JimHackerMP wrote:So what do we do about it then?

JimHackerMP wrote:I am disappointed that you think only Democrats wish to trample the Constitution.

I am disappointed that you think only Democrats wish to trample the Constitution

We see this (rule) as very hurtful to farmers and ranchers and we're going to do everything to stop it politically," said Don Parrish of the American Farm Bureau Federation, one of several farm and business groups that have filed suit against the regulation

Republican-controlled Congress has moved to thwart it. The House has ignored a White House veto threat and passed a bill to block it, and a Senate committee has passed a measure that would force the EPA to withdraw and rewrite it.

The senators -- two Democrats and two Republicans -- said in an opinion column Friday that the EPA has "created considerable and potentially costly confusion for many American businesses and communities who are just trying to do their jobs well."
The column, written by Sens. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., John Barrasso, R-Wyo., Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D. and Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., shows opposition to the rule comes from both parties.
The EPA counters that the rule merely clarifies which smaller waterways fall under federal protection after two Supreme Court rulings left the reach of the Clean Water Act uncertain. Those decisions in 2001 and 2006 left 60 percent of the nation's streams and millions of acres of wetlands without clear federal protection, according to EPA, causing confusion for landowners and government officials

rickyp wrote:hacker

I am disappointed that you think only Democrats wish to trample the Constitution

n

Or is the Constitution working exactly as it has been constructed? Are the various levers and entry points being used by the various interest groups as they are designed to be used? (Perhaps unintentionally designed)

from the article

We see this (rule) as very hurtful to farmers and ranchers and we're going to do everything to stop it politically," said Don Parrish of the American Farm Bureau Federation, one of several farm and business groups that have filed suit against the regulation

.

Lets also assume this group is busy in congress lobbying (and busy at the EPA and the Department of Agriculture lobbying).
Do they not have the right to lobby and the right to sue?

From the Fox news article

Republican-controlled Congress has moved to thwart it. The House has ignored a White House veto threat and passed a bill to block it, and a Senate committee has passed a measure that would force the EPA to withdraw and rewrite it.

Whats unconstitutional about any of this activity?Congress can pass its laws, the executive branch and its agencies have a right to interpret and enforce laws ... and a right to veto Congress....

From the FOx News article

The senators -- two Democrats and two Republicans -- said in an opinion column Friday that the EPA has "created considerable and potentially costly confusion for many American businesses and communities who are just trying to do their jobs well."
The column, written by Sens. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., John Barrasso, R-Wyo., Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D. and Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., shows opposition to the rule comes from both parties.
The EPA counters that the rule merely clarifies which smaller waterways fall under federal protection after two Supreme Court rulings left the reach of the Clean Water Act uncertain. Those decisions in 2001 and 2006 left 60 percent of the nation's streams and millions of acres of wetlands without clear federal protection, according to EPA, causing confusion for landowners and government officials

If the original legislation is to vague or open to interpretation ...is that the fault of the original legislators? In fact much legislation is written this way specifically in order to provide regulatory bodies and departments to figure out how to implement policies.
But then the various stake holders use the fourth branch of government, the courts, to litigate both eh legislation and the way the regulatory bodies or department are enacting and enforcing the legislation. This is entirely common place.
And constitutional.

Seems to me that Fate claiming the EPA is over stepping its bounds is often proven not to be true in the courts (Which seems to be the final arbiter of all American legislation). And if they win sometimes, or often...then isn't this all working according to the system as written and executed for years?

rickyp wrote:and even Scotus rulings tend to be pretty vague sometimes.

..
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro ... mate-rules

We don't refer to the courts as ...

Of course, you miss the point. What right does the EPA have to act in, essentially, a legislative manner?

Federal law originates with the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to enact statutes for certain limited purposes like regulating interstate commerce. The United States Code is the official compilation and codification of the general and permanent federal statutes. Many statutes give executive branch agencies the power to create regulations, which are published in the Federal Register and codified into the Code of Federal Regulations. Regulations generally also carry the force of law under the Chevron doctrine. Many lawsuits turn on the meaning of a federal statute or regulation, and judicial interpretations of such meaning carry legal force under the principle of stare decisis.

rickyp wrote:fate

We don't refer to the courts as ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_br ... government

In the American political system, the fourth branch of government refers to a group that influences the three branches of government defined in the American Constitution (legislative, executive and judicial). Such groups can include the press (an analogy for the Fourth Estate), the people, and interest groups. U.S. independent administrative government agencies, while technically part of the executive branch (or, in a few cases, the legislative branch) of government, are sometimes referred to as being part of the fourth branch.

Fate

Of course, you miss the point. What right does the EPA have to act in, essentially, a legislative manner?

Maybe you don't know this?

Federal law originates with the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to enact statutes for certain limited purposes like regulating interstate commerce. The United States Code is the official compilation and codification of the general and permanent federal statutes. Many statutes give executive branch agencies the power to create regulations, which are published in the Federal Register and codified into the Code of Federal Regulations. Regulations generally also carry the force of law under the Chevron doctrine. Many lawsuits turn on the meaning of a federal statute or regulation, and judicial interpretations of such meaning carry legal force under the principle of stare decisis.

Maybe my question was not precise enough for you: how does the EPA have the right to ignore the decisions of courts? Secondly, how is it that the EPA can expand a 50 year-old law well past the original without any warrant from Congress to do so? Is the EPA able to take ANY law and do whatever they wish with it?

The rest is based upon the Chevron Doctrine Which you don't seem to know.
The 1984 Supreme Court decision in Chevron U.S.A., Inc v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 established rules for judicial review of agency interpretations of statutes. An agency's rulemaking authority is derived through statute. Therefore, when an agency rulemaking is challenged in court, an agency's interpretation of their statutory authority is central to determining the legitimacy of the regulation.

The 1984 Supreme Court decision in Chevron U.S.A., Inc v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 established rules for judicial review of agency interpretations of statutes. An agency's rulemaking authority is derived through statute. Therefore, when an agency rulemaking is challenged in court, an agency's interpretation of their statutory authority is central to determining the legitimacy of the regulation.

The Chevron decision created a two part test to determine regulatory authority. First, the court must determine whether Congress spoke directly to the question at issue. If so, then the court defers to the statute. If Congress did not address the issue in question in the statute itself, then the court must determine if the agency's response to the statute is based on a "permissible" interpretation of the statute. If so, then the court must defer to the agency.

The Obama administration last month released final rules for limiting emissions from power plants, setting a national reduction target of 32 percent by 2030, as part of a larger effort to combat global warming. The administration set emission reduction targets for each state, but directed the states to come up with their own compliance plans.

A group of Republican attorneys general almost immediately filed suit to block the rules, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has been encouraging governors to ignore the EPA's regulations.

rickyp wrote:fate

Maybe my question was not precise enough for you: how does the EPA have the right to ignore the decisions of courts? Secondly, how is it that the EPA can expand a 50 year-old law well past the original without any warrant from Congress to do so? Is the EPA able to take ANY law and do whatever they wish with it?

They aren't ignoring the decision of the court. They are interpreting the decision of the court differently..

The rest is based upon the Chevron Doctrine Which you don't seem to know.
The 1984 Supreme Court decision in Chevron U.S.A., Inc v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 established rules for judicial review of agency interpretations of statutes. An agency's rulemaking authority is derived through statute. Therefore, when an agency rulemaking is challenged in court, an agency's interpretation of their statutory authority is central to determining the legitimacy of the regulation.

The 1984 Supreme Court decision in Chevron U.S.A., Inc v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 established rules for judicial review of agency interpretations of statutes. An agency's rulemaking authority is derived through statute. Therefore, when an agency rulemaking is challenged in court, an agency's interpretation of their statutory authority is central to determining the legitimacy of the regulation.

The Chevron decision created a two part test to determine regulatory authority. First, the court must determine whether Congress spoke directly to the question at issue. If so, then the court defers to the statute. If Congress did not address the issue in question in the statute itself, then the court must determine if the agency's response to the statute is based on a "permissible" interpretation of the statute. If so, then the court must defer to the agency.

I'm not saying all of this is right Fate. I'm saying that the system is screwed up. But that nothing that you complain about is unconstitutional.
In fact it is all constitutional and apparently legal.

Here's an interesting tidbit aout the EPA...

The Obama administration last month released final rules for limiting emissions from power plants, setting a national reduction target of 32 percent by 2030, as part of a larger effort to combat global warming. The administration set emission reduction targets for each state, but directed the states to come up with their own compliance plans.

A group of Republican attorneys general almost immediately filed suit to block the rules, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has been encouraging governors to ignore the EPA's regulations.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ric ... c9f354b0fe

Notice that some governors have filed suit... Of course. All legal and constitutional.

And McConnell has said ignore the regulations. Now that may well be illegal and unconstitutional as he's sworn an oath...

Of course he'd argue that the EPA is acting unconstitutionally and therefore he was bound to defend the constitution by ignoring their regulations...

The point being that the constitution and its application seem to be tremendously malleable. By every one, to the benefit of ...mostly the oligarch and the lawyers.

A constitutional law expert warned Congress during a hearing Wednesday that America has reached a “constitutional tipping point” under the watch of President Barack Obama.

Jonathan Turley, professor of public interest law at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., said the legislative branch of the U.S. government is in danger of becoming irrelevant in the face of continued executive overreach.

“My view [is] that the president, has in fact, exceeded his authority in a way that is creating a destabilizing influence in a three branch system,” Turley said. “I want to emphasize, of course, this problem didn’t begin with President Obama, I was critical of his predecessor President Bush as well, but the rate at which executive power has been concentrated in our system is accelerating. And frankly, I am very alarmed by the implications of that aggregation of power.”

“What also alarms me, however, is that the two other branches appear not just simply passive, but inert in the face of this concentration of authority,” he added.

Interestingly enough, Turley said he actually agrees with many of the president’s policies and positions — just not the way the White House has gone about implementing them.

“The fact that I happen to think the president is right on many of these policies does not alter the fact that I believe the means he is doing [it] is wrong, and that this can be a dangerous change in our system,” he said. “And our system is changing in a very fundamental way. And it’s changing without a whimper of regret or opposition.”

Turley stressed that Congress must take action if it wants to hold onto its power as the “thumping heart of our system.”

“We are now at the constitutional tipping point for our system. If balance is to be reestablished, it must begin before this president leaves office and that will likely require every possible means to reassert legislative authority,” he said.

“No one in our system can ‘go it alone’ – not Congress , not the courts , and not the president. We are stuck with each other in a system of shared powers — for better or worse. We may deadlock or even despise each other. The framers clearly foresaw such periods. They lived in such a period. Whatever problems we are facing today in politics, they are problems of our own making. They should not be used to take from future generations a system that has safeguarded our freedoms for over 250 years,” he added.

Also present at Wednesday’s hearing, titled “Enforcing the President’s Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws,” was Elizabeth Price Foley, a law professor at Florida International University College of Law. She agreed with Turley, adding that Congress in in danger of becoming “superfluous.”

“Situations like this, these benevolent suspensions as they get more and more frequent and more and more aggressive, they’re eroding our citizens’ respect for the rule of law,” she said. “We are a country of law and not men. It’s going to render Congress superfluous.”

freeman3 wrote:I certainly feel for someone who gets caught in a situation where they are being mistreated by the government. The government can be this immovable force that is very difficult to fight, particularly if we're talking about the average citizen without a lot of resources. We should be vigilant in making sure that the government acts justly when it takes action against a person's life, liberty or property.

Having said that , clearly the EPA has the right to issue regulations to help further their role in keeping the air clean, the water pure, and the soil uncontaminated. And if a regulation is not authorized then it can challenged in court. And apparently a federal judge sees some merit in the challenge. But that does not mean that the EPA must abide by that challenge in jurisdictions not subject to the court. They disagree with the court's order and there is no reason that they have to obey the order in states not subject to it. Eventually, probably the US Supreme Court will decide the issue but until then there is nothing wrong with the EPA continuing to enforce the regulation where they are allowed to.

I think on balance the EPA has done a lot more good than harm. One of the things they do is try to make sure that businesses pay for negative externalities--for example, pollution of land or water as the result of operation of a business. It is only fair that businesses that pollute the air and water pay for the damage they cause. Of course having clean air and water is priceless so it's better to stop the pollution in the first place , hence the need for regulations intended to protect the air and water.

Anecdotal stories of unfairness can always be found when you're talking about regulatory abuse . What would be more convincing is a comprehensive analysts of regulatory actions by the EPA and the percentage of questionable actions involved.

A free and independent federal judiciary is one way to keep regulatory abuses in check. And that relief is being sought here with some effect. And of course unpopular regulatory actions can be used to make changes in the law or changes in the president. There are effective ways to deal with any regulatory abuse within the current system without talking about going to Def Con 4 and revolution.

Except Obama is trying to get cap and trade implemented without Congress. Anytime he can't get a law passed, he just has his agency heads promulgate regulations. In other words, he has a pen and he don't need no stinking Congress

That's rich considering how many times the President has failed to uphold his oath

rickyp wrote:fate

Except Obama is trying to get cap and trade implemented without Congress. Anytime he can't get a law passed, he just has his agency heads promulgate regulations. In other words, he has a pen and he don't need no stinking Congress

So prove its unconstitutional. The only way is to get a cleat concise ruling from SCOTUS...
That ain't happening..

Fate

That's rich considering how many times the President has failed to uphold his oath

.

In your opinion. And since the only opinion that matters is Scotus... it ain'y (sic) so..

Tell me your system is working Fate... You keep proving it doesn't The conflicts are without end and the ability to get stuff done is very limited.
If people want the environment protected, and apparently polls show they do,

http://www.lung.org/about-us/our-impact ... google.ca/