[Original remark February 25, 2013 and updated August 15th, 2014 California is in a state of emergency and we recommend any state legislature who attempt to enforce this gasoline tax are taken by the military and detained in a federal detention center for an indeterminate amount of time for violation of Californians free trade and commerce laws which are only granted to the national government and a clear violation of the federal constitution. Annotation 32 - Article I THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AS A RESTRAINT ON STATE POWERS - see more below. This gasoline tax hike will not take place in California. Also California State Board of Equalization Board members appear to have instigated and been involved with increased gasoline taxes on California, but in addition state legislation has been enacted to secretly raise the price of gasoline an unheard of 13 to 20 cents a gallon in California. Fire this entire group of people from the California State Board of Equalization and we recommend 3 months in a federal detention center based on what a military court-martial determines should be appropriate and felony conviction remains permanently on their record. No chance for reemployment with any city, state, country, federal jobs and complete loss of state pensions.] August 13th, 2014 Cap and Raid The ruling class likes to portray its predations as targeting the rich, the one percent, and those at the top. In reality, the Pillage People target everybody, particularly working people. For example, in January, government regulations will cause California’s already high gasoline prices to jump 13 to 20 cents a gallon. This is the result of AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, authored by state senator Fran Pavley, an Agoura Hills Democrat, and signed by Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The legislation seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. On January 1, 2015, motor vehicle fuels will be included in the scheme, operated by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). As that date looms, legislators and business owners alike have been pushing for relief. In June, 16 Democratic legislators wrote to CARB boss Mary Nichols. The group’s leader, Fresno assemblyman Henry Perea, said the gasoline price hike would hurt “the most vulnerable members of our communities who must commute to work and drive long distances for necessary services like medical care.” So motor vehicle fuels should be left out, and Perea went on record saying that “the cap-and-trade system should not be used to raise billions in state funds at the expense of low-income motorists.” More recently, florist Jim Relles wrote in the Sacramento Bee that “just as our economy is recovering from the recession, extending cap and trade to fuel will strike a blow to those who can least afford it because for many, even a slight increase in gas prices takes a gouge out of the shrinking family budget.” And small businesses like Relles’ will take a hit. Such pleas are not likely to cut any slack with California governor Jerry Brown. He wants one-third of the cap-and-trade funds for his high-speed rail program, including $250 million this fiscal year. Likewise, workers and small business owners can expect little sympathy from Brown’s CARB boss Mary Nichols, a longtime advocate of high gasoline prices. With Nichols, climate change superstition trumps the facts. Hien Tran, lead author of a CARB study on diesel emissions, claimed to have a PhD from UC Davis. He actually bought his PhD from a diploma mill in New York. His study was also faulty, but Nichols did not fire him. This enabler of fraud is not likely to provide relief, and neither is Jerry Brown, who sees gold in those regulations. As in Washington, politicians and unelected regulators are number one. Workers and taxpayers aren’t even number two. mygovcost.org/2014/08/13/cap-and-raid/ Annotation 32 - Article I THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AS A RESTRAINT ON STATE POWERS - see more below. The grant of power to Congress over commerce, unlike that of power to levy customs duties, the power to raise armies, and some others, is unaccompanied by correlative restrictions on state power. 840 This circumstance does not, however, of itself signify that the States were expected to participate in the power thus granted Congress, subject only to the operation of the supremacy clause. As Hamilton pointed out in The Federalist, 841 while some of the powers which are vested in the National Government admit of their concurrent exercise by the States, others are of their very nature exclusive, and hence render the notion of a like power in the States contradictory and repugnant. As an example of the latter kind of power, Hamilton mentioned the power of Congress to pass a uniform naturalization law. Was the same principle expected to apply to the power over foreign and interstate commerce? Unquestionably one of the great advantages anticipated from the grant to Congress of power over commerce was that state interferences with trade, which had become a source of sharp discontent under the Articles of Confederation, would be thereby brought to an end. As Webster stated in his argument for appellant in Gibbons v. Ogden: The prevailing motive was to regulate commerce; to rescue it from the embarrassing and destructive consequences, resulting from the legislation of so many different States, and to place it under the protection of a uniform law. 842 In other words, the constitutional grant was itself a regulation of commerce in the interest of uniformity. 843 - See more at: constitution.findlaw/article1/annotation32.html#sthash.xhCKnvmV.dpuf
Posted on: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 23:31:02 +0000