Richardson Gives the Finger to New Mexicans

While Election Day attention was focused on other matters, Governor Bill Richardson’s Environment Improvement Board (EIB), taking advantage of the cover provided by media attention being diverted elsewhere, adopted a Cap and Trade regulation that is certain to destroy jobs in New Mexico. It will certainly result in additional job killing costs being heaped upon New Mexico just to reverse the ruling.

During Governor-elect Martinez’s news conference announcing former Congresswoman Heather Wilson’s appointment as Chair of the Transition Office, Martinez indicated that her staff was researching how to go about reversing the regulation. So because of Richardson, staff time and energy needed in transition will be diverted.

Because BOTH Martinez and Denish had opposed the regulation to begin with, it doesn’t make much sense to adopt the measure; particularly during the lame duck period. This move by Richardson's EIB can only be interpreted as a major “up yours” to New Mexicans.

Litigation Mess On our Hands
Because the EIB process, unlike other state regulatory processes, is so lengthy (EIB took almost an entire year to review Cap and Trade and a Cap only proposal), it may take nearly as long to pass a repealing regulation. Governor Martinez’s future appointees to the EIB would have to go through Senate Confirmation, consequently the earliest a newly composed EIB can even begin the process would be in the Spring of 2011. Assuming that the EIB takes almost as long to repeal, what happens in the interim? Well, one method in dealing with this mess created by Richardson’s people is to not enforce the Cap and Trade. Here is the rub: the environmentalists will likely file suit to compel enforcement.

Of course litigation to strike down the regulation is a possibility. It may also be quicker than going through a repeal process. Most likely the regulation would be struck down as unconstitutional under the New Mexico Constitution. The regulation is so overly broad that the EIB has effectively created law rather than adopting rules to carry out existing law. The EIB action thus violates the separation of powers. The New Mexico Constitution says, “[t]he powers of the government of this state are divided into three distinct departments, the legislative, executive, and judicial, and no person or collection of persons charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments, shall exercise any powers properly belonging to either of the others․”....” N.M. Const. art. III, § 1. The New Mexico Supreme Court reiterated that principle when they ruled in 1997 the Johnson Administration exceeded its authority by using the regulatory process to implement a major overhaul of the state public assistance programs without legislative participation. See New Mexico ex rel. Taylor v. Johnson 961 P.2d 768 (N.M. Sup. Ct. 1998). The courts allowed the regulation hearings to proceed - largely because until an actual regulation is adopted there is no actual violation. There is ample precedent for injured parties to have a reasonable chance to win a suit, thus they are likely to sue on state constitutional grounds.

A Double Whammy in Litigation Costs
Here is the double hit New Mexicans will take on any litigation, the lead company fighting the Cap and Scam Trade regulation is the Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM). It’s no surprise since PNM will be hit hard by this regulation and have to spend a great deal to purchase the carbon credits. The company owes a duty to their stock holders to litigate and attempt to strike the regulation down. So, the state will have to pay attorneys defending the suit. Meaning the taxpayer, New Mexicans, will foot the bill to defend the suit. On the other side, PNM will also pay attorneys to litigate, passing the costs to whom? Rate payers, in other words New Mexicans. Even if the courts hold that the ruling in Taylor v. Johnson does not apply, the costs are still born in the litigation. So, we the people of New Mexico are going to pay one way or another in litigation attempts to strike the regulation down, or defending against litigation from environmental groups suing to compel enforcement of the regulation, or worse we live with the regulation while it goes through the repeal process and suffer more economic harm to this state.

Thanks, Bill! Thanks for really sticking it to us at the end there. Let’s hope that if you decide to run for office again that the people remember what you did to them.

Time For the NM GOP to Remember and Get Back to Basics

These days I have a little more time on my hands than I had the last few years. So I decided to tackle a project that has loomed over my head for quite some time. Yes, time to clean out some old files and get rid of some of that stuff in those boxes that I hadn’t opened in many years.

One of the items I came across was the 1994 Republican Party of New Mexico Platform. The Republican Party of New Mexico adopted the same platform for the 1996 election cycle as well. One feature of this platform was its simplicity. That platform was a one page statement of values held by the party members. There is nothing from the 1994 platform that doesn’t still apply today, and as Republicans perhaps we should take another look and get back to the basic values that resonated with the American people. It is straight forward and succinct enough to print it here. Here is that platform from 1994:

WE BELIEVE…

PHILOSOPHY: We support the Constitution of the United
States and the Bill of Rights and believe that the responsibility of government
is the preservation of the individual’s freedom and ability to control his or
her own destiny.

TAXES: We support lower taxes, believing people know how to spend their money better than the government.

CRIME: We support swift and sure criminal punishments. We support boot camps, victims’ rights, truth in sentencing, and the death penalty.

EDUCATION: We support the parents’ right to educate their children as they see fit, and to send their children, and their tax dollars, to the school of their choice.
We support the three R’s.

TERM LIMITS: We support term limits as a means of returning power to the voter and inhibiting too much power into too few hands.

FIREARMS: We support the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution without reservation, & peoples’ rights to defend their families and homes.

HEALTHCARE: We support private enterprise solutions to the healthcare problems in NM. We oppose governmental takeover of the healthcare system.

OPEN GOVERNMENT: We support public access to all aspects of governmental decision making & oppose closed legislative meetings.

WORKFARE: We support a temporary workfare system based on work, dignity, & goals which encourage self-reliance and independence.

ABORTION: “The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government.” Thomas Jefferson. In seeking solution to the abortion issue, we oppose taxpayer funding, & support parental responsibility and informed decision making.

SPECIAL RIGHTS: We support equal rights for everyone and oppose special rights for any individual or group.

ENVIRONMENT: A sound economy & a clean environment are achievable. We trust private citizens, ranchers, and farmers of NM to be better custodians of the land and natural resources than the government.

RIGHT TO WORK: We support every person’s right to freely join a union. We oppose compulsory unionism as a condition of employment.

THE REPUBLICAN PLATFORM

It’s time to return to the values as delineated by this platform. Until next time, take care.

~Peter Shams-Avari~

www.shams-avari.com

Will Obama Try to Pack the Court?

The recent ruling by the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC striking down several restrictions against Corporations and Unions making campaign expenditures on behalf of candidates brought a reaction by the President promising to work with Congress to, 'develop a forceful response' to the Supreme Court ruling.

Congress does not have the power to simply write a directly contradictory law to the Supreme Court ruling. What bothers me is the use of the word ‘forceful’ usually meaning swift and decisive. Well, there are two ways in which a swift and decisive ‘forceful’ response may be given: 1) Constitutional amendment and 2) change the number of members to the court – known as “packing the court.” Both moves can effectively overturn a Supreme Court decision. The first manner is a very direct way. However, it is not such a swift way to act. Once passed out of each chamber of Congress, three-fourths of the state legislatures must ratify the amendment. This is hardly swift, thus not really ‘forceful.’ Additionally, given that the high court cited First Amendment concerns, are we the people going to readily support any attempt at constitutionally hemming in the First Amendment?

The most direct and ‘forceful’ way to respond is to pack the court. Congress has the power to determine the number of justices that serve on the court. The appointment of Sotomayor did nothing to tilt the balance of power on the court since it was simply the replacement of one liberal for another. For Obama to full press his leftward agenda, he needs Supreme Court complicity. He also must move quickly in the event of a loss of Democrat control of any part of Congress. Adding two liberal judges is just enough to tilt the court ideologically. Obama now has a popular issue to ride to get packing of the court passed through Congress. After all, the prevailing view is that Wall Street and the banking industry are responsible for the economic melt-down of 2008 and the outrageous deficits partially connected to their bail-out. By framing the packing of the court as a mechanism to stop ‘a stampede of special interest money in our politics,” as Obama calls it, he takes over the Supreme Court and thus eliminated the last obstacle to implementing a European-socialist style of government and economy in the United States.

There is historical precedent for this type of forceful move. Franklin Roosevelt and his Congressional allies attempted this same move after Roosevelt won re-election in 1936. The Supreme Court struck down a number of Roosevelt’s New Deal programs. In response, Congress introduced the Judiciary Re-organization Act of 1937. The bill would have allowed Roosevelt to appoint up to six additional justices to the Supreme Court. The court later made several rulings favorable to Roosevelt, consequently ending the need for adding members to the court and handing Roosevelt what he wanted.

Be wary – we may yet see a Judicial Re-Organization Act of 2010.