Trump is Reducing Clean Water Protection in the United States

Position Overview

The EPA is withdrawing from the 2015 Rule that manages American water ways which reduces the amount of water (water ways) that the agency governs.  

This action is being taken because of Executive Order linked below.

Water is only second to clean air as the most important resource on earth.

Every living thing on earth depends on clean water.  It is necessary to life and to a safe and healthy environment.

It is the responsibility of all people and governments to maintain a healthy environment.

Water, no matter where it is, needs to be kept clean, safe and natural.

The EPA should be in the lead on protecting clean water and not withdrawing from protecting United States waterways.

The EPA needs to expand clean water protections by not only maintaining the 2015 Rule but expand the EPA's regulatory protection to all water in the United States.

https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/documents-associated-2015-clean-water-rule 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Water_Rule 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-executive-order-restoring-rule-law-federalism-economic-growth-reviewing-waters-united-states-rule/ 

Trump is Meting Out Retribution to New York for the Green Light NY Program

Trump is denying the Trusted Traveler Program to residents of New York because they instituted the Green Light Program.

The Trusted Traveler program is a program established by DHS to pre check and clear travelers that frequently fly.

The Green Light Program is a New York program that provides driver's licenses to all residents regardless of their citizenship or immigration status.

Application for the Trusted Traveler Program does not require a driver's license; passport or proof of resident is all that is needed.

Since the Trusted Traveler program doesn't require a driver's license, it appears that the Trump Administration is meting out retribution for the Green Light Program.

Trump continues to wield the power of the Executive Branch well beyond the authority that the Constitution, Congress or the courts have allowed.

Trump in this case, has no authority to issue the suspension of the Trusted Traveler Program to the residents of New York.

                        

DHS Trusted Traveler Program

https://ttp.dhs.gov/ 

Green Light NY Program

https://greenlightnewyork.org/

DHS suspends Global Entry, Trusted Traveler Programs for New York residents in response to sanctuary law. 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dhs-global-entry-trusted-traveler-new-york-ice-sanctuary-law

“Stop Giving Big Oil Free Money Act”

“Stop Giving Big Oil Free Money Act” would end a loophole that allowed oil and gas companies to avoid paying $18 billion.

Should a 1995 financial break to incentivize offshore drilling remain 24 years later?

Responsible Community’s Position:

With huge deficits at the Federal level, we are not able to afford continued tax breaks that aren’t necessary.

The United States now has excess oil production.

The temporary reprieves that were intended to be in the act were “accidentally” omitted, so the reprieves should be removed.

Oil company profits for 2018 (latest available) was $28 billion, they hardly need incentive to drill for oil.

This bill should be supported in both the House (H.R. 5186) and the Senate (S 2906).

Context

The Deep Water Royalty Relief Act of 1995 — part of a larger 1995 law dealing with energy production — attempted to spur oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, by offering companies temporary reprieves from the 12% royalty they were supposed to pay on the produced oil.

However, a clause supported across the aisle — which would have instituted the royalty payments if oil and gas prices exceeded a certain level — was accidentally omitted. Those price thresholds were exceeded years ago. Since then about $18 billion in would-be royalties were never paid.

What the legislation does

The Stop Giving Big Oil Free Money Act would close this quarter-century-old loophole, by banning the Interior Department from issuing any new offshore drilling lease to a company which already holds a royalty-free lease.

The ban would only be lifted for a company if they negotiate their existing lease to a new price threshold, presumably to begin paying royalties on it.

The House version was introduced on November 20 as bill number H.R. 5186, by Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ3). The Senate version was introduced the same day as bill number S. 2906, by Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA).

What supporters say

Supporters argue the legislation closes a loophole that neither party intended nor would have supported at the time.

“This money belongs to the American people, and some of the most profitable companies in the world are keeping it for themselves because they think they’re entitled to it,” Rep. Grijalva said in a press release. “This money should be building roads and providing health care for veterans. We have to decide once and for all whether the public or fossil fuel corporations really own our lands and waters.”

“Big Oil gets handout after handout straight from the pockets of the American people, all to fuel our fossil fuel addiction that is driving the climate crisis,” Sen. Markey said in the same press release. “It’s time to stop treating oil and gas companies like tax royalty and close this free drilling loophole once and for all.”

What opponents say

Opponents counter that the status quo provided a huge boost to the energy industry, to the point that the U.S. is now almost completely self-sufficient for energy.

The original 1995 law “was a bipartisan program signed into law by President Clinton that jumpstarted the U.S. offshore oil and natural gas industry,” National Ocean Industries Association President Erik Milito said in a statement.

“Between 2000 and 2018, a stronger U.S. offshore industry generated more than $122 billion for the Federal government through high bids, royalties and rents and helped unlock a higher quality of life through affordable and reliable energy,” Milito continued.

“Instead of sending jobs, economic growth and energy security abroad, Washington, D.C. policymakers should find new solutions that help America remain the offshore energy leader.”

Odds of passage

The House version has attracted one Democratic cosponsor, Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-CA47). It awaits a potential vote in the House Natural Resources Committee, where Rep. Lowenthal is the Chair of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, making a vote there likely.

The Senate version has not yet attracted any cosponsors. It awaits a potential vote in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources. Odds of passage are low in the Republican-controlled chamber.

This article was written by GovTrack Insider staff writer Jesse Rifkin.

Links

https://govtrackinsider.com/stop-giving-big-oil-free-money-act-would-end-a-loophole-that-allowed-oil-and-gas-companies-to-d7dcfcc9eefc

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr5186

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/s2906

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/edward_markey/400253

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/raul_grijalva/400162

Ban Corporate PACs

Here is a posting from GovTrack about H.R. 5129 2019.  I fully support it.  Corporations have no business in the political arena. 

Ban Corporate PACs Act would do just that.

GovTrack.us

Follow

Dec 13 · 3 min read

Rep. Max Rose (D-NY11)

Should corporate money be removed from politics, or is it a necessary component of free speech?

Context

Some corporations set up or fund affiliated organizations called Political Action Committees, or PACs, to fund advertisements and other expenditures intended to influence political or policy outcomes.

For last year’s midterm elections, 1,732 corporate PACs spent $404.8 million. That’s more than for any of the other biggest PAC categories: labor, trade, membership, or cooperative. Democrats decry this corporate money as corrupting.

Others note that corporate PACs are already limited in their potential and scope, since their $5,000 donation cap to an individual candidate has remained unchanged since 1974. (So-called “super PACs,” created by the Supreme Court’s 2010 deregulatory decision Citizens United v. FEC, have no such monetary limits. Corporations can contribute to super PACs and this bill doesn’t appear to affect that.)

What the bill does

The Ban Corporate PACs Act would fulfill its title, by eliminating the ability of for-profit companies or corporations to fund an organization intended to influence policy. The bill would also eliminate any existing corporate PACs within one year.

It was introduced in the House on November 15 as bill number H.R. 5129, by Rep. Max Rose (D-NY11).

What supporters say

Supporters argue that corporate money influences election and policy outcomes, when the only variable should be the will of the American voters.

“Corporate PACs flood this city with contributions, but it’s not the American people’s priorities they have in mind — it’s their own bottom lines,” Rep. Rose said in a press release. “That’s wrong and at the root of Washington corruption. That’s why we must send a clear, unmistakable message to the American people that we are here to fight for them and only them — not the special interests and corporate PACs.”

What opponents say

Opponents counter that the fear of corporate money in politics is overblown, and indeed that it’s a protected right as a subset of the First Amendment’s free speech clause.

“It’s not corporate money or campaign donations that help keep incumbency rates high,” Ed Krayewski wrote for Reason. “Through earmarks and other legislative means, members of Congress can direct federal funds to their districts. The longer they’re in office, the better they get at bringing funds to their district, the more likely constituents are to vote to re-elect their representative whether they agree with his politics or not, simply because the legislator brings home the bacon.”

“Taxpayer money in politics seems a lot more corrosive than corporate money,” Krayewski continued. “Politicians have effectively unlimited access to use taxpayer money in order to enrich themselves and ingratiate themselves with their constituents.”

Odds of passage

The bill has attracted four House cosponsors, all Democrats. It awaits a potential vote in the House Administration Committee.

Odds of passage are low in the Republican-controlled Senate.

It is my belief I must clearly make a statement about my goal in staging protests and what lines I will not cross.

I will not harm anyone.

I will not destroy or deface property that isn't mine.

I will not carry a weapon at anytime during my protests.

I will not store weapons in car.

I will not aide anyone that is destroying property or injuring someone.

I will respect police and other authorities that are doing their duty.

I will not resist arrest or temporary restraint by authorities.

I will not conspire with anyone about breaking any law or injuring anyone.

I will follow all laws that I am aware of.

I will ask what crime I am committing when authorities try to intimidated me.

I will in direr moments, when I can, send a message for my family and friends that I am under restraint or arrest.

I will in direr moments, when I can, send a message to my family and friends that I am about to be or have been injured.

I will act alone with no one else's knowledge about my activities, unless I am in a group that has made their plans in advance.

I will not act with a spontaneously group that has gathered to protest or challenge evidence currently unfolding in front of me.

I will not interfere with police or other authoritative action in an illegal manner.

I will be as open as possible about my activities.

I will not implicate others that may have acted on their own unless they broke the law, then I will be open about their personal activities only.

I will not associate with anyone that is either planning to brake the law or spontaneously braking any law that I am aware of.

If arrested, I will ask for a lawyer and demand one until I have one. 

Social Media Outlets and Executive Orders

Where does it say in the Constitution that the President has the power to regulate media?   

Trump recently stated that he is considering an executive order that will regulate Google, Facebook and other online social media outlets because they hide issues and evidence about conservative tenets yet promote liberal viewpoints.   

Trump makes these claims about the media outlets without any evidence, but this blog will still examine the idea of an executive order to regulate media. 

Even if the social media outlets did downplay conservative issues while at the same time promoting liberal ones, as Trump suggests, they have every right to do as they please. 

So, let’s look at four issues, three of which are clauses in the 1st amendment and a third that is a logical application from many Supreme Court decisions: 

• - A clause in the 1st amendment says Congress has no power to regulate the press; 
• - Another clause states that there shall be no law preventing people from assembling; 
• - A third clause states that people shall have a right to petition the government to answer to their concerns; and, 
• - The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are “people” when applying Constitutional principle. (1) 

Here is the 1st amendment in its entirety: 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 

Here are details to the issues. 

The first clause that prevents the President from regulating the press is: 

• - “Congress shall make no law respecting…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” 

The legality of recent executive orders aside, it is still a legal instrument of the United States government.   

Since Executive orders are an instrument of the government, it has no power to order any action that is against Constitutional principles. 

An executive order that is issued by the President directing social media outlets to follow guidelines or issue rules that regulates the social media outlet’s content, is unconstitutional. 

The second clause in the 1st amendment that prevents the President from issuing an executive order that restrict the social media outlets is: 

• - Congress shall make no law that prevents “the right of the people peaceably to assemble”. 

Assembling is not always as we think of it, that is, people physically being in the same geographic place at the same time.   

Assembling can also be a formal network of people that belong to an organization, or, it can be an informal assembly of people that visit a website throughout their day. 

The website, in this case, a social media outlet, has the right to draw to it only the people who are the same mindset as the outlet or its owners. 

To attract the people the outlet wants, it will present information and entertainment that is deemed important and useful to these people. 

This is no different than a campaign rally held by a presidential candidate.  The candidate will only want his or her supporters at the event.   

With only having people that support the candidate at the event it avoids hecklers and others that may present opposing arguments to the statements made by the candidate. 

An executive order that violates the outlet’s ability to draw the type of people they want to their site is unconstitutional. 

The third clause of the 1st amendment states that people have a right to ask the government to address their issues. 

• - “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” 

A social media outlet may from time to time, present facts, information and entertainment that they want the government and the culture to address. 

To confuse the user of the outlet about which issues they want the government to address means that less people will choose to join the outlet in asking the government to address issues. 

Let’s return to above about a presidential campaign rally. 

The candidate stands on the stage alone backed by people that support him.   

The people behind the candidate are chosen because of their support of the presidential candidate. 

The signs, the clothes and the actions they take are in support of the candidate and no others are allowed.  

It is so the candidate can say these are my ideas and these people support me. 

No different then a social media outlet doing the same thing. 

An executive order that forces the outlet to present information that isn’t consistent with their goals would be a violation of the Constitution. 

Finally, the Supreme Court rulings that decided that corporations are people. 

• - Numerous Supreme Court rulings (2) 

All the above presented arguments are meant to be directed at individuals.  After all, that is the focus of the Constitution. 

But social media outlets are corporations, not unlike many other media outlets such as the New York Times, the ABC network and CBS radio.   

The Supreme Court has ruled many times about extending Constitutional rights to corporations, all in favor of expanding their rights and not retracting them. (2) 

Since corporations are afforded the same rights as individuals, then all rights that are explicitly and implicitly in the Constitution apply to corporations. 

The 1st amendment of the Constitution apply to corporations and an executive order that limits 1st amendment rights is unconstitutional.  

In conclusion: 

- An executive order that is issued by a President that directs social media outlets to follow guidelines or issue rules that regulates the social media outlet’s content, is unconstitutional. 

- An executive order that violates the outlet’s ability to draw the type of people they want to their site is unconstitutional. 

- An executive order that forces the outlet to present information that isn’t consistent with their goals would be a violation of the Constitution. 

- The 1st amendment of the Constitution apply to corporations and an executive order that limits 1st amendment rights is unconstitutional.  

Any President issuing an executive order that regulates social media outlets is in violation of Constitutional principles and Supreme Court rulings. 

1. (1) The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are “people” when applying Constitutional principles. While I don’t think that was a correct decision, I am going with it right now.  Both, because it is the “Law” but also because those on the right that might agree with Trump most likely support the Corporations are People concept. 

2. (2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood