Letter Box

There are 25 comments on the Brattleboro Reformer story from Dec 7, 2010, titled Letter Box. In it, Brattleboro Reformer reports that:

While reading the Reformer's splendid editorial "Reaching for the Stars" , I shared their sense of "awe and wonder" at putting humans into space.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Brattleboro Reformer.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Merry Crispness

Brattleboro, VT

#1 Dec 7, 2010
In your nuclear wet dreams, Howard Fairman!
Vermonter

Little Rock, AR

#2 Dec 7, 2010
Way to insult the person instead of disputing the opinions/facts. If you are who I think you are then you're a lawyer and I was wondering if you care to clarify why you believe Howard is incorrect?
I'm quite interested in the subject and would like to know how much truth there is to what Howard says.
Not Glowing Yet

Springfield, MA

#3 Dec 7, 2010
Yeah, good luck with all that.
flat lander

Schuylkill Haven, PA

#4 Dec 7, 2010
Is this the Wall Street Journal Topix or the Brat topix two cents .
Noel

Wolcott, VT

#5 Dec 7, 2010
Howard Fairman,
I think that you have stated what most believe; this will be decided in the courts. Those who publically state otherwise have a vested interest in confusing facts with emotion.
Joe Shlabotnik

Charlestown, NH

#6 Dec 7, 2010
On another note, how ironic that Mr.Reed's letter pontificating about schools obligations would come on a "bad news" day for him. He will probably have a lot to say about the news coverage he will receive, based on his recent controversy. Hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Men In White Coats

Danvers, MA

#7 Dec 8, 2010
Noel wrote:
Howard Fairman,
I think that you have stated what most believe; this will be decided in the courts. Those who publically state otherwise have a vested interest in confusing facts with emotion.
-This should be considered to have already BEEN "decided", in fact laid down as the foundation of our whole country, which by the way is not a "nation" but a union of States- that it was the States that created the federal government, not the other way around, and so as for Fairman's rediculous query:

"Can the state of Vermont constitutionally prevent continued operation of a specific business duly licensed by the federal government and engaging in interstate commerce?"

---Of course it can, and the States must exercise their rights over the federal entity it created and keep it under the thumb of the States, lest the federal branch get too big for its britches and become tyrannical like the old monarchy we seperated from for that very reason. The people of the States hold the ultimate power and have to remind the government of that, sometimes harshly when neccesary, just as some of the "subjects" of old medieval England "reminded" the king (with a sword to his throat) that they could cut off food crops altogether and starve the vicious royal tyrants if he didn't sign the Magna Carta agreeing to grant the people a semblence of civil rights.

Fairman's rediculous query continued:
"Can the Vermont Legislature, despite constitutional separation of legislative and executive powers, authorize (or not) the Vermont Public Service Board to issue a certificate of public good to a specific business?
While courts are deciding these unresolved legal and constitutional issues, Vermont Yankee can operate with a federally extended license."
---Of course the State can, as the PSB was voted in by the Vermont legislation to exist as an overseer and regulator of public service entities like the power co.s and the cable co. etc.
BECAUSE they each get to operate as monopolies and so must agree to the conditions of the PSB or not even be allowed to do business here in the first place. Fairman invokes the "constitutional separation of legislative and executive powers" but fails to understand that the States had Constitutions prior to the federal one- which DID NOT trump the States sovereign powers, and the ideal of seperate branches in check and balance of each other so as to not let either get too powerful is also fixed in place with the State/PSB/Public Service Co. relationship as it is with State/federal relationship. VY is licensed by the federal entity NRC to operate here, but the "here" is to be seen legally as some accepted place within the country (accepted by a State)- NOT as if the federal government can tell any State that it must accept any particular corporation operating in its State just because the feds licensed it!

There should be NO court decision needed, but it seems there will have to be to remind the federal government to back down where it has no legitimate place- such as telling a State that it can't regulate and even end a business practice that is ALREADY under the legal nexus of the State via the PSB regs etc., as well as placing safety concerns of the people living here as a high priority.
Men In White Coats

Danvers, MA

#8 Dec 8, 2010
Fairman says:
"The coalition of elected officials and representatives and self-appointed activists now jointly governing Vermont sincerely believe that they can. Nevertheless, they are bound by the Constitutions of the United States and the state of Vermont."

---The NRC is involved and no NRC official was elected by the people that I know of, therefore those out of State feds shouldn't really have any more authoritative say so than the people of the state and their reps. And Fairman needs to accept the fact that the people have a right to be activists-no license needed for that!(although some like Fairman would love to see such total control)
Nothing in the federal Constitution allows the federal government juridictional authority over the States, certainly not in the way Fairman seems to think. The fact that VY is engaged in interstate commerce does not give the feds carte blanche over it and somehow negate the power of the State to regulate it, even regulate it to death next year by not renewing its Certificate of Public Good.

SHUT -R- DOWN !!

Noel- you're rightly concerned about "confusing facts with emotion.", but it's a disgusting pathetic time when a State still has to fight to prove and retain what the Supreme Law of the Land (the rulebook of the feds) already plainly says about how federal incroachment into State jurisdiction isn't allowed! It's been a lot of the pro-VY people who've expressed overly emotional cries about the job losses of VY shutting down to the PSB, when that board is NOT supposed to consider that whole concern to begin with, but they've acted like it's the JSB- the "Job Sustainability Board", and have wasted the time of those in that agency with their NON-GERMANE rants at PSB hearings.

Fairman had the same exact letter in the Rutland Herald Dec 1. He's well known as the cranky curmudgeon of Vernon who thinks he not only knows better than you on anything and will even bark orders at you like a stern father with total authority, which has gotten him in trouble before.(talk about emotions!) Discount him as we do the paper scroll guy who parades in front of the Bratt post office.
estanson

Windsor, VT

#9 Dec 8, 2010
Men In White Coats wrote:
<quoted text>
-This should be considered to have already BEEN "decided", in fact laid down as the foundation of our whole country, which by the way is not a "nation" but a union of States- that it was the States that created the federal government, not the other way around, and so as for Fairman's rediculous query:
"Can the state of Vermont constitutionally prevent continued operation of a specific business duly licensed by the federal government and engaging in interstate commerce?"
---Of course it can, and the States must exercise their rights over the federal entity it created and keep it under the thumb of the States, lest the federal branch get too big for its britches and become tyrannical like the old monarchy we seperated from for that very reason. The people of the States hold the ultimate power and have to remind the government of that, sometimes harshly when neccesary, just as some of the "subjects" of old medieval England "reminded" the king (with a sword to his throat) that they could cut off food crops altogether and starve the vicious royal tyrants if he didn't sign the Magna Carta agreeing to grant the people a semblence of civil rights.
Fairman's rediculous query continued:
"Can the Vermont Legislature, despite constitutional separation of legislative and executive powers, authorize (or not) the Vermont Public Service Board to issue a certificate of public good to a specific business?
While courts are deciding these unresolved legal and constitutional issues, Vermont Yankee can operate with a federally extended license."
---Of course the State can, as the PSB was voted in by the Vermont legislation to exist as an overseer and regulator of public service entities like the power co.s and the cable co. etc.
BECAUSE they each get to operate as monopolies and so must agree to the conditions of the PSB or not even be allowed to do business here in the first place. Fairman invokes the "constitutional separation of legislative and executive powers" but fails to understand that the States had Constitutions prior to the federal one- which DID NOT trump the States sovereign powers, and the ideal of seperate branches in check and balance of each other so as to not let either get too powerful is also fixed in place with the State/PSB/Public Service Co. relationship as it is with State/federal relationship. VY is licensed by the federal entity NRC to operate here, but the "here" is to be seen legally as some accepted place within the country (accepted by a State)- NOT as if the federal government can tell any State that it must accept any particular corporation operating in its State just because the feds licensed it!
There should be NO court decision needed, but it seems there will have to be to remind the federal government to back down where it has no legitimate place- such as telling a State that it can't regulate and even end a business practice that is ALREADY under the legal nexus of the State via the PSB regs etc., as well as placing safety concerns of the people living here as a high priority.
while I agree with everything you have said and find it to be a correct interpretation of the constitution (for what thats worth)...but I do wonder if the courts would thinks so...
especially the SCOTUS which has extended commerce clause jurisprudence well past the line you clearly identify...

to me...a decision that VT law is preempted by the fed in nukes, pot and guns is soon to come and will finally clue VT into its own identity...it is not a blue state but a radical state on the far right and left...what folks will soon discover is that the far right and far left are sometimes the same position...

imagine if the hippies and gun lovers united in VT....
Men In White Coats

Danvers, MA

#10 Dec 8, 2010
estanson wrote:
<quoted text>
while I agree with everything you have said and find it to be a correct interpretation of the constitution (for what thats worth)...but I do wonder if the courts would thinks so...
especially the SCOTUS which has extended commerce clause jurisprudence well past the line you clearly identify...
to me...a decision that VT law is preempted by the fed in nukes, pot and guns is soon to come and will finally clue VT into its own identity...it is not a blue state but a radical state on the far right and left...what folks will soon discover is that the far right and far left are sometimes the same position...
imagine if the hippies and gun lovers united in VT....
---Yes, like also with that New London CT case of eminent domain where the governemt can steal your property. It can't really, but they nonetheless exert that POWER (as opposed to Authority- which is what they CLAIMED the State/city CT had. The same SCOTUS once ruled that a man who came into it as a free man had to leave as a slave (Dred Scott decision), and it said just a few years ago that you can be thrown in jail just for not wearing a seat belt!! Roe v. Wade basically said that the preborn baby has no right to life liberty or the pursuit of being born. When an unconstitutional ruling is handed down, the people must get it overturned or learn to enjoy suffering like peon subjects under such tyrannical despotic rule. ObamaCare just got ruled as Constitutional by one judge, but that's not the end-all-say-all, not even the SCOTUS is the final say, as it's OK of slavery was overturned as unconstitutional as were others like the amendment that made liquor illegal.
Hippies and gun owners united?-Yes we could use more like Ted Nugent- LOL!
Real hippies -where do they exist anymore? There are a lot of hunters who also like to smoke pot though, does that count?
When OUR government, which was created by We The People as sort of our "child" gets out of bounds and misbehaves acting like Big Brother "1984", then it's up to us to get 1776 on their arse and spank it good!
The main thing we all need to unite on is taking back States rights.
Fa la la la la la la la

Belfast, ME

#11 Dec 8, 2010
Soooo are we talking about the Arizona immigration law too?

Federal Judge Blocks Key Portions of Arizona Illegal Immigration Law
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/28/fe...
Men In White Coats

Danvers, MA

#12 Dec 8, 2010
Fa la la la la la la la wrote:
Soooo are we talking about the Arizona immigration law too?
Federal Judge Blocks Key Portions of Arizona Illegal Immigration Law
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/28/fe...
-Absolutely! The notion that a State must continue to put up with the federal government not doing its job and allowing the freeloaders with their soon to be born Anchorbabies and often criminal intent just come right over the border with little worry of being jailed is an outrage, one that some good people in AZ decided to do something about themselves as is their RIGHT. Non citizens should NOT be able to claim all the same rights that citizens have!
Tell us Fa la la la la, did you vote for Ob aa aa aa ma? Did you have "hope" for a "change", and did you envision that as including less rights for those in the southern border who are suffering the high crime rates including rapes and murders as well as the economic losses due to the open borders/amnesty policy that's effectively been allowed to exist for many years?

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#13 Dec 8, 2010
Brattleboro, Nov. 26

Who decides?

Editor of the Reformer:

Can the state of Vermont constitutionally prevent continued operation of a specific business duly licensed by the federal government and engaging in interstate commerce?

Can the Vermont Legislature, despite constitutional separation of legislative and executive powers, authorize (or not) the Vermont Public Service Board to issue a certificate of public good to a specific business?

The coalition of elected officials and representatives and self-appointed activists now jointly governing Vermont sincerely believe that they can. Nevertheless, they are bound by the Constitutions of the United States and the state of Vermont.

The specific business currently is Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon, but the coalition, if successful there, will set legal and constitutional precedents applicable to any specific business in Vermont’s present and future economy.

While courts are deciding these unresolved legal and constitutional issues, Vermont Yankee can operate with a federally extended license.

(U.S. Constitution: commerce clause, due process, equal protection, preemption; and Vermont Constitution: separation of powers.)
http://www.reformer.com/letters/ci_16793865

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#14 Dec 8, 2010
Merry Crispness wrote:
In your nuclear wet dreams, Howard Fairman!
Quite funny. Antis are so quick to jump on people who say anythign they disagree with. If you actually read the many letters Mr. Fairman has written to the editor over the last couple of years you would know that he is anti-nuclear power. He is also absolutley anti-Entergy. The one thing that comes with Mr. Fairmans letters is although I usually disagree with him he tends to write well thought out ideas. He will admit the positive aspects of nuclear power although he would rather see them closed.

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#15 Dec 8, 2010
Letter a complete joke. Constitution in this case is in the favor of citizens & the states rights. With rights come responsibility. The more rights the more reponsibilty. Also, VT cannot be forced to accept any business it does not want here. Nor can we be forced to purchase our power from anyone-this is a choice.

Difficult to believe anyone can be as clueless as Mr. Fairman, however he routinely broadcasts this ridiculous mindset on a regular basis.

If Entergy merlely selling power to grid, no benefit to VT as the liability far outweighs any benefit even if VT gets power elswhere & merely has an RSA. Topping off the decom fund to @ least the minimum of $1 billion it is estimated to be @ present time, the very least they could have done to show good faith, allowing VT to collect the interest returning unused portion to Entergy after decom. In that case, they would expect the 10 year greenfield option asap.

VY not just 'a business' but a nuclear power plant w/duties, obligations & responsibilities, as well as being subject to the public good as agreed upon terms of operation. And, there are rules & guidelines which are unique to its atatus. Not a sporting goods store for crying out loud. Sheesh.

Any business which polluted, esp w/impunity would face legal action. Environmental violations recieve harsh penalties. Being shut down happens when a business shows flagrant disregard for our laws.

Entergy could have been fined $150,000.00/day for the nuclear waste leak by NRC-they did nothing which is part of the reason VT does not want them here. VT retained legislative oversight as well as enacting 160 specifically because we do not wish to be subject to an entity which does not make our interests a priority. Entergy did not pass Act 160 or Act 189 muster. They are in violation of groundwater statute @ present time.

VTers have a right to run our state as we see fit-this is why we love it here. Total independence & self reliance is what built our state. VT continues to attract other freedom loving ppl. Those who don't like it here along w/the live & let live mindset, please kindly vote w/your feet & leave.

Act 160, giving constitutionally elected legislature following VT conststitution the right to decide if VY will operate past the 40 year closing date:
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/jfo/VY%20Legislati...

Explanation:
"Vermont legislature passed a law of truly historic proportions, Act 160. Act 160 states that the Entergy Nuclear Corporation may not operate the Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor after its license expires in 2012 without "the explicit approval of the General Assembly".

Even if the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in Washington, DC decides to authorize a 20-year license extension for the aging, mismanaged reactor, the representatives of Vermont's citizens still have the authority to say "NO!" The legislature's vote will likely take place during the 2010 session."
more:
http://www.vtcitizen.org/index.php/act-160.ht...

Act 189:
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/jfo/VY%20Legislati...

VT's groundwater is protected by statute. Enforcement is w/in the purview of the state.

Star of Wonder

Belfast, ME

#16 Dec 9, 2010
Men In White Coats wrote:
<quoted text>
-Absolutely! The notion that a State must continue to put up with the federal government not doing its job and allowing the freeloaders with their soon to be born Anchorbabies and often criminal intent just come right over the border with little worry of being jailed is an outrage, one that some good people in AZ decided to do something about themselves as is their RIGHT. Non citizens should NOT be able to claim all the same rights that citizens have!
Tell us Fa la la la la, did you vote for Ob aa aa aa ma? Did you have "hope" for a "change", and did you envision that as including less rights for those in the southern border who are suffering the high crime rates including rapes and murders as well as the economic losses due to the open borders/amnesty policy that's effectively been allowed to exist for many years?
Though I agreed with Barak Obama's energy plan and his selection of Steven Chu for the DOE head, I voted for John McCain. Now a question for you. What does the United mean in the United States of America?
estanson

Windsor, VT

#17 Dec 9, 2010
Star of Wonder wrote:
<quoted text>Though I agreed with Barak Obama's energy plan and his selection of Steven Chu for the DOE head, I voted for John McCain. Now a question for you. What does the United mean in the United States of America?
fyi...in the eary times united was not capitalized...only States was...so the focus was on the States...

remember the USSR was also united nation/states...
estanson

Windsor, VT

#18 Dec 9, 2010
Men In White Coats wrote:
<quoted text>
---Yes, like also with that New London CT case of eminent domain where the governemt can steal your property. It can't really, but they nonetheless exert that POWER (as opposed to Authority- which is what they CLAIMED the State/city CT had. The same SCOTUS once ruled that a man who came into it as a free man had to leave as a slave (Dred Scott decision), and it said just a few years ago that you can be thrown in jail just for not wearing a seat belt!! Roe v. Wade basically said that the preborn baby has no right to life liberty or the pursuit of being born. When an unconstitutional ruling is handed down, the people must get it overturned or learn to enjoy suffering like peon subjects under such tyrannical despotic rule. ObamaCare just got ruled as Constitutional by one judge, but that's not the end-all-say-all, not even the SCOTUS is the final say, as it's OK of slavery was overturned as unconstitutional as were others like the amendment that made liquor illegal.
Hippies and gun owners united?-Yes we could use more like Ted Nugent- LOL!
Real hippies -where do they exist anymore? There are a lot of hunters who also like to smoke pot though, does that count?
When OUR government, which was created by We The People as sort of our "child" gets out of bounds and misbehaves acting like Big Brother "1984", then it's up to us to get 1776 on their arse and spank it good!
The main thing we all need to unite on is taking back States rights.
I used hippie to describe the anti-VY pro-legal pot crew...
even though i support both of those and don't consider myself a hippie...

I also think the decision in the fairly recent CA medical marijuana case, essentially that 2 old ladies who grow weed in their back yard is interstate commerce based upon the cumulative effect of homegrown on the illegal interstate market...
its a VERY dnagerous precedent especially given the recent legislation on food...
yes the fed currently has authority over what you grow only for your own consumption in your own back yard!
I believe the FED cannot reach inside the state at all...but they sure as heck cant reach into my own property under a clause granting them a right to regulate "commerce amongst the states".

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#19 Dec 9, 2010
Star of Wonder wrote:
<quoted text>Though I agreed with Barak Obama's energy plan and his selection of Steven Chu for the DOE head, I voted for John McCain. Now a question for you. What does the United mean in the United States of America?
You need a Poli Sci 101 refresher. We have branches of gov't per the constitution so ppl cannot make up the rules to suit their own special interests as you are attempting to do.

'United' does not mean all branches or entire nation lose their individual state right & governed by a dictator.

Rather ridiculous, don't you think, to expect states to suffer the consequences of the power grab by the executive branch, or any entity w/in the state, as well as executive branch using the judicial system, another branch @ its disposal to enforce this power grab?

This is known as a dictatorship btw.
Scott

Newton Center, MA

#20 Dec 9, 2010
northstardust wrote:
<quoted text>
You need a Poli Sci 101 refresher. We have branches of gov't per the constitution so ppl cannot make up the rules to suit their own special interests as you are attempting to do.
'United' does not mean all branches or entire nation lose their individual state right & governed by a dictator.
Rather ridiculous, don't you think, to expect states to suffer the consequences of the power grab by the executive branch, or any entity w/in the state, as well as executive branch using the judicial system, another branch @ its disposal to enforce this power grab?
This is known as a dictatorship btw.
The u in united is not capitalized in the Declaration of Independence nor the original organic federal Constitution, it is " the united States of America" but you'll find books screwing it up with a capital U. It is about the States- which happen to be united, aso that word is part of the overall description but not of import as are the governments that are SUPPOSED to each be sovereign. The founders meant for all to understand, but didn't rub it in enough in the document except for in the Tenth Amendment to the Bill of Rights, that the fed govt is to be under the States and the people of those States. That's what the Tenth says- BACK OFF federal govt. when we say so! in our ability to make a living and have property without being taxed to death or for no Consitutional reason (as we are) and particularly regarding our safety from whatever we see need of protection, whether foreigners coming over the border illegally and the fed govt not stopping it, or our want to oversee utility co.s and regulate these monopolies we allow to exist under conditions much more stringent than a plumber etc. The fed NRC and State PSB can co-exist but the fed bureuacrats must not be allowed to take precidence over the State in the final say on shutting down a State licenced AND Public Service Board Certificate of Public Good to be able to operate.
As for a "power grab?", has the fed NRC etc. tried to claim it has overrule ability, as if they can absolutely deny Vermont it's right to stop VY from legally operating here? I haven't heard that the chessboard moves have got there yet unless someone points out different?
No it's not supposed to be a dictatorship, not a democracy either!- yet so many sheeple will insist "we're a democracy" and they can't explain the big difference between that and what Article IV sec. IV says we are to be. Franklin described a democracy as two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
Him and the other founders if they could see what happened would throw up on us then pick up sticks to beat us for being such worthless pathetic sheeple and not standing up for our rights.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Vernon Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Vermonts new economy (Jun '14) May 25 Community Disorga... 214
News Police Log May 23 Cheddar Cheese 1
Looking for Guy Who Tried to Sell Heroin To My Kid (Sep '15) May 23 Candles 4
We have too many scumbags in town. (Oct '15) May 23 Candles 2
Murder in Brattleboro, 1950 to 1956 (Apr '10) May 23 Candles 35
Marble is still missing, and a year of silence? May 23 Candles 2
News Two arraigned in I-91 heroin bust (Oct '14) May 12 Anonymous 9
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Vernon Mortgages