Coal, Commerce and Liberty

  • Share on Tumblr

by Michael Maharrey

The W.V. Coal Miner

Over the last couple of months, we’ve seen increased media attention focused on state efforts opposing the federal health care act passed last year. Along with state legal challenges and health care freedom legislation focused on the insurance mandates, eight states recently proposed bills declaring the entire health care act null and void, and imposing criminal penalties on any agent enforcing the act within their state borders.

But health care does not stand alone as an issue drawing the ire of state lawmakers. Many state legislators have grown increasingly frustrated with overreaching federal activity into areas rightly reserved to the states by agencies such as the EPA and FDA.

West Virginia Assembly Delegate Gary Howell (R-Keyser) recently introduced legislation into the House of Delegates  “establishing that the environmental regulation of coal and certain coal products mined and used within the state are exclusively regulated by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection.”

H.B. 2554 finds its basis in the Ninth and Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as well as the West Virginia state constitution.

“The regulation of intrastate commerce, including the natural environment as affected by intrastate business, is vested in the states under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and is specifically retained by the State of West Virginia according to Section 2, Article I of the West Virginia Constitution.”

The bill enjoys bipartisan support with three Democrats signing on as co-sponsors.

Howell said a recent EPA decision to pull a permit and shut down Spruce 1 mine shocked many state lawmakers and increased the possibility of passing the legislation.

“The odds jumped as West Virginia legislators are looking hard to fire back,” Howell said.

Spruce 1, located in Morgan County, was the largest surface mine permitted in Appalachia. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued the permit in 2007 after a 10 year approval process, which included an assessment indicating the mine met clean water standards. But on Jan. 13, the EPA vetoed the permit and shut down the mine.

“EPA is taking this action under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act because the discharges associated with the DA Permit in Pigeonroost Branch, Oldhouse Branch and their tributaries will have unacceptable adverse effects on wildlife,” reads the agency’s final determination. “In addition, the impacts downstream due to the destruction of those streams will result in unacceptable adverse impacts to wildlife and also warrant EPA’s action under Section 404(c).”

Arch subsidiary Mingo Logan Coal Co. operates the mine. The company stands to lose a $250 million investment and officials estimate it will cost more than 200 high paying jobs.

“To give the EPA that much authority and the willingness to use it means that investors are going to be very cautious about investing in supplying energy when the federal government can nullify those investments and send your workforce home simply because they, on second thought or hindsight, decide that’s what they want to do,” Bill Bledsoe, executive director of the Norton-based Virginia Mining Association, said. “This EPA veto power doesn’t extend only to coal; it extends to anything. It means EPA can come in and shut any operation down without due process.”

Howell said the shutdown of a single mine represents just the tip of an iceberg, with federal regulation  hobbling West Virginia’s coal industry and hitting the state hard in the pocketbook.

“It is costing thousands of jobs and millions in reduced taxes to the state,” he said.

Howell said the bill will face its biggest hurdle in the judiciary committee. He fears committee members may kill the bill, thinking it unconstitutional. But Howell has already considered that possibility.

“Constitutional lawyers from the Cato Institute and the Goldwater Institute have both looked at the bill and say it passes Constitutional muster,” Howell said.

Federal judges would likely disagree. Courts have stretched the commerce clause far beyond its intended meaning, ruling that Congress can regulate virtually anything. But the framers intended the commerce clause to simply regulate trade between states, and never envisioned federal power extending inside state borders or to areas such as mining. James Madison wrote:

“It is very certain that [the commerce clause] grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government.”

(For an in depth look at the original understanding of commerce click here.)

Howell said that his concerns run even deeper than protecting the Mountaineer State’s most important industry. It’s a matter of liberty.

“I’m the direct decedent of one of George Washington’s soldiers. For more than 230 years my family has defended the Constitution by force of arms in the service of our nation,” he said. “I have chosen to serve our nation as an elected official. I’m tired of big government ignoring the Constitution and damaging my state and my nation. I’m fighting back to provide jobs and economic stability to West Virginia by using the very tool the founders gave us as state legislators, the 10th Amendment.”

About Mike Maharrey

Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center. He proudly resides in the original home of the Principles of '98 - Kentucky. See his blog archive here and his article archive here. He also maintains the blog, Tenther Gleanings.

Enjoyed This Post?

We cannot succeed without your help, as we will never accept government grants or handouts. Please help us by investing in the Constitution and freedom today!

Enjoyed This Post?

, , ,

5 comments
Andrew J.
Andrew J.

The interstate commerce clause was originally intended to keep trade between the states 'regular.' Basically, it was to prevent states from enacting tariffs on one another. The states thought this was a fair idea, and therefore agreed to it.

The interstate commerce clause wasn't meant to mandate that everyone purchase a particular good or service to benefit a particular industry. It wasn't meant to prohibit the states from importing whatever good they wanted. It wasn't supposed to be the catch-all justification for whatever powers Congress desires to have.

It was just to make sure that one state could not put up barriers against commerce with other states, because in our nation's early history, the framers of the Constitution did not want the united states to erupt into a massive internal trade war.

Unfortunately, that's not the way it actually works these days.

B. Johnson
B. Johnson

"...I’m fighting back to provide jobs and economic stability to West Virginia by using the very tool the founders gave us as state legislators, the 10th Amendment."

With all due respect to the author of the above statement, the very tool that the Founding States gave state legislators is unique control of the federal Senate as evidenced by Article I, Section 3, Clause 1. Sadly, the Progressive Movement spooked voters into pressuring their state lawmakers to ratify the insane 17th Amendment, unthinkingly giving up the voice of the constitutionally-powerful state legislatures in constitutionally-humbled Congress by doing so. The 10th Amendment hasn't been seen since that time. This is because voters go home after election day and watch football instead of keeping an eye on their senators, an important job which the Founders had intended for the state legislatures to do. Corrupt, progressive senators then take advantage of voter apathy by helping the HoR to pass constitutionally indefensible legislation which not only wrongly usurps unique state powers, but also steals state revenues associated with those powers as evidenced by the following words by Justice John Marshall.

"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." --Chief Justice Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824. http://supreme.justia.com/us/22/1/case.html

What a mess! :^(

F.R. Duplantier
F.R. Duplantier

“The regulation of intrastate commerce, including the natural environment as affected by intrastate business, is vested in the states under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution . . ."

The 9th & 10th Amendments do not vest this power in the states. They affirm that the states and the people had this power prior to the adoption of the Constitution and did not cede it to the federal government. The U.S. Constitution vests no power in the states. The states vest power in the federal government through the Constitution.

Philosopherking
Philosopherking

It is very certain that [the commerce clause] grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a NEGATIVE and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the POSITIVE purposes of the General Government.

Its interesting that the framers had a working understanding of negative and positive rights and law. Positive was compulsion while negative was designed to negate compulsion. A robber takes a positive action against someone while the law negates his action. With that understanding the federal government can't act against someone but can negate the positive action of any state. Further evidence that the commerce clause was meant as a restricting on states and was meant to be used as negative law and not positive law.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TenthAmendmentCenter, Doug Goff, liberty activist, Ron Paul, William Jones and others. William Jones said: Coal, Commerce and Liberty: "I’m fighting back to provide jobs and economic stability to my state by using the v… http://bit.ly/eIG7fA [...]

  2. [...] the original: Coal, Commerce and Liberty – Tenth Amendment Center This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged amendment, commerce, corps, county, engineers, [...]