Is Mr. Jefferson Available for a Declaration

Unfortunately few of my students are familiar with the Declaration of Independence. They've heard of it certainly, but they couldn't tell you much about its contents or even the relationship of the document to our Constitution, the Revolution or our republican form of government. Told that it was a summary of the grievances against our colonial masters and the rationale for separating from British rule, they nod slack-jawed and go back to texting friends from beneath the surface of their college desk.

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for a people to point out to their government that they reach too far, they tax too heavily, they fail to represent then it becomes a distinct possibility that some declaration is in order. Where is the honorable Mr. Jefferson when we need him?

Read this carefully:

Your Exhalation Becomes a Pollutant and Law is What We Make it When We Choose

The EPA freely admit that the application of law was never what was intended, but it gets them some authority to make it fit:

The EPA has now formally made an "endangerment finding" on CO2, which will impose the command-and-control regulations of the Clean Air Act across the entire economy. Because this law was never written to apply to carbon, the costs will far exceed those of a straight carbon tax or even cap and trade

Mercury in the water is dangerous. PCBs in your food are toxic. Carbon dioxide is a product of life. We take in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. Plants take in CO2 and return oxygen. It's the cycle of life, not endangerment.

If you wish to really delve into Wonderland and the convoluted thinking of Lewis Carrol's fantasy work, try this piece of justification on for size:

The EPA admits that it is "departing from the literal application of statutory provisions." But it says the courts will accept its revision because literal application will produce results that are "so illogical or contrary to sensible policy as to be beyond anything that Congress could reasonably have intended."

See, if you don't like the way the law is written you can just apply the "absurd result" criterion. But an intelligent man might want to ask, "absurd" by whose standard? I've got to say that I think it is absurdity of the highest order to create a bureaucratic empire of taxation and increased costs on the cycle of normal life. I think it reaches beyond absurdity to the level of insanity to do this during a period of economic recession. I think it becomes criminal when it will cripple our national economy, have no impact on the rest of the world and won't do a damned thing about climate change which increasingly is being shown to be a non-existant issue.

...we hold these truths to be self-evident...that it is becoming time for a change, one we can not only believe in, but one which is absolutely necessary if we are to survive.