posts:


Ralph Nader: Letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi

Ralph Nader: Trump Should Be Impeached For Throwing U.S. Into Climate Chaos

Ralph Nader: “I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as President.” Really!


Ralph Nader: Will President Trump Implode with Lies Before He is Impeached?

Ralph Nader: Shame Of A Nation

Ralph Nader: Labor Day and the Lost Opportunities for Labor Discussions

Ralph Nader: Nader pays tribute to old Republican Paul Findley

Ralph Nader: How has Boeing avoided testifying in front of Congress for the 737 Max Airplane disasters?

 Ralph Nader: "What and Who Gave Us Trump?"


Ralph Nader: Youth Can Change Corporate View of Climate Crisis

What Are Activist Ralph Nader's Opinions On Radio News Organizations Such As NPR Or PBS?

Over 600 Environmental Groups write letter to Congress to phase out fossil fuels


Ralph Nader: Post Election -- Next Step -- Open Up The Existing Secretive Congress


Ralph Nader: Warner Slack - Doctor for the People Forever


Ralph Nader: An Open Letter to Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon


Ralph Nader: MAGA is really MADA?


Ralph Nader: Has Corruption Become Institutionalized?


Ralph Nader Says 10 Million People Could Change Healthcare Policy - That Few?


Ralph Nader Suggests To Consumers Reading 'Consumer Reports' Before Impulse Buying


Thoughts: Ralph Nader On A Cashless Economy

How Many Civilians Does The U.S. Have In Iraq?

Photo: Dissolve.com

After last weekend's announcement of the assassination of the Iranian General Qassem Soleimani by the United States of America, the Middle East is now in a state of uncertainty.   A state of risk for any U.S. citizen.  Whether military or civilian.  Which is very concerning given our longstanding oil interests.  How many civilians are working in Iraq?  The answer is ambiguous, according to reports by various news outlets.

Although, the oil companies were willing to give some information about withdrawing civilians given the current state of uncertainty.  According to reporting by Politico Energy, the number of employees is not huge:

U.S. OIL WORKERS EXIT IRAQ: Rising tensions in Iraq following the U.S. killing of Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani has prompted Chevron Corp. to withdraw American staff from Iraq, Pro's Ben Lefebvre reports . The oil major's expat employees and contract workers have left the Kurdistan region in northern Iraq "as a precautionary measure," a company spokesperson said Monday. The spokesperson declined to say how many employees had departed, only adding that it "didn't involve lots of people."

The new departures come after Reuters reported last week that U.S. citizens working for foreign oil companies were leaving Iraq because of security fears. "We have local staff who are overseeing our ongoing operations in the [Kurdistan region of Iraq] and our related expatriate workforce will continue to work remotely from overseas," the Chevron spokesperson said. Chevron plans to start producing 20,000 barrels a day in the region by the middle of this year, Ben reports. Spokespeople for Exxon Mobil and BP, which also have operations in Iraq, declined to discuss staffing or security matters at their operations.

One significant realization that I learned while serving in the Middle East (along with the rest of the world) is that the U.S. government has workers (military and civilian) in all areas of the world.  And the number is not small.  Now, move that conversation to the number of oil workers in the Middle East.



In the excerpt above, the company spokesperson stated that Chevron did have plans to produce around 200,000 barrels of oil a day.  How many workers are required to pull/produce 200,000 barrels of oil a day?



Anyone who has seen an oil refinery knows that there is massive infrastructure. Undoubtedly, the number of employees required to produce 200,000 barrels of oil a day is significant rather than small.  Furthermore, the news above is regarding downplaying the number of employees that are actually in the Middle East.  Their safety is at risk because of the actions of the President of the United States.



The actions were surprising, to say the least.  Although, former security state officials say that the Iranian General has been a target for a decade.  There is a reason why that target has never been taken out.  I imagine the answer involves the safety of the oil workers in the Middle East.



Not to mention, the large numbers of U.S. military soldiers who are now at an elevated (dangerous) risk while carrying their mission out.  The danger is unneeded and is a ploy by the President to deflect attention from the impeachment hearings of the President of the United States.  Furthermore, the evidence for proceeding to distinguish the threat is razor-thin.  Which is extremely concerning.




Related Blog Post:


How many Goodyear Blimps can be filled 1.85 billion tons of Carbon Dioxide?


President Trump Tries To Open Up Arctic For Oil Drilling, Judge Says No


Congress Intervenes And Asks For No More Oil Drilling Off Of Florida


Parameters: Shells Oil Corporation Invests In Renewable Energy Infrastructure


Was The Recent Oil Spill in China The Largest In History?

Is 94 Million Barrels Of Oil A Large Amount? That Is The Global Daily Demand!

Iraq Has Enough Oil To Support The World For 4 Years -- What?

Hemp Growers Now Is Your Chance To Comment On USDA Regulations

Photo: USA CBD EXPO

Researchers have speculated Cannabinoids to have a broad potential use as therapeutics in a variety of health issues.  Ranging from treating chronic pain to psychiatric disorders.  The possible use as a chronic pain reliever to substitute in place of opioids is a significant motivator to push the CBD market forward. 



Regarding psychiatric disorders, numerous American citizens suffer from disorders ranging from generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), social anxiety disorder (SAD), through panic disorder (PDP, all the way to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 



If the class of compounds (i.e., Cannabinoids) could reduce/ mitigate disorders and pain, why not use them in place of more dangerous substances?   Here is your chance to weigh in on the issue at hand.  One source of cannabinoids is from hemp.  In 2018, the farm bill included provisions on hemp production along with restrictions on THC -- tetrahydrocannabinol -- content in the crop.  THC is the component in marijuana, which is attributed to the psychedelic effects.

According to Politico Agriculture (and the USDA), the comment period will be extended from December 30th until January 20th:

GET THOSE HEMP COMMENTS IN: The Agriculture Department extended the deadline for public comment on its proposed hemp regulations from Dec. 30 to Jan. 29, meaning implementation of the new rules could be delayed. That's potentially a problem for aspiring hemp growers getting set for the 2020 planting season, writes Pro Ag's Liz Crampton. 

More than 1,000 comments have been submitted already — and the bulk of the input is likely to come in just before the deadline. USDA's plans cover everything from THC testing to hemp data maintenance. If you need a refresher on the regs: Read up here.

The regulations were released by the USDA back in October of this year.  More information can be found on the following web page on Regulations.  Check it out. 



In the near future, I will be writing more about the chemistry of the CBD production, testing, and market for investing.  Stay tuned!

Ralph Nader: Letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi

Photo: Common Dreams

We are living in unprecedented times.  The United States of America has a background in 'Reality Television' and 'social media.'  That is the extent of his experience that has taken shape over the last few years.  Democrats have taken over the House of Representatives and conducted impeachment proceedings to save the nation from a dangerous leader whose experience is greatly lacking.  Constitutional lawyers have been having a field day over arguing specifics of President Trump's actions while in office.



Which will fill history (and legal books) into the foreseeable future?  I do not pretend to be a lawyer or a legal scholar.  That is why I resort to professionals on the matter of impeachment proceedings.  This is not my territory.  Although, activist lawyer Ralph Nader has experience on these issues.  The current debate between chambers of Congress is over the style of proceedings which will play out in the Senate trial -- in the near future.



In a letter to the Majority Leader of the Senate Mitch McConnell and the Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi, Activist Ralph Nader proposes that Chief Justice John Roberts be allowed to set the procedural rules for Senate impeachment trial:

In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi I, together with Constitutional Law scholars Louis Fisher and Bruce Fein, proposed that the Senate allow Chief Justice John Roberts to prescribe impeachment trial procedures—subject to veto by a Senate majority. In doing so, the Senate would avoid some degree of political infighting and blatant partisan bias. While this approach is not perfect, it would create a more impartial and legitimate impeachment process.

Date: December 27, 2019

TO: Honorable Mitch McConnell

Majority Leader United States Senate

317 Russell Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510

TO: Honorable Nancy Pelosi

The Speaker of the House of Representatives

United State Capitol

Washington, D.C. 20515

FROM: Ralph Nader, Louis Fisher, Bruce Fein

Dear Majority Leader McConnell and Madame Speaker Pelosi:

We, the undersigned, encourage a bipartisan resolution of the current impasse over procedures for the impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump. The trial is too important to the Republic to be left to partisan political ambitions.

We propose that the Senate endow the Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts, who will preside, with authority to prescribe trial procedures, subject to veto by a Senate majority.

Among other things, the procedures would govern the admissibility of evidence, claims of privilege, subpoenas to compel testimony, the burden of proof, direct and cross-examination of witnesses, and, jury instructions as to the elements of an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.

We are convinced that only the Chief Justice can rescue the impeachment trial from the taint of partisanship that would destroy the legitimacy of the outcome. Justice requires the appearance of justice. But both Republican and Democratic Members of Congress have openly proclaimed biases in favor or against President Trump. And citizens generally do not trust Members to be fair. Public confidence in Congress hovers around 10 percent, as opposed to 42 percent for the United States Supreme Court. Many Members of Congress place party loyalty above loyalty to the Constitution and their oaths of office. They crave power, not justice.

Article I, section 3 of the Constitution provides that when sitting as jurors in impeachment trial Senators “shall be on oath or affirmation.” And according to the standing rules of Senate impeachment trials, Senators must swear as follows: “I solemnly swear that in all things pertaining to the trial of the impeachment of ( Donald J. Trump], now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.”

But both Republican and Democratic Senators have made statements inconsistent with impartial justice. In an ordinary courtroom, these Senator-jurors would be disqualified for cause.

Moreover, most if not all Senator-jurors confront conflicts of political interest that would ordinarily justify disqualification. Republicans incline towards acquittal of Mr. Trump to retain control of the White House in 2020, whereas Democrats incline towards conviction to boost their 2020 presidential prospects.

Impeachment procedures ordained by the Republican majority in the Senate or pressured by the Democratic majority in the House will be perceived by an alarming portion of citizens as illegitimate, i.e., calculated to make justice subservient to party ambitions. In contrast, Chief Justice Roberts has earned respect with judicial temperament and robust defense of the impartiality of federal judiciary: “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges or Bush judges or Clinton judges.”

The Chief Justice, of course, has critics. Many Republicans assail his decisions sustaining President Obama’s Affordable Care Act. Many Democrats assail his opinion upholding President Trump’s travel ban and invalidating the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act. A plurality of voters, however, belong to neither party. Chief Justice Roberts, in contrast to the Senate Republican majority or House Democratic majority, is the optimal choice to establish independent and credible procedures for the impeachment trial of President Trump to strengthen public confidence in the outcome.

In the impeachment trial of President William Jefferson Clinton, the Senate unanimously determined trial procedures. Such unanimity cannot be expected today with the appalling spike in partisanship. It seems politically plausible with your support, however, that Senate Republicans and Democrats might agree to hand off responsibility for procedures governing Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial to Chief Justice Roberts.

The delegation to the Chief Justice passes constitutional muster. His procedures could be vetoed by a simple Senate majority. Ultimate authority is thus retained by the upper chamber. And the Constitution itself makes the Chief Justice the presiding officer, which contemplates power to prescribe procedures. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for instance, are promulgated by the United States Supreme Court under the Rules Enabling Act subject to overruling by Congress.

Making the Chief Justice the impresario of the impeachment trial is innovative and imperfect, but markedly less imperfect than every other imaginable option.

We would welcome the opportunity to assist in drafting the proposed rulemaking delegation.

Sincerely, 

Ralph Nader, Louis Fisher, Bruce Fein

P.S. Please call your Senators at 202-224-3121 and urge them to support this modest, but important proposal.

Louis Fisher is a Constitutional Law Scholar who worked for four decades at the Library of Congress as Senior Specialist in Separation of Powers (Congressional Research Service, from 1970 to 2006) and Specialist in Constitutional Law (the Law Library, from 2006 to 2010).

Bruce Fein was Associate Deputy Attorney General and General Counsel to the Federal Communications Commission under President Ronald Reagan. He served on the American Bar Association’s Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements from 2005-2006 and has advised numerous countries on constitutional reform.

Related Blog Posts:



Ralph Nader: Trump Should Be Impeached For Throwing U.S. Into Climate Chaos

Ralph Nader: “I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as President.” Really!


Ralph Nader: Will President Trump Implode with Lies Before He is Impeached?

Ralph Nader: Shame Of A Nation

Ralph Nader: Labor Day and the Lost Opportunities for Labor Discussions

Ralph Nader: Nader pays tribute to old Republican Paul Findley

Ralph Nader: How has Boeing avoided testifying in front of Congress for the 737 Max Airplane disasters?

 Ralph Nader: "What and Who Gave Us Trump?"


Ralph Nader: Youth Can Change Corporate View of Climate Crisis

What Are Activist Ralph Nader's Opinions On Radio News Organizations Such As NPR Or PBS?

Over 600 Environmental Groups write letter to Congress to phase out fossil fuels


Ralph Nader: Post Election -- Next Step -- Open Up The Existing Secretive Congress


Ralph Nader: Warner Slack - Doctor for the People Forever


Ralph Nader: An Open Letter to Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon


Ralph Nader: MAGA is really MADA?


Ralph Nader: Has Corruption Become Institutionalized?


Ralph Nader Says 10 Million People Could Change Healthcare Policy - That Few?


Ralph Nader Suggests To Consumers Reading 'Consumer Reports' Before Impulse Buying


Thoughts: Ralph Nader On A Cashless Economy

Mitigating Pollution from Slaughter Houses -- Why Not Try If Technology Exists?

Photo: Totally Vegan Buzz

Over the last few years of writing this blog site, I have learned a tremendous amount regarding the actions of our government.  Which is complicated in the inner workings to describe it briefly.  Although, when a person considers the vast range of issues that Congress deals with, the fact that any progress can be made is a miracle.



From deciding the budget to regulating the entire workings of the corporations which produce goods for American citizens, Congress has a great deal to choose.  The result of the decisions reflects on them, but more importantly, it provides the safety net for the American consumer.  One example is to protect the safety of the American consumer by regulating the pork industry.  Regulating enough to preserve the food that arrives on the plate each day/night at the table.



Some Americans want more regulation while others want less.  Where does Congress draw the line? Recent reporting from Politico Agriculture introduces the disturbing fact that pollution should be regulated by rules created in the 1970s rather than mitigated by present technology:

EPA SUED OVER SLAUGHTERHOUSE POLLUTION: Green groups including Environment America, Food & Water Watch and the Center for Biological Diversity filed the lawsuit in a U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., challenging the agency’s Oct. 24 decision not to revise federal pollution standards for slaughterhouses that dump wastewater directly into U.S. waterways.

— Under federal clean water laws, the EPA is supposed to review its slaughterhouse water pollution standards every year to determine whether updates are needed to reflect newer technology or methods for controlling pollution.

— But the agency last updated the standards 15 years ago, and more than a third of slaughterhouses that discharge waste directly into rivers and bays are still operating under guidelines from the mid-1970s, according to the environmental coalition.

The Environmental Integrity Project last year released a report claiming that 75 percent of those plants had exceeded legal dumping limits but faced little or no enforcement. Wastewater from meatpacking plants can be tainted by blood, oil and grease and carry pathogens, nitrogen or phosphorus pollutants, the groups said. Read their statement here.

The Agriculture Department is facing a separate lawsuit over its new rule to overhaul pork slaughterhouse inspections. A group of environmental and animal welfare groups filed the challenge in a U.S. District Court in New York on the grounds that USDA’s actions violate procedural guidelines as well as federal laws governing meat inspections and humane slaughter methods. More details here.

Like any other issue facing the nation, the benefits have to outweigh the potential adverse setbacks to the American public.   What setbacks could there be in enforcing clean water around slaughterhouses?  I do not know.  But I am sure when a reader dives into the inner workings of the regulatory procedures for implementing such regulation, the issue is not just black and white.



Although, if the agency is required to look into regulating the pollution coming off from the slaughterhouses as technology progresses over time.   Then, voters expect that Congress would enforce (through a hearing) that the agency looks into the matter periodically.  Otherwise, our elected officials are not doing their due diligence on protecting the nation's primary food source -- pork.  Not to mention, ensuring that each American consumer is protected when they turn on their water faucet.  Each of us deserves to have clean, healthy water.  And each of us deserves to have clean and healthy food. Hopefully, our politicians realize this too.  Happy New Year!!



Related Blog Posts:


Congress Gets Involved In Beef Recall


One Unknown Fact Which Should Cause Consumers To Be Careful About Handling Meat Before Cooking!


How Effective Are Poultry Corporations At Reducing Salmonella In Their Products?