Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz introduced “a bill aimed at protecting states’ rights in the same-sex marriage debate” [1]. But, when it comes to uranium mining he has actively intervened AGAINST the state of Virginia which is trying to protect its environment from uranium mining, accusing Virginia of subversion.

Canadian born Cruz has intervened on behalf of a Canadian mining company, against a US State : “To prevent state subversion of a critical national policy“. This will have broader applications, due to the nature of judicial precedents, under Common Law. Thus, it can be used to undermine any states’ rights, meaning that he is de facto supporting same-sex marriage, which he pretends to oppose.

Canadian born Cruz, who is petitioning the US Supreme Court on behalf of a Canadian Mining Company, against the State of Virginia, is clearly the subversive.

On Monday, November 5th, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case about if US states have the right to protect themselves against uranium mining, including foreign uranium miners. By extension, this appears a question of if communities and individuals have the right to protect their property, as well – whether from harmful pollution or anything else. It will be one of Kavanaugh’s first cases.

Republican Senators Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton, and Jim Inhofe don’t want Virginia to be able to protects its citizens and environment from uranium mining. Cruz-Cotton-Inhofe say: “Virginia has enacted a blanket prohibition on uranium mining due to concerns about the radiological hazards of post-mining activities—activities committed exclusively to the Commission’s regulatory authority. To prevent state subversion of a critical national policy, the Court should reaffirm that the Act’s preemptive scope turns on the purpose and effect of a state’s statute, even when, as here, the text of the statute purports to regulate activities appropriately within the state’s jurisdiction.” No. 16-1275 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ___________
VIRGINIA URANIUM, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. JOHN WARREN, et al., Respondents. ___________
On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
___________
BRIEF OF SENATOR TOM COTTON, SENATOR JIM INHOFE, AND SENATOR TED CRUZ AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS ___________
GORDON D. TODD * KIMBERLY A. LEAMAN T.J. HERRON SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 736-8000 gtodd@sidley.com Counsel for Amici Curiae July 26, 2018 * Counsel of Record https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/16/16-1275/55620/20180726162704872_Virginia%20Uranium%20-%20Merits%20Amicus%20Brief%20-%2007.26.2018.pdf

This case will have broader implications, both within the United States, and even within other Common Law jurisdications, because of the use of judicial precedents. This includes most, if not all, of the English speaking world. This case could end up being quoted within Britain, Canada, or Australia, for instance, and many other countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_legal_systems#Common_law .

It is important to know that the real subversives are a Republican lobbying firm, BGR Group, which helped Uranium One with the CFIUS process, selling US uranium mines to Russia: https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2018/05/24/canadian-mining-company-tries-to-force-uranium-mining-on-virginia-trump-admin-gives-support-to-uranium-mining-co-case-to-be-heard-by-us-supreme-court/
Additionally, BGR Group has represented Russian Alfa Bank for a very long time.
They are also representing Letter One Holdings, which like Alfa Bank is connected to Russian oligarch Mikhail Fridman: https://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=52938D15-DDCC-4B3A-9700-D3128D59BEAB&filingTypeID=69 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LetterOne


[1] CNN as quoted on Cruz web site: https://archive.is/https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=news&id=2241

The non-American reader may not know, but Republicans in the US South have long argued that the US Civil War was fought over States’ Rights, rather than slavery. In the same period, Switzerland fought a much shorter Civil War over the issue of Cantonal vs. Federal Rights, so there are elements of truth to this. In Switzerland this played out as a Catholic vs. Protestant conflict. Possibly because the Swiss lacked outside support-interference, which was given during the US Civil War (including new immigrants as soldiers), the Swiss Civil War was very short-lived (months as opposed to years).

NB: Virginia is technically “The Commonwealth of Virginia” but calling it that could create confusion for some readers.