Washington Wants Michigan's Water

From our friends at Citizen's Voice for Property Owners, here's a heads-up on more central planning from the Democrats in Washington:

Michigan, through its Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is one of only two states in the Union that regulates wetlands with a state agency rather than through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This has been a problem because the state guidelines are much more strict than the federal guidelines. Additionally, the DEQ has proven to be arbitrary and capricious in its decision making and has often caused long, unnecessary delays in approving permits.

While the concerns about over-regulation by a state agency are valid, they may be rendered "moot" by recent efforts in Congress. U.S. Senator Russ Feingold has introduced a bill, S787, which was sponsored by 23 other members (all Democrats including Levin and Stabenow.) Senate Bill S787 is entitled, "To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify the jurisdiction of the United States over waters of the United States." Notice they start the description with the words "pollution control." That makes it sound caring and good, doesn't it?

All surface waters will come under Congressional Control...

The fact is, this legislation will put ALL surface waters in the United States of America under Congressional jurisdiction. The bill language, which can be read here, has a couple of key phrases in it. The first changes the definition of what is under Congressional jurisdiction. Ever since the Commerce Clause of the Constitution and several test cases in the Supreme Court, Congress has had jurisdiction over navigable waters. The meaning of that word has been argued, but according to precedent and legal definition, navigable includes anything you can get a canoe down, or anything that is connected by water to the same.

...mudflats, wet meadows, prairie potholes...

No matter because under S787, the word navigable is stricken, which means now ALL surface water is under Congressional jurisdiction. Additionally, in case there was any question of state's rights, the bill also states that this applies to interstate and intrastate waters. That means there is no state sovereignty over waters within that state's boundaries. And, if you have any doubt as to what the Congressional definition of "waters" is, they spell that out, too. It includes, "all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, the territorial seas, and all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries, including lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds, and all impoundments of the foregoing, to the fullest extent that these waters, or activities affecting these waters, are subject to the legislative power of Congress under the Constitution."

...interstate and intrastate...

The bottom line is this: Congress is taking over all the water. If the Obama administration and Congress are anything like this state's governor and her administration, you will see free trade and commerce come to a virtual stand still. Manufacturing especially will come to a screeching halt. Water is an essential resource in the manufacture of virtually any consumable or durable good. Without ready access, manufacturers will be stifled in their attempts to create new products for market and the jobs that go with them.

Apparently the only things Congressional Democrats don't want to control is their power-grabbing and deficit spending...in other words, they will control you but not themselves.

URGENT: Michigan Supreme Court Campaign

In the past two weeks, I have received at least four pieces of campaign literature from the Michigan Democratic Party touting their candidate for the Michigan Supreme Court and denouncing incumbent Justice Clifford Taylor. Several of them insist Justice Taylor voted to strip Michigan residents of their hunting rights. I suspect some, perhaps many, Michiganders are receiving similar mailings, and I want you all to hear the truth about Justice Taylor before you vote on Tuesday.

First, you should know something about my perspective. I am a Life Member of the National Rifle Association, a 'charter' member of the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners and a member of the Second Amendment Sisters. For many years, I have worked with other gun-and-hunting rights groups, hunt clubs, gun ranges and sportsman's clubs to preserve and protect our gun and hunting rights. I participated in drafting the Michigan concealed carry statute that was ultimately passed and is now state law. This is not an issue I take lightly. Trust me, I would not consider voting for a Supreme Court Justice who devalued my rights, and I will be voting for Justice Taylor.

In December of 2006, the case of Czymbor Timber vs. City of Saginaw was appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court after being heard by two lower state courts. In June of 2007, the Michigan Supreme Court upheld the lower court's rulings, which effectively allowed the City of Saginaw's ordinance banning discharge of firearms and bows within the city limits to stand. Justice Taylor voted with the majority.

They found that Mr. Czymbor had

"not made the requisite showing that their property is a hunting area established under” part 419 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, MCL 324.41901"

and also that

"...the administrative rule promulgated by the DNR to administer part 419, 2007 AC, R 299.3048, pertains only to townships, not cities..."

The majority concluded that the ball is really in the DNR's court.

Certainly, if the DNR no longer wishes to acquiesce to defendants’ antidischarge ordinance, it is free to take the necessary steps to amend its administrative rules to conform to the view it urges in its briefs.

It may not, however, simply ignore the language of MCL 324.41901 or the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act.18

By failing to act, the DNR relinquishes its authority over the City of Saginaw with regard to hunting and discharge ordinances. The plaintiff can be granted relief by the DNR if it chooses to follow the procedures necessary to assert its authority. This is a 'strict' reading of Michigan law.

The people who are angry about this ruling would have Justices Taylor, Markman, Corrigan and Young ignore state law to find in their favor. There are even some so-called 'conservation' and 'sportsman's' groups opposing Justice Taylor over this vote! They want an activist, legislate-from-the-bench court...but only when it suits them. We can't have it both ways. We either hold to a strict interpretation of the law or we don't.

Justice Taylor has always been very clear on his judicial philosophy: the law says what it says, and he applies it accordingly. If 'we', the citizens of Michigan, don't like the way a law is written, the remedy for that is through the legislature.

I hope this adequately explains the issue, and I ask you to please join me in supporting this fine man for reelection to the Michigan Supreme Court.


In a related story:

The Democrats are also running a VERY disingenuous television ad about Justice Taylor, claiming he was sleeping during a trial. While making GOTV calls yesterday, several volunteers spoke to voters who believed the footage used in the spot was actual video of Justice Taylor nodding off behind the bench. Of course, this was the intent. If you, or anyone you know, has fallen for this hoax, please pay careful attention to the ad next time. In tiny print near the bottom of the screen is the word "Dramatization". The man in the ad is an actor. Even Geoffrey Fieger, who despises Justice Taylor and says so often, will not claim to have seen him sleeping during the trial - and he was in the courtroom!

By all means, cast your precious vote for whomever you choose, but PLEASE make your decisions based on fact, not emotion or partisan rhetoric.