Discussion:
New York aims to fine polluters up to $75 billion with new climate law
Add Reply
Hochul Follies
2025-01-14 06:51:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The law would raise $75 billion over 25 years from major carbon polluters,
requiring them to pay for climate damage caused by increasingly severe
weather.

New York became the second state to require fossil fuel companies to pay
for climate damage, joining a growing effort to hold major polluters
accountable for more frequent and costly extreme weather disasters.

The bill New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) signed into law on Thursday would
allow the state to fine the biggest greenhouse gas emitters a total of $75
billion, to be paid over 25 years into a fund based on their contribution
to overall emissions between 2000 and 2018. That money would be used to
pay for the damage already done to homes, roads and bridges — and help
cover the cost of preparing for increasingly extreme weather in the years
to come.

“With nearly every record rainfall, heatwave, and coastal storm, New
Yorkers are increasingly burdened with billions of dollars in health,
safety, and environmental consequences due to polluters that have
historically harmed our environment,” Hochul said in a statement.

“New York has fired a shot that will be heard round the world: the
companies most responsible for the climate crisis will be held
accountable,” state Sen. Liz Krueger (D), who sponsored the bill, said in
a statement.

Known as the Climate Change Superfund Act, the law is similar to a bill
that Vermont lawmakers approved last summer and that several other
Democratic-led states, including California, Maryland and Massachusetts,
considered but did not pass this year.

The idea behind the bills comes from the federal Superfund law, which
forces polluting companies to clean up toxic waste sites.
Environmentalists have pushed states to apply what is known as a “polluter
pays” approach to worsening disasters fueled by climate change. Advances
in climate attribution science and the growing costs states face from
climate-fueled floods, hurricanes and wildfires have led to a surge of
interest from Democratic lawmakers in passing a portion of the expense to
corporations.

“It’s moving from one state working on it to a coast-to-coast interest
among policymakers because they’re all facing the same problem: The costs
of dealing with climate damage are astronomical and going higher,” said
Blair Horner, executive director of NYPIRG, the New York Public Interest
Research Group. “The federal government may not be there to help out. What
does a state do?”

New York’s law is almost certain to face legal challenges. The American
Petroleum Institute, the oil and gas industry’s powerful lobbying group,
sent state lawmakers a memo in 2023 saying the proposed bill was
unconstitutional. A court would probably strike it down, the group said,
because it was preempted by federal law and sought to hold companies
responsible for the actions of society at large.

“This type of legislation represents nothing more than a punitive new fee
on American energy, and we are evaluating our options moving forward,” API
spokesman Scott Lauermann said in a statement released after the governor
signed the bill.

Nationwide, weather-driven disasters are happening more frequently and
costing the country about $150 billion each year, on average, according to
the most recent National Climate Assessment, issued in 2023. The report
painted a picture of a nation whose economy, environment and public health
face deepening threats as the world grows hotter.

Yet federal disaster relief typically covers only a portion of what cities
and towns need to spend to recover from a devastating flood or wildfire.
The rest falls to states and municipalities — and their taxpayers.

In New York, the law’s supporters said a slew of storms this year had put
the state’s growing vulnerability to climate change in stark relief. Since
January, eight weather disasters have struck the state, each costing more
than $1 billion in damage, according to the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. That’s a record for New York since data
collection began in 1980. The previous record was set last year.

In August, a powerful storm system deluged parts of New York and
Connecticut, killing two people. Flash flooding caused by record rainfall
damaged roads, homes and buildings on Stony Brook University’s campus and
caused the breach of dams in Suffolk County, New York. It was a 1-in-
1,000-year rainstorm for the area.

Opponents have said they fear fossil fuel companies will pass the
pollution fines to consumers. In a September letter to Hochul’s office,
the Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz suggested the governor shared
those concerns and said they were unlikely. Oil prices are set by the
global market, and the law’s cost to polluters is too small and affects
too few companies to have wide-reaching effects on prices, he wrote.

Exactly which companies New York would fine for their emissions remains to
be seen. The law applies to companies that emitted over 1 billion metric
tons of carbon dioxide during the covered 18-year period. An NYPIRG
analysis found that would probably include 30 to 40 firms, including major
American oil companies such as ExxonMobil and Chevron, as well as foreign
companies with business in the state.

Supporters said that the law’s projected $75 billion cost is a fraction of
what climate change will cost New York — and that residents are already
paying for a hotter climate through local taxes and higher home insurance
rates. In New York City alone, officials estimate it will take $100
billion to upgrade the city’s sewer system so it can withstand more
powerful hurricanes fueled by climate change. Billions more may be needed
to defend the city’s harbor and protect people living in basement
apartments that can turn into death traps during torrential rain storms.

It has taken more than four years for the idea of making polluters pay to
gain traction among New York Democrats, who control both chambers of the
state legislature. Advocates scored a win in 2023, when the state Senate
approved the idea, but the state Assembly didn’t act on it and Hochul
didn’t embrace it.

Its passage was also uncertain this year. After the Senate and the
Assembly approved the bill over the summer, an agreement with the governor
was not worked out until after President-elect Donald Trump’s win, which
has put many federal climate efforts in jeopardy and left some blue-state
leaders bracing for conflict and looking for ways to show leadership on
climate change. After Trump’s victory, Hochul revived a congestion pricing
program to reduce traffic, air pollution and carbon emissions in New York
City — one she had abruptly suspended five months before.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/12/26/new-york-
climate-superfund/
Scout
2025-01-14 18:17:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Hochul Follies
The law would raise $75 billion over 25 years from major carbon polluters,
requiring them to pay for climate damage caused by increasingly severe
weather.
New York became the second state to require fossil fuel companies to pay
for climate damage, joining a growing effort to hold major polluters
accountable for more frequent and costly extreme weather disasters.
The bill New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) signed into law on Thursday would
allow the state to fine the biggest greenhouse gas emitters a total of $75
billion, to be paid over 25 years into a fund based on their contribution
to overall emissions between 2000 and 2018.
Ex post facto...

Utterly unconstitutional.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2025-01-15 18:07:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 1/14/2025 10:17 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless
Post by Scout
Post by Hochul Follies
The law would raise $75 billion over 25 years from major carbon polluters,
requiring them to pay for climate damage caused by increasingly severe
weather.
New York became the second state to require fossil fuel companies to pay
for climate damage, joining a growing effort to hold major polluters
accountable for more frequent and costly extreme weather disasters.
The bill New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) signed into law on Thursday would
allow the state to fine the biggest greenhouse gas emitters a total of $75
billion, to be paid over 25 years into a fund based on their contribution
to overall emissions between 2000 and 2018.
Ex post facto...
Utterly unconstitutional.
No, scooter, you stupid fuck. It's not a criminal law, scooter. This law
establishes *civil* liability, scooter, and is not an /ex post facto/ law. You
don't know what the fuck you're blabbering about, scooter. You never do.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2025-01-16 16:37:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 1/16/2025 7:18 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On 1/14/2025 10:17 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless
Post by Scout
Post by Hochul Follies
The law would raise $75 billion over 25 years from major carbon polluters,
requiring them to pay for climate damage caused by increasingly severe
weather.
New York became the second state to require fossil fuel companies to pay
for climate damage, joining a growing effort to hold major polluters
accountable for more frequent and costly extreme weather disasters.
The bill New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) signed into law on Thursday would
allow the state to fine the biggest greenhouse gas emitters a total of $75
billion, to be paid over 25 years into a fund based on their contribution
to overall emissions between 2000 and 2018.
Ex post facto...
Utterly unconstitutional.
No, scooter, you stupid fuck. It's not a criminal law, scooter.
Doesn't matter.
It matters, scooter. The Supreme Court has expressly said the prohibition on ex
post facto laws only applies to criminal laws, scooter.

Scope of the Provision.—The prohibition against state ex post facto laws,
like the cognate restriction imposed on the Federal Government by § 9,
relates only to penal and criminal legislation and not to civil laws that
affect private rights adversely.2033 Distinguishing between civil and penal
laws was at the heart of the Court’s decision in Smith v. Doe2034 upholding
application of Alaska’s “Megan’s Law” to sex offenders who were convicted
before the law’s enactment. The Alaska law requires released sex offenders to
register with local police and also provides for public notification via the
Internet. The Court accords “considerable deference” to legislative intent;
if the legislature’s purpose was to enact a civil regulatory scheme, then the
law can be ex post facto only if there is “the clearest proof” of punitive
effect.2035 Here, the Court determined, the legislative intent was civil and
non-punitive—to promote public safety by “protecting the public from sex
offenders.”

https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-1/70-ex-post-facto-laws.html


Separate provisions of the Constitution ban enactment of ex post facto laws
by the Federal Government and the states, respectively.1 The Supreme Court
has cited cases interpreting the federal Ex Post Facto Clause in challenges
under the state clause, and vice versa, implying that the two clauses have
the same scope.2 The Court has construed both clauses to ban legislatures
from enacting laws that impose criminal liability or increase criminal
punishment retroactively.3

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C3-3-1/ALDE_00013192/

You lose again, scooter. You always lose.

Now watch, everyone! It is guaran-fucking-teed that scooter, the drunken
Virginia camper and gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, is
going to come back and double down on his stupidity. He *always* does.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
This law establishes *civil* liability, scooter
After the fact.
Irrelevant, scooter. See above, scooter.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
and is not an /ex post facto/ law.
Was it a law when the actions took place?
It's a civil provision, scooter, not criminal. See above, scooter.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
You don't know what the fuck you're blabbering about, scooter. You never do.
Well, we all know you never do.
I always do, scooter, and you never do.
"An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences
or status of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before
the enactment of the law. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law
The *prohibition* on ex post facto laws, scooter, only applies to criminal law.
Your own citation, which you did not read thoroughly because of your
slovenliness, makes this clear. Farther down at that page, under subsection
"United States" in the "Ex post facto laws by country," we (well, not *you*,
scooter, you stupid drunken Virginia camper and pig-fucker) read:

Over the years, however, when deciding ex post facto cases, the United States
Supreme Court has referred repeatedly to its ruling in Calder v. Bull, in
which Justice Samuel Chase held that the prohibition applied only to criminal
matters, not civil matters, and established four categories of
unconstitutional ex post facto laws.[42] The case dealt with the Article I,
Section 10, prohibition on ex post facto laws, because it concerned a
Connecticut state law.

As a result of Calder v. Bull, several retroactive taxes have been passed by
the US Congress, starting with the 1913 Revenue Act, which imposed the first
income tax. By 1935, prohibitions on retroactive taxation had been declared
"dead." In 1938, the US Supreme Court claimed the standard on retroactive
taxation was “retroactive application is so harsh and oppressive as to
transgress the constitutional limitation.” In practice, this has resulted in
virtually all retroactive taxes being upheld, and in one case a 1993 revision
of tax law that applied retroactively to 1984 was upheld.[43][44]

Not all laws with retroactive effects have been held to be unconstitutional.
One current U.S. law that has a retroactive effect is the Adam Walsh Child
Protection and Safety Act of 2006. This law imposes new registration
requirements on convicted sex offenders and also applies to offenders whose
crimes were committed before the law was enacted.[45] The U.S. Supreme Court
ruled in Smith v. Doe (2003) that requiring sex offenders to register their
whereabouts at regular intervals, and the posting of personal information
about them on the Internet, do not violate the constitutional prohibition
against ex post facto laws, because these laws do not impose any kind of
punishment.[46][47]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_States

You just can't help fucking up, can you, scooter? No, you can't.

But just watch! As I said above, scooter is *guaranteed* to come back and try to
"prove" that he's right...when he is unequivocally wrong. Too fucking funny!
Klaus Schadenfreude
2025-01-16 17:31:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On 1/16/2025 7:18 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On 1/14/2025 10:17 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless
Post by Scout
Post by Hochul Follies
The law would raise $75 billion over 25 years from major carbon polluters,
requiring them to pay for climate damage caused by increasingly severe
weather.
New York became the second state to require fossil fuel companies to pay
for climate damage, joining a growing effort to hold major polluters
accountable for more frequent and costly extreme weather disasters.
The bill New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) signed into law on Thursday would
allow the state to fine the biggest greenhouse gas emitters a total of $75
billion, to be paid over 25 years into a fund based on their contribution
to overall emissions between 2000 and 2018.
Ex post facto...
Utterly unconstitutional.
No, scooter, you stupid fuck. It's not a criminal law, scooter.
Doesn't matter.
It matters, scooter. The Supreme Court has expressly said the prohibition on ex
post facto laws only applies to criminal laws, scooter.
   Scope of the Provision.—The prohibition against state ex post facto laws,
   like the cognate restriction imposed on the Federal Government by § 9,
   relates only to penal and criminal legislation and not to civil laws that
   affect private rights adversely.2033 Distinguishing between civil and penal
   laws was at the heart of the Court’s decision in Smith v. Doe2034 upholding
   application of Alaska’s “Megan’s Law” to sex offenders who were convicted
   before the law’s enactment. The Alaska law requires released sex offenders to
   register with local police and also provides for public notification via the
   Internet. The Court accords “considerable deference” to legislative intent;
   if the legislature’s purpose was to enact a civil regulatory scheme, then the
   law can be ex post facto only if there is “the clearest proof” of punitive
   effect.2035 Here, the Court determined, the legislative intent was civil and
   non-punitive—to promote public safety by “protecting the public from sex
   offenders.”
   https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-1/70-ex-post-facto-laws.html
   Separate provisions of the Constitution ban enactment of ex post facto laws
   by the Federal Government and the states, respectively.1 The Supreme Court
   has cited cases interpreting the federal Ex Post Facto Clause in challenges
   under the state clause, and vice versa, implying that the two clauses have
   the same scope.2 The Court has construed both clauses to ban legislatures
   from enacting laws that impose criminal liability or increase criminal
   punishment retroactively.3
   https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C3-3-1/ALDE_00013192/
You lose again, scooter. You always lose.
Now watch, everyone! It is guaran-fucking-teed that scooter, the drunken
Virginia camper and gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, is
going to come back and double down on his stupidity. He *always* does.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
This law establishes *civil* liability, scooter
After the fact.
Irrelevant, scooter. See above, scooter.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
and is not an /ex post facto/ law.
I was a little hasty here. What I should have said is it is not a *prohibited*
ex post facto law. The civil penalty is ex post facto, but it is not a criminal
punishment. For 227 years, since Calder v. Bull in 1798, the constitutional
provision prohibiting ex post facto laws has been held to apply *only* to
criminal laws.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/3/386/

And then:

In a unanimous decision, the High Court held the new law wasn’t an
unconstitutional ex post facto law. It determined that the Constitution’s ex
post facto clause only applies to criminal laws, not civil matters like
probate cases.

It’s aimed at preventing retroactive criminal laws. And it protects
individuals from being punished for actions that were legal when they were
performed, or from receiving harsher punishments than were in place at the
time of the offense.

The Court explained that ex post facto laws are those that:

* Make an action criminal that was legal when committed
* Aggravate a crime or make it greater than when committed
* Increase the punishment for a crime after it was committed
* Alter legal rules of evidence to make conviction easier

The Court clarified that retrospective civil laws, while potentially unfair,
aren’t prohibited by this clause. Thus, Calder’s challenge failed.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/3/386.html

And there are additional cases, e.g., Smith v. Doe
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/538/84/ That case held that a state
law mandating registration on a sex offenders list, which was applied
retroactively to sex offenders who were convicted before the list was created,
was not unconstitutional, because the registration was not a criminal
punishment, nor was it an augmentation of a criminal punishment. Although the
law was (partially) an ex post facto law, it was not "utterly unconstitutional,"
as stupid fuckwitted scooter claimed above.

scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless chickenshit who is frightened
to death of Rudy, is wrong, as always. The New York law creating civil penalties
is an ex post facto law, but it is not a *prohibited* ex post facto law, and
thus is not "utterly unconstitutional," as fuckwitted scooter claimed above.

scooter always fucks up — *always*.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Was it a law when the actions took place?
It's a civil provision, scooter, not criminal. See above, scooter.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
You don't know what the fuck you're blabbering about, scooter. You never do.
Well, we all know you never do.
I always do, scooter, and you never do.
"An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively changes the legal
consequences or status of actions that were committed, or relationships that
existed, before the enactment of the law. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law
The *prohibition* on ex post facto laws, scooter, only applies to criminal law.
Your own citation, which you did not read thoroughly because of your
slovenliness, makes this clear. Farther down at that page, under subsection
"United States" in the "Ex post facto laws by country," we (well, not *you*,
   Over the years, however, when deciding ex post facto cases, the United States
   Supreme Court has referred repeatedly to its ruling in Calder v. Bull, in
   which Justice Samuel Chase held that the prohibition applied only to criminal
   matters, not civil matters, and established four categories of
   unconstitutional ex post facto laws.[42] The case dealt with the Article I,
   Section 10, prohibition on ex post facto laws, because it concerned a
   Connecticut state law.
   As a result of Calder v. Bull, several retroactive taxes have been passed by
   the US Congress, starting with the 1913 Revenue Act, which imposed the first
   income tax. By 1935, prohibitions on retroactive taxation had been declared
   "dead." In 1938, the US Supreme Court claimed the standard on retroactive
   taxation was “retroactive application is so harsh and oppressive as to
   transgress the constitutional limitation.” In practice, this has resulted in
   virtually all retroactive taxes being upheld, and in one case a 1993 revision
   of tax law that applied retroactively to 1984 was upheld.[43][44]
   Not all laws with retroactive effects have been held to be unconstitutional.
   One current U.S. law that has a retroactive effect is the Adam Walsh Child
   Protection and Safety Act of 2006. This law imposes new registration
   requirements on convicted sex offenders and also applies to offenders whose
   crimes were committed before the law was enacted.[45] The U.S. Supreme Court
   ruled in Smith v. Doe (2003) that requiring sex offenders to register their
   whereabouts at regular intervals, and the posting of personal information
   about them on the Internet, do not violate the constitutional prohibition
   against ex post facto laws, because these laws do not impose any kind of
   punishment.[46][47]
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_States
You just can't help fucking up, can you, scooter? No, you can't.
But just watch! As I said above, scooter is *guaranteed* to come back and try to
"prove" that he's right...when he is unequivocally wrong. Too fucking funny!
Scout
2025-01-16 19:41:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On 1/16/2025 7:18 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On 1/14/2025 10:17 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless
Post by Scout
Post by Hochul Follies
The law would raise $75 billion over 25 years from major carbon polluters,
requiring them to pay for climate damage caused by increasingly severe
weather.
New York became the second state to require fossil fuel companies to pay
for climate damage, joining a growing effort to hold major polluters
accountable for more frequent and costly extreme weather disasters.
The bill New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) signed into law on Thursday would
allow the state to fine the biggest greenhouse gas emitters a total of $75
billion, to be paid over 25 years into a fund based on their contribution
to overall emissions between 2000 and 2018.
Ex post facto...
Utterly unconstitutional.
No, scooter, you stupid fuck. It's not a criminal law, scooter.
Doesn't matter.
It matters, scooter. The Supreme Court has expressly said the prohibition
on ex post facto laws only applies to criminal laws, scooter.
Ok.. then you have to accept "1. The Second Amendment protects an individual
right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use
that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the
home. "

Looks like the gun control you advocate is utterly Unconstitutional and your
requirement of militia membership is unsupportable.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2025-01-16 20:15:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 1/16/2025 11:41 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless
Post by Scout
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On 1/16/2025 7:18 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On 1/14/2025 10:17 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless
Post by Scout
Post by Hochul Follies
The law would raise $75 billion over 25 years from major carbon polluters,
requiring them to pay for climate damage caused by increasingly severe
weather.
New York became the second state to require fossil fuel companies to pay
for climate damage, joining a growing effort to hold major polluters
accountable for more frequent and costly extreme weather disasters.
The bill New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) signed into law on Thursday would
allow the state to fine the biggest greenhouse gas emitters a total of $75
billion, to be paid over 25 years into a fund based on their contribution
to overall emissions between 2000 and 2018.
Ex post facto...
Utterly unconstitutional.
No, scooter, you stupid fuck. It's not a criminal law, scooter.
Doesn't matter.
It matters, scooter. The Supreme Court has expressly said the prohibition on
ex post facto laws only applies to criminal laws, scooter.
Ok.. then you have to accept "1. The Second Amendment
Your concession of defeat on ex post facto laws is noted with glee and scorn,
scooter.

What would your fellow neo-Nazi Kremlin Girl / Bit of Nothingness have to say
about your attempt to change the topic, scooter?
Post by Scout
Looks like the gun control you advocate is utterly Unconstitutional [sic] and
The upper case 'U' in "unconstitutional" is wrong, scooter.

The gun control that *I* advocate, scooter, is not unconstitutional. Your belief
that all gun control is unconstitutional is wrong, scooter:

"The second amendment to the constitution of the United States of America
would pretty much render any gun control law you want to be null and void."

scooter, lying on 04/26/2023 at 12:45pm ET


"By and large, I would generally state that virtually all, if not all, gun
control laws currently or recently proposed would be Unconstitutional."

scooter, lying on 04/27/2023 at 2:00pm ET

Both of those, when stripped of your bullshit wheeze, are you saying that all
gun control is unconstitutional, with no exceptions. And you're wrong, of course.
Post by Scout
your requirement of militia membership is unsupportable.
I have never maintained that gun rights are predicated (look it up, scooter) on
membership in a militia, scooter. You're lying if you claim that I have, scooter
— I never have.

Prediction: scooter will come back and lie about that.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2025-01-21 23:13:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On 1/16/2025 11:41 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless
Post by Scout
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On 1/16/2025 7:18 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On 1/14/2025 10:17 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless
Post by Scout
Post by Hochul Follies
The law would raise $75 billion over 25 years from major carbon polluters,
requiring them to pay for climate damage caused by increasingly severe
weather.
New York became the second state to require fossil fuel companies to pay
for climate damage, joining a growing effort to hold major polluters
accountable for more frequent and costly extreme weather disasters.
The bill New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) signed into law on Thursday would
allow the state to fine the biggest greenhouse gas emitters a total of $75
billion, to be paid over 25 years into a fund based on their contribution
to overall emissions between 2000 and 2018.
Ex post facto...
Utterly unconstitutional.
No, scooter, you stupid fuck. It's not a criminal law, scooter.
Doesn't matter.
It matters, scooter. The Supreme Court has expressly said the prohibition on
ex post facto laws only applies to criminal laws, scooter.
Ok.. then you have to accept "1. The Second Amendment
Your concession of defeat on ex post facto laws is noted with glee and scorn,
scooter.
What would your fellow neo-Nazi Kremlin Girl / Bit of Nothingness have to say
about your attempt to change the topic, scooter?
Post by Scout
Looks like the gun control you advocate is utterly Unconstitutional [sic] and
The upper case 'U' in "unconstitutional" is wrong, scooter.
The gun control that *I* advocate, scooter, is not unconstitutional. Your belief
   "The second amendment to the constitution of the United States of America
   would pretty much render any gun control law you want to be null and void."
   scooter, lying on 04/26/2023 at 12:45pm ET
   "By and large, I would generally state that virtually all, if not all, gun
   control laws currently or recently proposed would be Unconstitutional."
   scooter, lying on 04/27/2023 at 2:00pm ET
Both of those, when stripped of your bullshit wheeze, are you saying that all
gun control is unconstitutional, with no exceptions. And you're wrong, of course.
Post by Scout
your requirement of militia membership is unsupportable.
I have never maintained that gun rights are predicated (look it up, scooter) on
membership in a militia, scooter. You're lying if you claim that I have, scooter
— I never have.
And scooter runs away again...

Loading...