North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem is announcing a lawsuit against the State of Minnesota over the latter state’s restrictions on using power from coal plants, among other sources.
“It is unfortunate it has come to this. As Minnesota seeks to rebuild its economy, it will need energy,” said Stenehjem in a press release. “Much of that energy will need to come from sources outside Minnesota.”
In its lawsuit, North Dakota alleges that the Next Generation Energy Act violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, unconstitutionally interfering with North Dakota’s energy production. The NGEA imposes prohibitions on energy imported from North Dakota, and while the law does make some exemptions the State of North Dakota is alleging that those exemptions benefit only Minnesota-based businesses and projects.
So States now feel the have the right to sue other States. Wow. Kind of humorous actually. This kind of bullying has been the goal of large corporations for a long time, and they’ve mostly succeeded. States are acting like large corporations, or vice versa.
States ARE essentially (and maybe legally) corporations and of course they can sue other states. Imagine a policy in MN led to massive pollution to the Mississippi river, affecting downriver states. They’d have the right to sue.
Don’t think States are legally corporations. I’m kind of surprised you aren’t sure about this and yet try to comment on it anyway. You usually aren’t so sloppy, not at least that is so obvious anyway.
After further thought on this however, I think you, Dan, were more correct than I was. This country of ours, i.e. the Federal Government, IS run in a corporate manner, and the States likewise. Now, of course, that wasn’t the original intent, and it is THE major cause of all or most of our current problems. And IT WILL be the cause of our downfall (occurring as we speak -ingnited by the infamous “Reagan revolution”).
It is not “bullying” it is reality. Dan is correct.
So now you guys like suing? As long as it isn’t “frivolous” meaning someone other than a corporation or State suing perhaps a corporation or a State. That’s convenient, for the big guys anyway. The example Dan so graciously provided is like comparing apples and oranges. And my point that big business/ big anybody has gained much clout in this area is no small issue or one to be dismissed so lightly as you Rightys are doing so knee-jerkedly. Not that I’m surprised though.
Oh and what happened to your infatuation with States’ Rights?!
You, RNH, know nothing about what a “frivolious” suit is and all can tell by your comments. “someone other than a corporation or State”???? Your words. No wonder we have problems today. Your ignorance is showing quite brightly I must say.
I don’t know. I am not a lawyer. It seems to me though that this is where it should be, in the courts. If they have a legal leg to stand on then they might have a chance. If they don’t, they don’t. We’ll have to wait and see where this goes.
There is another story out there that interests me more. And that is this one:
“Wind farms, along with solar power and other alternative energy sources, are supposed to produce the energy of tomorrow. Evidence indicates that their countless whirring fan blades produce something else: “blank spots” that distort radar readings.
Now government agencies that depend on radar — such as the Department of Defense and the National Weather Service — are spending millions in a scramble to preserve their detection capabilities.”
You guys just prove my points over and over again. You demonstrate your biases constantly. As for Joe, my statement stands. When people refer to firvolous lawsuits, they are 99.9 % of the time referring to average individuals or even groups of average individuals (women employees vs. Walmart, e.g.) trying to obtain justice from a larger entity, such as a corporation, or employer. So as far as ignorance goes, Joe, the pot trying to call the kettle black is the epitomy of such. You either need to read more carefully or refrain from such absurdly hypocritical comments.
Stand by my statement. That’s part of today’s problems, frivolious law suits (without merit) that everyone if sued must defend be you an individual or a corporation. In my opinion the losing party must pay the costs incurred by the other party. Only then people may think twice about filing frivolious law suits. Unfortunately the trial lawyers don’t agree with my assessment. Called tort reform.
Wow RNH, You are all over the place. I bet if the UAW was to sue a Ford Motor CO. you would not call it bullying would you…. Hypocryte. I bet if GA sued GW you would not call it Bullying would you.
And what about States Rights. I agree that States have the Rights to Goveren themselves… And MN can choose to buy Their power anywhere they want to but to make a law that causes an artificial cost to a power Co that creates and unfair advantage in violation of The Interstate Comerce Act… that is a legual pronlem that can only be remidied by the appropriate court. BUT you just want to run your mouth and show how smart you are….. News flash buddy… it backfired…
Oh my, how you try to put one in his place. Obey, do not question our authority, superior knowledge, etc etc. Calling me a hypocrite based upon your ASSUMPTIONS and/or PROJECTIONS is… well… I can’t think of a polite response to that so I won’t. FYI- there are other people who use the word RANT to describe ME, not the other way around. This is an example of hypocrisy. You folks really need to stop for a few seconds at least and imagine what you are saying ans how it reflects upon you before typing. But then again, I have already requested this, for your own benefit, to no avail. You apparenlty do not realize how you are being viewed by others. It doesn’t matter to you, so I don’t know why it matters to me…?! And “tort reform” is a learned dog whistle to the shick troops of the the Right. Congrats for being the good soldier for the elite and their status quo superiority. woof woof
shock troops… but you know who you are….
Just what is your point? Nonsensical statements are common with you lately.
Sorry, I guess I keep forgetting you don’t seem to understand simple english. Or is it that you can’t help but reply in your own nonsensical fashion? My post is plain and simply written. That you would of course disagree with it goes without saying, so why not add substance, or nothing, instead of gratuitous nonsense?
No no no. That’s not our RNH. Our RNH is more like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMjqlVcLCmg
There is a difference between simple english and simple mind english….. Yours is the latter.
My God, I now know what our Mr. Hood looks like. Thanks “Me!” Looks like a liberal as well.
How so Jerk? Really, please elaborate, if you can, to support your claim.
Hood, you have supported nothing. Please give us case and verse.
Why divert MY request with a similar and intentional mis-direction? Oh, wait, why am I asking you a real question- you won’t answer anyway, except maybe for more of your right-wing gibberish.
Alinsky even though dead runs true through you doesn’t he? Ever play chess?
And as if on cue… Joe stumbles forward to prove my point…. or is it Paul…? who cares?
Still waiting for Jerk to back himself up… as usual. That’s J-E-R-K, not J-O-E…..
If you didn’t care why would you name names you have no knowledge of? Simple question to an individual that seems to love chastising people consistently that do not agree with you left liberal agenda. You have not changed nor ever will. Hope you don’t chastise your chilren the same. Assume you have children? They must now be voting for Ron Paul?
You got me Joe- ! Why would I “name names [I] have no knowledge of”??? Joe please, guy, it’s just getting kinda embarrassing, and making the whole site look bad (as if that was hard to do). Neil would agree but he’s in lockstep and goose-stepping to the music, so….
Your statement needs no comment. You said it all in your own happy mind didn’t you. Never changes.
My mind ain’t all that happy, unfortunately. But yours appears to be quite ludicrous.
We can tell your “mind ain’t that happy.” Who woulda thunk?
You happy watching what once was, and could-have-been-great-for-a-long-time country circle the toilet? Get your jollies from that do ya?
We are a wonderful country. Unfortunately we have a current President that does not want jobs unless they are on his terms only. We don’t live in Chicago and by the way, most of us have or had real jobs, not community organizer. He will now reconsider the pipeline after the election? What a strong leader we have that does not have guts to just do it and gert 200,000 jobs, minimum employed. Is he waiting for his liberal cronies like Von Jones, the regime he put to head the EPA, GE, or God forbid, Joe Biden for advise? The man can’t make a decision. Pure and simple. He’s not qualified now, nor ever will be. We haven’t got the time for on the job training.
Gosh- guess we tapped into Joe’s ” unhappy” mind. Who woulda thunk?
Hood, I’m happy in my life knowing that I earn what I make, no handouts. I don’t make racist statements to get attention.
Could have fooled me.
Anyone can. It’s not hard to “fool you.”
And per your anti-Democrat rant above: my point has always been- not that you seem to have noticed- is that BOTH of our political parties are corrupt up to their lying eyeballs, and the inter-change and differences between them is merely a facade to fool the gullible. Who’s the fool Joe?
I quess that may well be you.
U quess wrong.
In your mind I as well as others do.
Try as I might I cannot even come up with a come-back for that. Congrats- u win… I guess.
You will have your usual comeback. I’m not concerned.
Uh, no I guess I didn’t… but you sure did.