NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
In an attempt to commit a legislative thief, New York Democrat Governor Kathy Hochul signed the law on December 26. December 26 Called by the law “climate superfund”.
The new state law assigns a handful of energy manufacturers to the only guilt for climate change and imposes adequate financial responsibility for the damage that is stated that the result is in the past or that may occur in the future. Forces Oil and gas companies To pay a divided $ 75 billion fine in a so -called “climate superfund”. New York was the second state that launched such Superfund. Vermont did so last July, and he was fighting a legal challenge to his law filed on December 30th.
AND civil A lawsuit that challenged New York’s law was also filed in the federal court 6 February by state prosecutors, representing 22 countries that will harm if New York can draw the production of energy in these countries. States convincingly cite multiple points of unconstitutional overpass.
EPA administrator returns 31 regulations from the Biden era
These climate laws are, in fact, attempts to find a new way to do the legislatively done what they were forbidden to do in court. Blue states and blue municipalities are trying to convince the courts that they have the power to invent new obligations under the guise of public disorders or consumer fraud on the basis of imagined theories that plague the basic boundaries of the Law on Defense. But they float in that arena. One by one, the courts are increasingly rejecting an adventure.
National climatic lawsuits are targeting the energy industry, but they have failed so far. File: Pumping connections work in front of a drilling equipment in a oil field in Midland in Texas. (Reuters/Nick Oxford)
For example, on February 5, he rejected the superior court in New Jersey New Jersey climate lawsuit Against ExxonMobil, Chevron, Conocophillips, Phillips 66, Shell and the American Petroleum Institute, judgment that climate change requirements are left to federal general law.
This adds the momentum of climate change suits. The cases launched by Baltimore, San Francisco/Oakland, New York City and many others are similarly rejected. And scheduled for March 20, the District of Columbia’s lawsuit against energy companies will be heard in the DC Supreme Court, given the proposal of the accused of rejection.
Do not bet on the legislative efforts of New York, Vermont and others after the climate legislative model of Superfund, which manages better.
Like failed climate cases, the Superfund law is an attempt to New York to bring out a climate policy that, according to the Clean Air Act, the Federal Government argues for the exclusion of states. Federal law provides for the state attempts to engage in the control of cross -border pollution. Only on this basis, the courts can make state efforts when they are interfering with the area left to federal legislation.
But there are many other shortcomings. It is easy to see the superfund law as a monetary female attempt to choose a few pockets outside the country to pay a problem with countless associates. The persuasion of several energy manufacturers to make hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars in the amount of financial fine, no matter how the fees are stylized is simply exaggerated. And the eighth amendment of the Constitution prohibits the imposition of “excessive fines”, and the Supreme Court of the US has recently shown a tendency to give that clause a real meaning and implementation.
Problems with righteousness also play with these laws because they are retroactive – selecting a Fund’s contribution based on the past market share as a way to punish them for their success in the lawful posture of our lights, our homes warm and our economy.
Click here for more Fox News opinions
The fourteenth amendment requires that state law will not “deprive any person of life, freedom or property without the right procedure”, and the courts clearly show that the proceedings do not exist when laws are applied retroactively and punish the lawyer. These laws violate this guarantee precisely because they pronounce a sentence for activities that were perfectly legal.
Indeed, they still remain legal today. New York did not decide to ban energy production. That could not be drawn with that. But he perdesesly tries to have his cake and eat it. Energy production is legal, you will just be punished if you continue to do it.
Like failed climate cases, the Superfund law is an attempt to New York to bring out a climate policy that, according to the Clean Air Act, the Federal Government argues for the exclusion of states.
Another legal powerlessness that panicked on these new climatic laws on the Superfund is that they fit into the obligation to prove the causal -after -efficient relationship -the second request before responsibility can be enclosed if a particular procedure is maintained. Usually, the plaintiff has a burden to prove that the defendant has committed wrong and that the wrong cause of the injury is wrong. And, the responsibility of the defendant is limited to the part of the adverse effect that caused more.
Click here to get the Fox News app
A few cannot be considered responsible for the show of the world, even assuming that the state prevails the first obstacle to proving that even those few have an illegal effect on the climate. You cannot simply laws of fundamental righteousness, reflected in our requirements for a causal and a coup, imposing a punishment through a legislative body that you could not impose through the judicial system.
Courts that have judged the challenges of the laws of New York and Vermont, and other courts that will undoubtedly receive cases from the laws that other followers have accepted should firmly stand on constitutional principles and undo these laws. The whitening was never a legitimate end of the state.
