Honduras Got It Right

Honduras Got it Right

The “military coup” in Honduras is an example of constitutional law working to remove an out of control executive.  The government of Honduras used legal means to make the change.  The people of the United States should take notes and act on them.  We have regular elections here too.

There has been a lot of news recently about international doings.  Iran had an election that is hotly disputed to the point of people demonstrating in the streets and videos showing the deaths of innocent passers by.  North Korea is launching missiles again.  Honduras had a “military coup”.  President Obama was strangely late to comment on the doings of Iran and North Korea and very quick to criticize the goings on in Honduras.  Why?

Unless President Obama tells us we cannot be sure.  Perhaps it is because the current president is following in the footsteps of the last several presidents and is clearly in favor of a more powerful executive.  One explanation is that President Obama is really speaking in favor of powerful executives instead of the rule of law.  A powerful executive in Iran is maintaining power in the face of a questionable election.  A powerful executive in North Korea is launching missiles and acting aggressively.  A powerful executive in Honduras is thrown out of office via legal and constitutional means.  That’s terrible!

Some background is in order.  President Manuel Zelaya was escorted from his home at the end of June by the military of Honduras.  Zelaya was in the process of seeking an extra-legal referendum to change the constitution to remove or extend Presidential term limits.  A referendum of this type would need the support of congress and there was no congressional support for this referendum.  Zelaya went so far as to secure ballots from Hugo Chavez for the election which ballots were then seized by the military of Honduras.  Zelaya would not stand for that and used an armed mob of people to take the ballots back.

The Supreme Court of Honduras previously ruled on the proposed referendum and the actions of Zelaya in continuing to force the election without the support of congress.  These actions were in violation of the Constitution of Honduras.  When the top General of the Honduran military refused to aid Zelaya in carrying out the referendum he was fired.  Zelaya was clearly seeking power using any means necessary.

Faced with an executive who refused to follow the law, the Supreme Court of Honduras issued an order to detain Zelaya which order was carried out by the military.  This military act was to preserve the integrity of the constitution and rule of law in Honduras.  Once Zelaya was removed from the country, a replacement was named by the congress from the same political party as Zelaya.  It was an orderly and minimally violent change of power in Honduras and the forms of government remained intact.  The regular November elections are scheduled to go forward as usual.

In spite of this turn of events and the orderly transfer of power from an out of control executive, Honduras is facing voluminous international criticism for these actions.  The real focus of criticism should be on Zelaya and his total disdain for the rule of law in his own country.

What about here in the United States?  We have an executive that is clearly pursuing actions in violation of the constitution and established law.  For example, the bankruptcy of Chrysler agreement violated more than 150 years of bankruptcy law by giving preferential treatment to other creditors before bond holders.  This was a violation of bankruptcy law, a possible “taking” under the Fifth Amendment, and a possible violation of other portions of the Constitution.  Why is congress sitting idly by?

Congress is enjoying the growth of governmental power too.  Each and every new regulation, area of regulation, and tax assessed against the people of the United States brings more power to the government.  The new laws and programs instituted by the President bring more power and money to the government of the United States.  Spending Billions and Trillions of dollars brings great power and influence.

When the people of Honduras were faced with an out of control President who had no regard for the laws of the land, the legal means to handle the situation were employed and the President was removed.  The people of the United States need to use the legal means at our disposal to remove out of control politicians and stand up for the rule of law instead of the rule of man.

Honduras did it right and we should follow their example.

Honduras Got it Right

The “military coup” in Honduras is an example of constitutional law working to remove an out of control executive.  The government of Honduras used legal means to make the change.  The people of the United States should take notes and act on them.  We have regular elections here too.

There has been a lot of news recently about international doings.  Iran had an election that is hotly disputed to the point of people demonstrating in the streets and videos showing the deaths of innocent passers by.  North Korea is launching missiles again.  Honduras had a “military coup”.  President Obama was strangely late to comment on the doings of Iran and North Korea and very quick to criticize the goings on in Honduras.  Why?

Unless President Obama tells us we cannot be sure.  Perhaps it is because the current president is following in the footsteps of the last several presidents and is clearly in favor of a more powerful executive.  One explanation is that President Obama is really speaking in favor of powerful executives instead of the rule of law.  A powerful executive in Iran is maintaining power in the face of a questionable election.  A powerful executive in North Korea is launching missiles and acting aggressively.  A powerful executive in Honduras is thrown out of office via legal and constitutional means.  That’s terrible!

Some background is in order.  President Manuel Zelaya was escorted from his home at the end of June by the military of Honduras.  Zelaya was in the process of seeking an extra-legal referendum to change the constitution to remove or extend Presidential term limits.  A referendum of this type would need the support of congress and there was no congressional support for this referendum.  Zelaya went so far as to secure ballots from Hugo Chavez for the election which ballots were then seized by the military of Honduras.  Zelaya would not stand for that and used an armed mob of people to take the ballots back.

The Supreme Court of Honduras previously ruled on the proposed referendum and the actions of Zelaya in continuing to force the election without the support of congress.  These actions were in violation of the Constitution of Honduras.  When the top General of the Honduran military refused to aid Zelaya in carrying out the referendum he was fired.  Zelaya was clearly seeking power using any means necessary.

Faced with an executive who refused to follow the law, the Supreme Court of Honduras issued an order to detain Zelaya which order was carried out by the military.  This military act was to preserve the integrity of the constitution and rule of law in Honduras.  Once Zelaya was removed from the country, a replacement was named by the congress from the same political party as Zelaya.  It was an orderly and minimally violent change of power in Honduras and the forms of government remained intact.  The regular November elections are scheduled to go forward as usual.

In spite of this turn of events and the orderly transfer of power from an out of control executive, Honduras is facing voluminous international criticism for these actions.  The real focus of criticism should be on Zelaya and his total disdain for the rule of law in his own country.

What about here in the United States?  We have an executive that is clearly pursuing actions in violation of the constitution and established law.  For example, the bankruptcy of Chrysler agreement violated more than 150 years of bankruptcy law by giving preferential treatment to other creditors before bond holders.  This was a violation of bankruptcy law, a possible “taking” under the Fifth Amendment, and a possible violation of other portions of the Constitution.  Why is congress sitting idly by?

Congress is enjoying the growth of governmental power too.  Each and every new regulation, area of regulation, and tax assessed against the people of the United States brings more power to the government.  The new laws and programs instituted by the President bring more power and money to the government of the United States.  Spending Billions and Trillions of dollars brings great power and influence.

When the people of Honduras were faced with an out of control President who had no regard for the laws of the land, the legal means to handle the situation were employed and the President was removed.  The people of the United States need to use the legal means at our disposal to remove out of control politicians and stand up for the rule of law instead of the rule of man.

Honduras did it right and we should follow their example.

Comments Welcome

Cap and Trade Hurts

CAP AND TRADE HURTS

Cap and Trade. Sounds simple enough and earth friendly, right? We just limit our emissions of greenhouse gasses for a better future. Not this time. It will be a barrier to new business pursuits and cause increases in our basic cost of living.

Congress has just passed a bill that will empower the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) to implement new regulations on the emission of carbon dioxide (CO₂). This is a major problem for every hard working Utahan.

We all want to take care of the planet, we all want a cleaner environment and a better place for our children to live. We just need to do it in a way that is fair, makes sense and is scientifically sound.

Back in the early 1990’s, the EPA implemented a cap and trade policy on power plants and factories to clean up air pollution. One of the main targets of this regulation was sulfur dioxide gas(SO₂). These SO₂ emissions caused acid rain which was a legitimate threat to many ecosystems. The rules limited SO₂ emissions at a set level for each business and if any one business wanted to emit excess pollutants they would have to buy additional pollution allowances on the market. These regulations on emissions created an artificial market for pollution credits for SO₂. It has worked out fairly well with SO₂ emissions down in many areas and sales of low sulfur coal increasing as one inexpensive way to cut down on SO₂ emissions. New businesses found ways to clean up their emissions to reduce their SO₂ output and not have to buy pollution credits. This regulatory scheme worked to clean up the air. The new regulations passed by Congress will not clean up the air and will hurt business development while raising our cost of living.

The new regulation targets CO₂ as a green house gas contributing to global warming and seeks to reduce CO₂emissions. This is problematic on many levels.

First, regardless of what you may have heard or read there is no monolithic consensus in the scientific community about global warming. There is warming and cooling and the most recent iteration of this danger to the planet is called global climate change. We actually appear to be entering cooling cycle now.

Second, even if global warming is happening, the human based impact on greenhouse gasses is not significant. There are many natural sources of methane gas from swamp lands and tropical climates. Forest fires produce large amounts of CO₂. The global warming gasses from human sources versus natural sources are very minor in comparison.

Third, clean CO₂ emissions were the goal of many EPA regulations from the 1990’s. When something is burned and CO₂ is the only emission it means that a complete burning of the source fuel was accomplished and the other pollutants were cleaned from the emissions and the environment is better off for it. After so many years of seeking to clean up emissions so that only clean, pure, environmentally friendly CO₂ was emitted from so many sources, the EPA is going to regulate that too? It boggles the mind.

Fourth, CO₂ is one of the most natural and beneficial ambient gasses in the world. It is produced by breathing air and is recycled back into oxygen by plant life. It is basic biology and science. CO₂ makes up less than one half of one percent of the earth’s atmosphere and some scientists believe that a greater amount of CO₂ will promote additional growth of plant life.

By putting a “cap and trade” regulation for CO₂, there will be penalties and problems for all EPA regulated industries that emit it. Coal fired power plants will have to pay more no matter how clean they are. Any EPA regulated industry that relies on heat produced by coal or natural gas will be forced to operate under the cap and trade allowances for CO₂.

There were unintended consequences from prior cap and trade regulatory schemes. In the 1990’s companies were limited by mandate on SO₂ emissions. If they kept under their limits they were allowed to bank and then sell these pollution credits to other companies. In some cases, companies that went bankrupt still had the pollution credits they could sell to other companies making it profitable for the company owner to remain closed instead of reopening and creating new jobs.

There were rumors a few years ago about Kennecott Copper moving their smelting operations overseas and shipping the ore there instead of smelting here. Under these new regulations that could make the option even more likely.  If Kennecott found they would make more money selling their CO₂ credits instead of using them here it would make better business sense to move smelting operations overseas. Whether the smelting operations are moved or not the caps on CO₂emissions will make smelting operations more expensive and will prohibit increased production from the mine due to increased costs.

Electrical Power in Utah primarily comes from coal fired power plants. The power plants cleaned up their emissions quite nicely to be emitting CO₂ without the more odious gasses. Under the new cap and trade rules, the electricity produced will cost more for everyone and these increased operating costs will be passed down to the average consumer as a hidden tax, or inflation, or whatever you call increased costs from overt government regulation.

Any new manufacturing businesses would still be at a disadvantage with these cap and trade policies. No matter how clean burning the equipment, the mere fact that CO₂ is emitted would cause problems for them and they would have to pay more to open here than in another country. Existing businesses will have an incentive to quit growing. Energy costs will go up and the cost of everything will increase under this regulatory framework.

The Cap and Trade bill will not do anything to save the environment, improve our lifestyle, or encourage business in an already difficult economy. It is merely imposing regulation for the benefit of government by creating a new income stream via the auction of pollution credits and passing the cost onto the hard working people that get things done.

Shame on Congress for passing it.

Comments Welcome