Weaponizing State Constitutions With A Green Amendment- Owning Nothing-Part V

  

 

 " An invented right invites government intrusion. An inherent, natural right demands government exclusion."

Christopher A.W. Maider

"Our founders established a nation governed by the people, where human ingenuity would flourish and every citizen had equal opportunity to obtain their American dream. This meant the citizens would own the natural resources so that they had the means to create their own destiny, protect their rights, and limit government’s power."

https://americanstewards.us/issues/why-property-rights-matter/

."

    This why most of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights begin with the phrase. "Congress shall make no law.." It wasn't to list what the citizenry was allowed to do but rather what the government is NOT allowed to do EVER!

    It wasn't until after the Civil War when Legislators got it into their heads to "Amend" the Constitution with so called 'expanded rights' like the 14th Amendment which disbanded the militia and incorporated the United States, yet everyone thinks it is about "equal justice under the law". The sixteenth Amendment which allows government to pick our pockets (which was never ratified by the required 3/4 of the States) and others like the eighteenth Amendment which opened up one of the most lawless eras in American history thus creating the FBI that is now front and center at election interference.
    Today many are calling for a Convention of States to petition Congress under Article V to Amend the Constitution again and impose term limits on Representatives. While the idea is laudable, be careful what you wish for when handing the keys to the candy store to the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schummer and Ocasio Cortez.
    Imposing a Green Amendment upon States is already problematic, as I have pointed out. Imagine if this were to happen upon a Federal level?
    People seem to be under the impression they have a "right to this! A right to that!"
    Well... You don't.
    This is a parasitic mind virus that afflicts society today as presented by Professor Gad Saad:

Evolutionary Psychologist Gad Saad Explains the Woke Mind Virus & Its Impact on Mankind | Real Talk (youtube.com)

    What is worse is people tell government to intervene when what we should be telling government is to go fuck themselves. Unfortunately, we have generation after generation conditioned to rely on governmental intervention even at the result of a dwindling away of Liberty.

    And this is why Property Rights are one of the last bastions of American Liberty.

    If you are a property owner in one of the eleven states considering a Green Amendment (and they pass the Amendment) and you want to do something with your land like lease it for oil drilling, or cut timber, or even farm you can bet your bottom dollar that Maya Rossum and her happy band of enviro-warriors will slap you with a lawsuit.
    But doesn't the Constitution clearly state no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process? Of course it does. That is why they due fully filed a process to sue your ass.
    Oh, great! Here I am minding my own business in my own back yard looking to drill some of that Texas Tea that Jed Clampet made his millions from, and these twits show up to ruin my day.

    But what if?
    Just, what if there was a way to incentivize property owners to NOT utilize those resources?

https://americanstewards.us/issues/why-property-rights-matter/ 

"Further, the increasingly powerful administrative state is using its regulatory authority to pressure America’s middle class into signing up for federal conservation programs. The programs are creating a federal web across America’s private lands that can be used to control production of our food, fiber, minerals, and energy.

Additionally, the federal government is acquiring forever conservation easements on private lands through matching grants and funds distributed to environmental organizations. These easements transfer the primary control of the land to the easement holder. Whoever controls the land owns the land. Those lands under a conservation easement can no longer be considered private property."

    In the Sustains Act it gets more nefarious. Apparently (according to the language) the Federal Government will take funds from NON-Federal contributors to match the funds offered to landowners who sign up for this program.
    Who the fuck are these NON-Federal contributors?

From the EPA Website: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2606

"Reported to House (06/03/2022)

Sponsoring USDA Sustainability Targets in Agriculture to Incentivize Natural Solutions Act of 2021 or the SUSTAINS Act

This bill authorizes the Natural Resources Conservation Service to accept contributions of nonfederal funds to support a broader range of conservation programs.

Current law authorizes the service to accept nonfederal contributions of funds to support certain programs, such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and the Conservation Stewardship Program. This bill expands the authority to include other conservation programs, including those that address climate change, carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat improvement, and protection of drinking water sources.

The bill also makes other changes to the administration of contributed funds, such as by allowing the service to match contributions and permitting contributors to designate funds for use in a specific program or geographic area."

     But this goes deeper towards Federal takeover of property. They will do it by attrition as well. The Democrats have pushed for a tax known as "Unrealized Gains".
    Leave it up to Lefties to invent a tax on money you haven't even made yet. It is about as insane as California's "Exit Tax". If you leave California because they tax the shit out of everything you will be taxed because you left.
    Yep, that exists folks!
    Unrealized Gains goes like this:
    The proponents of this claim it will 'tax the rich' on all the money they make in the stock market when they sell shares after those shares rose in value. But the language tells another story.
    Let us say your grandfather's house that was bought in 1920 for $5000.00 is now worth $500.000.00 and the UG tax is 25% on every 1000 and you inherit it (inheritance tax) and decide to sell it because you want to send your kids to college or sniff cocaine off a naked chick's ass for the summer in Boca Raton.
    Well, good luck on either one of those fronts. Because YOU are now considered 'wealthy' and you owe the Feds $125,000. Never mind State and Local taxes on top of it all.
    What does this have to do with farming, or property ownership?
    Well, those UG taxes are applied as each year goes by and your land grows in value. You can't afford to pay those taxes even if you do sign up for the $4000.00 a month check for turning your farm into 'Conservation Land'. You agreed to NOT Farm. Not log. Not drill. Not do ANYTHING!
    And if you violate that contract by trying to grow some weed on the side or even hay your fallow fields the government will seize your land. But then again, if you cannot pay your property taxes or UG taxes?
    The government will seize your land.

    And it just gets worse and worse. The wholesale destruction of property ownership is part and parcel to the destruction of our Liberty. The Green Amendment will just codify into law the INABILITY of Americans to develop their land as they see fit.
    Given the success of their litigation strategy in New York, Pennsylvania and Montana what's stopping them?
    And they have help and precedent from government itself.

"The New York Stock Exchange, Intrinsic Exchange Group and Securities Exchange Commission attempted the greatest silent coup our nation has faced when they attempted to create “Natural Asset Companies.” The Federal Government is implementing a similar strategy, monetizing natural processes such as pollination and photosynthesis, to place these values on the federal balance sheet. They are calling these “Natural Capital Accounts.” Their test pilot accounts for the program show they are preparing to add every American’s home as collateral for the federal debt. No citizen’s property is protected."

                                            Issues - American Stewards of Liberty

    In addition there is the international 30x30 plan to lock up 30% of all land in the world as permanently off limits to any human usage at all. This would require the United States to give up 400 million acres of land that equates to the size of two Texas'.
   The international, Federal and soon Green Amendment push to restrict property ownership (either through monetary coercion or law enforcement) is not just a Globalist agenda but a Communist agenda. For Communism to succeed there must be an abolition of private ownership.
    Or as Klaus Shwab of The World Economic Forum once said:
                   "You will own nothing and you will like it!"

....And That Is The Diatribe....

Weaponizing State Constitutions With A Green Amendment- Empowering The Power Players- Part IV

 

    " If we lose our right to own property, we will lose more than just our land. We lose our freedom of speech, religion, self-defense, and all other personal liberties that allow each of us to pursue our American dream.... we will cease to be the land of the free."

https://americanstewards.us/

As I dug deeper in research to this Green Amendment I became attuned to other articles and interviews along the same path of what I am now calling 'environmental lawfare'. This would include (but not limited to) the lawsuits I wrote about in the previous segments but the efforts of American Stewards to fight this takeover as well as a nifty little piece of legislation slipped into an Appropriations Bill known as The Sustains Act. A nasty bit of legislation that dangles a fat check in the faces of desperate farmers to allow their land to go fallow and a pact with the Feds to never do anything with that land, ever again.
If we couple such legislation with the power of a Green Amendment then anyone is susceptible to a lawsuit pursuant to the language expressed in The Sustains Act AND activists' groups like Youth Plaintiffs of Montana. You could lose your land if you simply decide to no longer partake in receiving your yearly check from Uncle Sam but would rather go back to actual farming because prices for your corn, hay, wheat, grapes, tomatoes have increased . Green Amendment watchdogs could file a lawsuit because you tilled your fields and spread fertilizer thus endangering the right of the people to clean soil, water and air (especially if you use liquified manure as they do here in Connecticut).

     11 States are lined up to consider adopting The Green Amendment. New Jersey is closest to passing it.

    And somewhere along the way I stumbled upon my first clue as to who is funding all of this wonderful court room drama.
    The Sierra Club.

       https://www.sierraclub.org/new-jersey/blog/2024/03/new-jerseyans-one-step-closer-       gaining-right-clean-safe-environment-through

"....empower New Jerseyans to fight for their rights, it will provide them with the legal mechanism to do so." NJ Sierra Club Chapter Director, Anjuli Ramos-Busot. And with New York as a model that will "Invite novel environmental litigation.." I am sure New Jersey Green Amendment people will have no problem inventing ways to sue companies. Add to it Montana that not only was granted the ability to sue NorthWestern Energy, HELL! They sued the Montana government as well for issuing the permits! And they didn't even have to prove any one was directly (or indirectly) negatively affected.

Sierra Club makes no bones about supporting, endorsing and sending checks to candidates they like. There are a number of PAC's that do just that for whatever issue they support or oppose. But a key player in moving along Environmental legislation (specifically) The Green Amendment would be NCEL. The National Caucus for Environmental Legislators.

         Breaking Down State Green Amendments | National Caucus of Environmental Legislators (ncelenviro.org)

Ahhh, politicians! Don't let an 80,000 plus page book of laws, rules and regulations get in the way of utilizing MORE of your tax dollars to form a Caucus so they can pass more laws, rules and regulations. But hey! Lets streamline the process and just get the states to pass an Amendment! NCEL lists The Green Amendments for The Generations (Maya Rossum) as a non-profit. That means it is a 501C-3. They get money through grants (tax dollars). But where does the lawsuit money go after they win? It seems the various states where Green Amendments have been adopted the very first thing the group does is find a target to sue. Does the money pay for more lawyers, outreach, activism? In the map above there are 11 states considering the Amendment. That is a lot of political action. Wouldn't that be considered more of a 527 PAC? What does this mean for landowners? Does a Green Amendment imply that my actions on my property may affect my neighbor? Possibly. But do my neighbor's sensibilities override my right to develop my land as I see fit? I am not talking about emptying your septic tank in the brook behind your house because that brook runs down to a local swimming area. That is just being an asshole! And while environmental history is full of examples of companies dumping toxic waste those issues do not exist anymore here in the United States. We have decades of laws and regulations that ensure compliance with EPA, DEQE, OSHA and various local inspectors. The drive to restrict the use of private property is at the center of such movements as The Sustains Act and 30x30. Another is The Conservation Stewardship program. You get to have your own personal government agent come to your farm to 'advise' you on how best to NOT develop your land. With a big fat check in his/her briefcase you too can be part of better, healthier environment.     Conservation Stewardship Program | Natural Resources Conservation Service (usda.gov)

"The program represents a genuine commitment to conservation – CSP contracts are for five years, with the opportunity to compete for a contract renewal if you successfully fulfill the initial contract and agree to achieve additional conservation objectives. An NRCS conservation planner will work closely with you, throughout the entire contract process.

Contract payments are based on two components:

• Payments to maintain the existing level of conservation, based on the land uses included in the contract and an NRCS assessment of existing stewardship at the time of enrollment, and
• Payments to implement additional conservation activities.

Most participants will be eligible for a $4000 minimum payment during any year that their total annual contract payment falls below the minimum payment amount. " "CSP offers annual payments for implementing these practices on your land and operating and maintaining existing conservation efforts. Want to take it a step further? CSP also offers bundles where you can select a suite of enhancements and receive a higher payment rate." Oh Goody! I get MORE money if I do even LESS with my farm! Didn't Roosevelt do something like this back during the Great Depression? And just why does the government want to incentivize this non-use (and eventual acquisition) of land? Why does a Green Amendment empower activists to sue you if you want to lease your land to oil or gas drilling? From the website: https://americanstewards.us/issues/why-property-rights-matter/     "Lands already owned by the government are becoming increasingly restricted and off-limits for productive uses such as recreation, hunting and fishing, livestock grazing, timber harvesting, mineral development, and oil and gas production. The government must lock down these resources because they are the collateral that backs our growing national debt owed to foreign nations."
And does Maya Rossum and the glossy eyed activists think that China will give a shit about your 'rights' to clean air and soil and water when our bill comes due to the CCP and they clear cut our National forests and mine every rock until all that is left is a wasteland resembling the surface of Mars?

Maybe you can take them to court Maya! Good luck with that!

....And That Is The Diatribe....

     

Weaponizing State Constitutions With A Green Amendment- Shutting Off The Lights-Part III

 

"The economy and regulatory environment would look quite different if there were a constitutional obligation to charge a pollution fee for every permit"

David Mendelbaum 

2024 Greenberg Traurig, LLP

www.gtlaw.com

“We know that climate change is real and that it’s largely human-caused. So, it’s really nice, just from an emotional, psychological standpoint, to see this as a striking victory for the environment....”

Jim Goetz

 Montana Environmental Attorney

Proving once again that none of this Green Amendment malarky is about saving the planet but rather suing a Montana lower court upheld in the Held vs Montana case of August 2023 the plaintiff's request for 'declaratory relief' thus moving the case forward. The court stated:

 “. . . Youth Plaintiffs need not allege significant and physical manifestations of an infringement of their constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment to enforce their constitutional right. . .”

https://forthegenerations.org/wp-content/uploads/MT-Held-case-2021.pdf 

Soooo... You don't actually have to prove that you, or others have been specifically harmed by actions, or inactions to claim constitutional rights. The state of Montana will just back your claim... Just because..

    Montana youth activists banded together to sue the state of Montana over their permitting process to energy companies. It was the first case where proponents of the state's new Green Amendment were not only able to sue a company over policy but sue the government over policy. 

"Youth Plaintiffs have sufficiently raised a factual dispute as to whether the State Energy Policy was a substantial factor in causing Youth Plaintiffs’ injuries.” 

    Shutting down a power plant wasn't enough. Shutting down the entire permitting process and regulatory process was what Youth Plaintiffs were all about.

Here is a group photo of the parties involved outside the courthouse. They quickly went back inside to enjoy the air conditioning supplied by NorthWestern Energy. It was hot that day. I am sure the kids needed to charge their I-phones too.

 

    Within 24 hours of the ruling the future of NorthWestern Energy was in jeopardy. So, let us take a look at this evil company that cares so little about the environment that a bunch of kids spent taxpayer money to hold them accountable.
    NWE supplies power to most of Montana as well as parts of the Dakotas and parts of Nebraska. They even supply the power that runs Yellowstone National Park. Very important because Yellowstone has thousands of visitors a year who have absolutely ZERO problem hooking up their RV's and campers to the power supply so they can run AC and flat screen TV's while they cook smores on their gas grills.
Camping! Right?

Anyhoooo...

    Part of the complaint those crazy kids in Montana were upset about is how little NWE was concerned about climate change and how the Montana State House couldn't give a shit.

        https://northwesternenergy.com/about-us/our-company#

From the website:

"For more than 100 years, NorthWestern Energy has been committed to delivering safe, reliable and innovative energy solutions.

We serve gas and electric to customers in the western two-thirds of Montana and eastern South Dakota. We also have gas service in Nebraska, and serve electricity to Yellowstone National Park.

We own and operate a diverse generation fleet of wind, water, natural gas and coal-fired resources and the high-voltage electric transmission system and distribution system. We also own and operate natural gas production, transmission and distribution systems."

    They operate an array of power sources including wind and hydroelectric. They also operate natural gas and coal in case the windmills get frozen over (it is Montana after all).

    According to this map they serve a hell of a lot of communities. not just in Montana, but elsewhere outside the state. But what if NWE has to shutter gas and coal plants in Montana so the enviro-wackos calm down and South Dakota has brown outs? Does South Dakota get to sue somebody as well? What about their 'rights' to safe and reliable energy? Don't they pay for this service? What about the costs associated with 'renewable' sources? Many of these areas are not exactly bustling hubs of economic opportunity. A rise in energy costs can make the difference between staying warm in South Dakota in January or making a mortgage payment.

    This is why the Green Amendment is a very bad idea. If you 'manufacture' a 'right' then you compel someone to provide that service, right, obligation. They must comply with a law or face a legal battle. Other people end up getting hurt because of it.
    The Perilous Effect.
    This is the fly in the ointment of The Green Amendment.

    The process is designed to get simpler. Just sue. Fuck it! File a claim!
    In an article written shortly after the finding Jennifer Hijazi and Drew Hutchinson wrote in their piece:

    "lawyers don’t need to call on other statutory authorities to establish standing to sue, which helps cut down steps necessary for potential success in court."

      https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/montana-climate-ruling-boosts-case-for-states-green-amendments

    Let us not let legal procedures and jurist-prudence get in the way to enforce The Green Amendment.
    Leftists: Ideas so good they have to be enforced. Regardless.

    The Youth Plaintiffs in the Montana case insisted that NWE was not addressing the impacts of 'climate change'. They also insisted (and were granted to proceed on those grounds) the permitting process was also affecting future generations to clean air, water, soil.
     However, that seems to go up against what NWE is already doing.

From the website:

      "Sustainability means meeting today’s needs while planning for tomorrow’s as well. It is not just a matter of good environmental practices, being a sustainable enterprise must also incorporate social and governance best practices."

        Compliance isn't the issue. Suing and shutting down these operations IS the issue.
    The Bloomberg article above concludes with a statement from Law Professor Sarah Everhart from Widener University:

 “.... makes that green amendment self-executing, meaning that the parties can challenge inaction without any other grant of authority,”

    .... And That Is The Diatribe....

Weaponizing State Constitutions with An Environmental Rights Amendment - The Impact-Part II

    

"It ought to be second nature. I mean the places that we live. Let's talk about this sensibly. We are not insensitive. I know progress has no patience. But something's got to give."

Rush: Second Nature.

"Don't let the past remind us of what we are not now."
Crosby, Stills, Nash.

"However, within a few short years, the Amendment was essentially relegated to a policy statement via judicial decisions that sidelined the plain language of the Amendment, and instead relied on judicially-created tests that largely equated the Amendment with statutes and regulations."

"Robinson Township, Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. Commonwealth involved a constitutional challenge3 to Act 13 of 2012, which imposed a one-size-fits-all zoning scheme for oil and gas operations across the entire Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The challenge was brought by the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, Maya van Rossum-the Delaware Riverkeeper, multiple municipalities, two municipal officials, and a physician." 

https://forthegenerations.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2019/02/FTG-Resources-GreenAmendmentFunctions.pdf

These cases are NOT designed to create a cleaner environment. They are designed simply to sue for money. The public was sold a bill of goods,. The New York case bears this out:

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/03062024/new-york-landfill-letitia-james-green-amendment/

In oral arguments before a Fourth Department panel May 20, Assistant Attorney General Brian Lusignan said High Acres plaintiffs were trying to circumvent existing state laws and rules governing solid waste facilities.

“There’s no evidence the Legislature (when it enacted the Green Amendment) wanted to allow private parties to bypass all that regulatory infrastructure and go directly to courts to litigate on a case-by-case basis whether a particular landfill should be shut down,” Lusignan said.

Attorney Alan Knauf countered for the plaintiffs, arguing that the state’s voters intended to “go beyond” existing law. 

“They thought (the Green Amendment) meant that the state was going to be forced to do something more than what was on the books,” Knauf said.

  Who funds all of this?
    If these groups are putting people in place to advocate for this Amendment state by State that would imply there are a lot of Benjamins greasing the wheels. I reached out to Maya Rossum on her website. As of this writing I have yet to receive a reply.
    So, this means I have to do the digging myself. There is an old axiom in investigations; follow the money.
    The trick here with these cases is that one utilizes the State. Let the taxpayers foot the bill. These are not lawsuits from some John Doe Company against another, or soccer moms gathered together to pool their money and hire a Pro-bono lawyer fresh out of Yale, no. These are cases brought about by legislation and therefore put under the purview of the Attorney General.
    So, we the taxpayers fund these actions.
    I highly doubt Maya Rossum and her advocates are on the hook to some corporate law firm to litigate these cases. In fact, it doesn't take much to file a lawsuit. Put together an affidavit, make it look official with a letterhead, file it appropriately with a court and clerk and all it cost was gas money to drive there. From there the State takes up the case. 
    Your work is done.

Enter Pennsylvania:

https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2022/09/01/is-the-pa-high-court-deciding-the-most-helpful-environmental-rights-amendment-cases/?slreturn=20240718210954

Earlier this month, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued another opinion in the long-running PEDF litigation about the public trust provisions of the Environmental Rights Amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution. See Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation v. Commonwealth, No. 65 MAP 2020 (Pa. Aug. 5, 2022)(PEDF VI). PEDF challenged several years’ appropriation of proceeds from oil and gas leasing under state forest and park land. 

   The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued ANOTHER opinion in The Long-running PEDF litigation....
    Just WTF is going on here?

    Is the Green Amendment about real action or just jamming up the courts with litigious bullshit? How does suing companies clean up the environment?
    I will tell you how. The companies they sue go belly up. They close up shop!
 What happens to the employees? Does the Green Amendment take into effect that outcome? What happens to the property? Who cleans that up once the company is broke and leveraged out?
    Does the Green Amendment offer anything to displaced employees? What about their "rights"? The Amendment guarantees clean air, water and soil. Does the displaced employee get a 40-acre parcel of land and a mule somewhere free of any pollution? Are they not covered under the Green Amendment to be allowed this? 
    And just where does this Utopia exist?

    The Green Amendment Group is demanding a Constitutional Right. If you close down a company and displace employees, where does your Amendment protect the 'rights' of others affected by your law? 

    It is called the Perilous Effect:

   You can pass all the wonderful laws and rules you want thinking you are helping society...
    But somewhere along the way someone, some way, somehow, or groups, businesses, people are negatively affected by your good intentions. 
    They are impacted and have to pay for it. In many cases they become victims of your altruistic ideas.

   Nowhere in the history of man has government law or rule, no matter how altruistic, has not had a negative effect upon individuals in society attuned to, or in rejection of said law or rule.

     But the Green Amendment people through the Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Fund soon learned to cash in.

 "...in direct control over the fund was not facially unconstitutional because the statute directed consideration of the Environmental Rights Amendment obligations when appropriating the money..." 

           

https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2022/09/01/is-the-pa-high-court-deciding-the-most-helpful-environmental-rights-amendment-cases/?slreturn=20240718210954


FTG-Resources-GreenAmendmentFunctions.pdf (forthegenerations.org)

"Id. at 951–52 (plurality). Further, the plurality clarified that, just as governmental entities must consider in advance whether an action may violate, for instance, free speech rights, or property rights, they must do the same for environmental rights:"

"Thus, the Environmental Rights Amendment restrains government from pursuing actions or approving projects that infringe on the people’s protected rights. Such action could be leasing state lands for fracking, or approving a permit for a high pollution activity that would rise to the level of constitutional violation. "
 

    Don't think things got improved.  Penn is till drilling gas and oil. Only it now costs you more. And while the language in the Amendment seems confusing, one thing is blatantly missing from the decision: What about the rights of business owners and property owners?

"Id. at 952 (plurality). The last sentence was significantly earth-shattering because it affirmed that the Environmental Rights Amendment – like all other constitutional provisions – stood above statutes and regulations. Until this case, the Environmental Rights Amendment had been lowered to the level of statutes and regulations, at best."

     The companies drilling for oil and natural gas in the Marcellus Shale region pay the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources leasing fees. With the finding in the court case DCNR can basically do whatever they want with the money. What that is exactly is anyone's guess.
    And what benchmark is being used to determine if an activity is rising to "the level of constitutional violation?"
    None of these questions are considered in the PDF noted in this segment. How the Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Fund got the money to set up shop and begin the sue happy chuck wagon and just how they strong armed the Legislature is something I am still digging for.
    And where were the Republicans? Where were the Constitutional Lawyers?

    And then there is this question of "rights". Rights are inherent. They cannot be manufactured through a demand that something happen, or be accomplished, let alone litigated. The right to clean air, water, soil is not an inherent right.

    What if a volcano explodes and destroys hectares of land, soil, water, air? Do we sue the volcano, or the state it resides in? A few weeks back in Connecticut we had devastating rain and floods that took out entire bridges, dams and roads. I am sure the soil and water suffered. Who do we sue? What about forest fires? Hell, what about ANY fire? Doesn't that produce noxious fumes? Do we sue the poor homeowner who lost everything because the air quality in your neighborhood was affected?
    A right that has to be legislated demands government intrusion. The rights that are codified in our state (and national) constitutions are natural.

 That is why they are codified in our constitutions!
    

    But one thing is for certain. With the Pennsylvania case under their belt The Green Amendment now has a test bed and a blueprint to bring litigation to other states.

From the PDF:

II. A GREEN AMENDMENT – BUILDING ON THE PENNSYLVANIA EXPERIENCE TO BRING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS PROTECTIONS TO OTHER STATES

• The provision should mention specific environmental values to be protected such as pure water, clean air, ecologically healthy habitats, etc., while also being clear about when courts are not to limit themselves to the items listed in the amendment.

 • The provision should include a broad holistic perspective on the values of protecting a healthy environment.

    Courts are not to limit themselves to the items listed in the Amendment? The provision should include a broad holistic perspective? Is that like "..invite novel environmental protection litigation claims" like they did in New York?
    The PDF lumps the Environmental Rights Amendment on par with political rights and property rights except (of course) if you own land and you want to lease it for shale oil or sell the timber.

The PDF expands upon this interesting approach:

• It should also be clear from the legislative history, the language of the Amendment, and/or the case law on interpretation of state constitutional provisions that state trust law supply additional standards that can supplement the standards that flow from the plain language of the Amendment.

    The Green Amendment isn't about "rights". It is about litigation. It is about compliance and the threat of governmental force to impose that compliance.

Are you as confused as I am? Well, hang on it gets worse.

    In an article written August 2nd by Environmental Attorney David Mendelbaum he tries to flesh out the details of this case:

Mandelbaum August 2024 Intervention and the Environmental Rights Amendment (1).pdf

"Last month, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that environmental groups could intervene in litigation to use the Environmental Rights Amendment of the Pennsylvania Constitution to support a regulation even though the Department of Environmental Protection had declined to make that argument. See Shirley v. Pennsylvania Legislation Reference Bureau, No. 85 MAP 2022 (Pa. July 18, 2024). Because the courts have not fleshed out all the nuances of what the Environmental Rights Amendment means, this superficially procedural decision may have important implications for how that constitutional jurisprudence develops."

       The decision by the Penn, SC is one of a few so far in this regard. The language is still being debated even though the Legislature has passed the Bill. Well, leave it to politicians to go along to get along and let the chips fall as they may.. Gee
 thanks! 
    Mendelbaum goes on to explain about carbon credits and how various power plants, gas and oil drilling can buy/sell credits. It gets very confusing but there appears to be some sort of "auction" that goes on where companies can bid for credits or bid to sell their credits.

It is all about the money.

"That initial auction of rights creates revenue for the RGGI states. Most RGGI states earmark that revenue, or part of it, for further measures to mitigate or to adapt to climate change, or to protect the environment generally. Even so, money is, of course, fungible. Funds raised by the auction fee general revenues to be appropriated elsewhere."

        This amounted to a tax which both houses of the Penn. Assembly rejected, Governor Wolf vetoed that decision. Then, it turned into this whole legal wrangling because the decision was not published in time. The state EPA sued and the Green Amendment people came in to support them on entirely different grounds.
(I know, it IS confusing).

    "The environmental group intervenors sought to defend the regulation by asserting that the allowance system was not a tax because the Environmental Rights Amendment—Article I, section 27 of the Constitution—would require all of the proceeds of the allowance auction to be used to improve air quality."

How?

    Thankfully the court declared: 

"The Commonwealth Court denied the environmental group’s petition to intervene, along with others. It also preliminarily and then permanently enjoined the regulation as an unconstitutional tax."

        If you read into the language and the arguments of the case you soon come to realize that this entire thing is to hamstring companies. The Green Amendment people present the facade of "rights" while at the same time demanding restrictive laws, regulations and monetary demands. Even though the states I listed in the first segment have adopted the Amendment many of the agencies involved are handing it to the state Supreme Courts and telling them, 'you guys figure this s**t out'.
    And it appears Pennsylvania did just that.

 "We usually do not consider permits to be conveyances of rights to use a public trust asset. If we did, then there would have to be compensation to the trust for that use. Instead, we ordinarily think of regulatory approvals as mechanisms to allow parties to create general economic and other benefits using public resources in a reasonable way. The economy and the regulatory environment would look quite different if there were a constitutional obligation to charge a pollution fee for every permit"
 © 2024 Greenberg Traurig, LLP www.gtlaw.com 

    And finally, Mendelbaum exits with this gem:

"The ERA creates rights against the government. It makes development of that law less straightforward if the contours of those rights can be litigated from the government’s side of a lawsuit, but without the government’s concurrence. Whether that is a feature or a bug remains to be seen."

....And That Is The Diatribe....

Weaponizing State Constitutions With An Environmental Rights Amendment Part I

"The Green Amendment cannot be weaponized against a private entity"

New York State Appellate Court 2024

With the potential for a Democratic steal of yet another election the ability for the Green Movement to garner more power is very real. Environmental laws are growing more restrictive across the country and is affecting costs of doing business, personal travel, costs of fuel and banning the use of products that have become part of many America households.

     The Environmental Rights Amendment is being trucked around the various states in an effort to gain enough support to apply for a Federal Amendment to the US Constitution. 

    This is a fantastically bad idea.

https://forthegenerations.org/the-green-amendment/

    Maya K. van Rossum is a lawyer and founder of The Green Amendment movement. She is the author of the book with the same title. She has set up her headquarters in Pennsylvania and has managed to get three states to amend their constitutions such as New York, Pennsylvania and Montana. NY passed the Amendment to their state Constitution in 2021 and has already gummed up the legal system with lawsuits. Which begs one to ask; is this movement about clean air and water or about suing companies for monetary gain?

    The main page of the website certainly tugs at your heart strings. One would be convinced the planet is dying and the poor citizen is left with hopelessness.

For decades, activists have relied on federal and state legislation to fight for a cleaner environment. And for decades, they’ve been fighting a losing battle. The sad truth is, our laws are designed to accommodate pollution and legalize environmental degradation rather than prevent them. It’s no wonder people feel powerless when it comes to preserving the quality of their water, air, climate, public parks, and special natural spaces.

     I'm not exactly sure just where Maya has been these last few 'decades' but the environment in the US has steadily improved since I was a child growing up in the 70's. Automotive emissions, factory emissions, recycling programs, green spaces, water quality have all improved immensely. I can remember smog in the city. Pollution was so bad in Amerca at one time rivers would catch on fire from the chemicals. Another indicator of an improved environment is the surge of wildlife populations.

    Here in the Thames River Watershed/Last Green Valley National Heritage Corridor of Connecticut there are incredible green areas full of wildlife. One wouldn't think so in such a small state sandwiched between New York City and Boston. I highly doubt other communities in other states disregard their natural resources and open spaces. And I find it dubious that there is a push to pass statewide and national amendments to force more protection of the environment.
    However, we must be cautious of these 'grassroots movements". I have filmed, interviewed and written about a few of these movements over the years and have discovered a more nefarious purpose belies their altruism. It is easy to put a referendum up for the 'people' to vote on.

 A few thousand signatures are usually all it takes.
    (I know, I did that- many times).

From the website:

Under Maya’s leadership, the future of legislative environmentalism is a bright one. In November 2021, with over 70% of voters in favor and Maya’s support, New York became the third state (joining Pennsylvania and Montana) to add a Green Amendment to its constitution, and there are active movements in over a dozen other states and counting.

This is "Democracy in action!" Right?

 But, as I said, I have seen this before and I seem to remember over 70% of Massachusetts and California voters using these same statistics to say NO to gay marriage.
Yet, the Gay Alliance managed to sue in court under the 14th Amendment and now???

Sooo, Democracy only works if it works for your particular banner waving constituents? If it does not, then sue in court. 

And this is exactly what Maya and the Green Amendment are doing.

"Well, it's all perfectly democratic if you are on the winning side."  Hyland.

New York State adopted this idea in 2021 as a referendum and was adopted by the State Legislature the following session in 2022.

NY: Environmental Rights Amendment Passed by Ballot Measure (natlawreview.com)

"On November 2, 2021, New York State voters passed a ballot measure enshrining in the State Constitution the right to a “healthful environment.” The new “green amendment” or “Environmental Rights Amendment” (ERA) places New York alongside six other states with similar provisions in their state constitutions, while several others have considered green amendments. These amendments may introduce new avenues for those aiming to enforce environmental laws in anticipation of harm and may invite novel environmental protection litigation claims."

It was going to be epic for New York! 

"Invite novel environmental protection litigation claims".

The entire operation was designed to shake down companies and it was sold to the populace as a form of Enviromental Awareness.

This thing has gone off the rails.

 Seneca Falls Landfill! Come on down! You are our next contestant on the Lawfare Television Show!

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07082024/new-york-appellate-court-rejects-broad-application-of-green-amendment/

"In the High Acres case, a nonprofit group, Fresh Air for the Eastside Inc., sued the landfill’s owner, Waste Management Inc., the State Department of Environmental Conservation and the City of New York, which supplies most of the landfill’s garbage."

    Letitia James. Yep, The one and only took advantage of the newly christened Green Amendment in NY State and utilizing "novel environmental litigation." joined in the case to sue Seneca Falls Landfill because of the odors emitted from the state's largest landfill.
    But in an odd twist the case was returned upon appeal and eventually dismissed due to a number of legal wranglings including procedural errors which Maya Rossum found curious.

“I think it is notable that the Fourth Department chose to dismiss on procedural grounds and did not touch some of the most essential findings of the Supreme Court with regards to the New York Green Amendment, thereby still leaving in place essential findings such as the NY Green Amendment is self-executing and that the state is not entitled to disregard its constitutional obligations when it comes to environmental rights.”

    As a lawyer she, of all people should understand the importance of 'procedure'. But Maya wasn't finished. She did what any good activist would do. She got activated and got other activists to join in the chanting and sign waving.

From the site noted above:

Last month, van Rossum led a rally and march at the state Capitol in Albany to encourage state officials, including James and Gov. Kathy Hochul, to take a more active role in applying the Constitutional right as broadly as possible.

“We are here today to tell our New York leaders that our environmental rights are not discretionary. They are mandatory,” van Rossum said at the rally.

  Apply the Constitutional right as broadly as possible. Just what does that mean? 

    Listen Linda....

    We all want clean air, water, soil. We also have to live and exist in this modern world. During the turn of the 19th-20th century when the Industrial Revolution was still in its childhood there were many reasons to be concerned about the environment. There were basically no laws at all concerning waste. I stated before how rivers caught on fire. A famous case was the Cuyahoga River that burned for weeks because of the chemicals dumped indiscriminately. But we are not that society anymore. The laws and regulations set forth by Congress, Presidents and adopted by states (as well as their own rules) have given us all the potential for a better environmental future.
    And while Maya may claim that our environmental rights are 'mandatory', what about the rights of companies? What MORE do you want from them? 
    US companies already bear the costs of some of the highest business costs next to European nations. These costs include safety compliance for their workers as well as EPA regulations. All of it to ensure a safe, energy efficient and environmentally sound operation. Unions demand (and always get) a working environment that is second to none when it comes to safety.

This from the official EPA website:

https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/regulations#:~:text=Regulations%20are%20mandatory

EPA is called a regulatory agency because Congress authorizes us to write regulations that explain the technical, operational, and legal details necessary to implement laws. Regulations are mandatory requirements that can apply to individuals, businesses, state or local governments, non-profit institutions, or others. 

In many cases, state-level environmental agencies administer the federal regulations that EPA puts in place. The Gateway to State-by-State Resource Locators sponsored by EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance, provides access to state-by-state environmental regulations, compliance assistance, and where applicable, permits and forms for a variety of topics.

    We already have these rights in place. We have redundant agencies overseeing everything we do from our trash disposal at home to handling nuclear waste. The EPA has a laundry list of lawsuits they are working on to bring even the most minor of offenses like digging a drainage ditch on a farm (Sen. Rand Paul's book, 'Government Bullies') to declaring Superfund sites to court. The last thing we need is another activist group looking for their piece of the lawsuit money.

    And let us get down to brass tacks here: Isn't that what this whole thing is about?
    Who gets the money Maya? Just how is your organization funded exactly?

This we shall explore in Part II and possibly Part III as we learn about the Pennsylvania and Montana Amendment.

....And That Is The Diatribe....