Lawless Nation

Once again we are "treated" to another erroneous, self-righteous, and sophomoric analysis by the anti-nukes. Counter to the ill-considered drivel above, the balance of power between the Federal and local governments is provided by the U.S. Constitution.

If a power ( including the power to regulation some activity ) is given to the Federal Government, i.e. the Congress by the US Constitution, then that power belongs to Congress. If the power is not given to Congress, then it belongs to the States, as per Amendment X.

If a power legitimately belongs to Congress, then by Article VI Section 2 of the US Constitution ( the Supremacy Clause ), Federal law TRUMPS State and local law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

Counter to the sophomoric analysis above, there is no requirement that Congress must share its power with the State, or that the more restrictive law takes precedence. NO - the Federal law takes precedence under the U.S. Constitution.

There are two main uses of nuclear energy; nuclear weapons and nuclear power. The Courts, including the US Supreme Court have held that both uses are within the domain of Congress. Nuclear weapons are part Congress' power to "provide for the common defense", while nuclear power is subsumed under the Commerce Clause; Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

Congress has the sole power with regard to the policy and regulation of both nuclear weapons and nuclear power. Any powers the State has, it is only when Congress has given the States some say.

In regards to the naive concept of "most restrictive" prevails; one saw how that played out two decades ago with regard to "Nuclear Free Zones".

Back in the '80s when the USA was fighting and prevailing in the contest with the Soviet Union in the military arena; some so-called "peace activists" put forward a referendum to the city of Oakland, California to create a "Nuclear Free Zone". Under its provisions, one couldn't do "nuclear anything" within the city of Oakland.

At that time, the U.S. Dept of Energy had a Field Office in Oakland for the purpose of overseeing the nuclear weapons development activities of the Lawrence Livermore National Lab in Livermore, California some 40+ miles to the East. That office was the real target of the Oakland ordinance.

Each year, Congress and the Administration set policy and finance the US policy with regard to its stockpile of nuclear weapons. The Congress and Administration do this on behalf of the USA as a whole. Now suppose we had a sophomoric policy that "most restrictive law prevails", the the Oakland ordinance would prevail and the Oakland Field Office could not carry on it function to direct and oversee the stewardship of the USA's nuclear stockpile by one of the two labs that designed and created that stockpile.

In other words, the residents of a single city could veto the wishes of the US Congress; the duly elected representatives of the Nation as a whole. How would that be democratic? Of course, the self-righteous anti-nukes aren't interested in democracy. They see themselves and their policies as being above the wishes of the people of the USA as a whole.

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/22/us/oakland-battles-us-to-be-nuclear-fr...

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1990-04-08/news/9001010854_1_nuclear-ma...

Of course, because of the constitutional principles outlined above; the Oakland Nuclear Free Zone ordinance was struck down by the Courts:

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/28/us/a-nuclear-free-zone-is-ruled-to-be-...

A State or in this case local government can not interfere with the duly ordained constitutional powers of the Federal Government.

It is such with regard to nuclear power. The US Congress drafted the Atomic Energy Act of 1947, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974... which gives the Federal Government and, in particular, the Atomic Energy Commission, and its regulatory successor agency, the Nuclear Regulator Commission, the power to control and regulate the issues unique to the use of nuclear power.

The State of Vermont clumsily attempted to illegally usurp that power. The State has some power with regard to the determination of economic benefit to the State. However, in that regard, Vermont has to treat the 620 Megawatt Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant exactly the same as they would a 620 Megawatt windfarm, or 620 Megawatt solar facility. The Courts, including the US Supreme Court have stated in past rulings that a State may not take radiological issues into account. The regulation of the radiological issues and the other unique issues of nuclear power are the SOLE province of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Vermont attempted to get around this constitutional restriction, and was appropriately slapped down by federal judge Murtha.
If this case ever makes it to the Supreme Court; it's obvious what the ruling would be. This is really settled law.

So once again we are "treated" to miniscule reasoning powers and knowledge base of the pinhead anti-nukes. They have just shown us again that they couldn't pass 8-th grade Civics class if their lives depended on it.

This forum is visited by scholars and people who know both their science and the basics of the law. Why don't you children run along somewhere else, and leave us grown-ups to discuss important issues?

Insurrection is 'Oath-Breaking'

Amendment XIV Section 3:

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv/

Insurrection is a Constitutional Offense, similar to Treason