Tim Walz's unconstitutional Blackout Bill

When Gov. Walz signed the Blackout Bill into law, he signed a bill that's unconstitutional. A federal lawsuit from North Dakota's governor will soon be filed. North Dakota's Republican Gov. Doug Burgum has a strong case, especially in the Eighth District, which is generally considered a conservative court. The Blackout Bill is likely unconstitutional through the Interstate Commerce Clause. Because the Blackout Bill will require electricity generation to be 100% carbon-free by 2040, that's a potential restriction for North Dakota:

North Dakota’s Industrial Commission urged Minnesota legislators to clarify that the carbon-free requirement only applies to electricity generated within Minnesota. Since this request was ignored, North Dakota is now planning to sue Minnesota for violating the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

"This isn’t about the environment. This is about state sovereignty," said North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, who chairs the Industrial Commission, according to Inforum.

Because North Dakota sells electricity to Minnesota and because North Dakota's utilities rely on those sales for a significant portion of their revenues, this isn't just about Minnesota being a green state. It's about regulating interstate commerce.

Cornell's legal review website provides this insight into the Interstate Commerce Clause:
The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes."
States aren't allowed to put up regulatory road blocks that stifle other states' commerce. That's a responsibility that's assigned to the federal government, specifically to Congress.

When a law isn't a law

This news report does an excellent job explaining North Dakota's actions:

Minnesota lost a previous lawsuit against North Dakota when it tried to regulate energy generation. There's no reason to think that Minnesota will win this lawsuit, if it's filed. If North Dakota wins that potential lawsuit, that essentially guts the Blackout Bill. That's great news because the Blackout Bill shouldn't have passed in the first place.

There's growing proof that Gov. Walz and the DFL are getting too full of themselves:

In response to the threat of litigation, Walz urged his neighbors to get with the times. "The fact of the matter is, Minnesota is moving into the future and they’re going to have to come sometime," he said.
Gov. Walz, the Constitution, which you swore to uphold, states that the federal government sets regulations on interstate commerce. Minnesota is becoming more authoritarian by the day. Thankfully, the ICC (Interstate Commerce Clause) prevents this bad bill from being enforced.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tim Walz's Confederate Flag Fiasco

Image
After Minnesota's Democrats shoved the most controversial progressive legislation down Minnesotans' throats, gossip started popping up about Gov. Walz being interested in running for president . That's died off but Gov. Walz is still making headlines, this time for all the wrong reasons. First, Gov. Walz isn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier. Still, Gov. Walz is fighting against Minnesota's history. This Alpha News article quotes David Hann, the chairman of Minnesota's Republican Party, as saying " The flag the DFL has eliminated was a version of the historic flag our regiments fought under during the Civil War. Minnesota was the first state to offer troops to the Union cause in 1861 , beginning a long tradition of leading the nation in confronting injustice. The DFL quest to erase our history is repugnant and should be rejected." Gov. Walz, though, sees things differently. He's quoted as saying "Minnesota is a diverse state, it continue...
Read more

What is Kamala Harris afraid of?

Image
Apparently, Kamala Harris suddenly loves debating. Let me rephrase that. Harris loves debating as long as the moderators are partisan hacks. She wants nothing to do with a debate moderated by Fox's Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum. She's afraid of Bret and Martha because a) they'll either fact-check both her and Trump or they won't fact-check either of them and b) Bret and Martha aren't afraid of asking follow-up questions. To a candidate whose answers are scripted and who isn't quick on her feet, the last thing you want is a follow-up question. Kamala fears follow-up questions like vampires hate wooden stakes, sunlight and holy water. Why has Kamala Harris avoided Fox News like the plague? The moderators/propagandists fact-checked Donald Trump aggressively but didn't fact-check Harris . Why didn't David Muir and Linsey Davis fact-check both candidates equally? Is it because Harris doesn't like fair fights? Perhaps she's just afraid of getting exp...
Read more

Why is Joe Biden letting Hamas off the hook?

Image
It isn't disputable whether Joe Biden's administration is letting Hamas off the hook. That issue was settled months ago, when a spineless Joe Biden caved to activists interested in saving Hamas and thwarting the Israelis' attempt to defend themselves. Gerard Baker's op-ed highlights what's at stake for the U.S. if the terrorists are permitted to survive. In his op-ed, Baker wrote "If, under the pressure of internal Democratic politics and global public opinion, the Biden administration forces a 'cease-fire' that leaves our closest ally in the region short of victory over an enemy that seeks to destroy it, sooner or later we shall all pay the price." It's time to revisit George W. Bush's speech to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, 2001. It's required that we remind ourselves of one of its most important paragraphs. In talking about who committed the atrocities of 9/11, President Bush identified al-Qa'ida as "a collectio...
Read more