Fate

However, it's more likely a GOP President will dismantle the agency.

Sure. And Gay marriage too.
The legal hurdles would be immeasurable.And the first hurdle (GOP President, also seems improbable today)
Historically, agencies get created ...and maintained. And if you need more evidence that the morass of jurisdictions and powers is unknowable here:

Legislative definitions of a federal agency are varied, and even contradictory, and the official United States Government Manual offers no definition.[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_f ... r_entities

Screaming "unconstitutional" sure does get some people fired up. But the final judgement on whether something is "constitutional" is seldom arrived at definitively. For all kinds of reasons. But mostly because the constitution is vague and many of the laws enacting agencies are equally vague.
This present opportunities for the well heeled to obstruct and litigate forever... Who do you think the oft repeated litigation of EPA regulations serves Fate?
Follow the money.

In case you have forgotten here are some of the accomplishments of the EPA.http://grist.org/article/here-are-4-big ... d-already/

But hey, Instead of having cleaner air and water let's worry that the EPA is somehow making up laws and is a fascist dictatorship out to get farmers. Wonder who would benefit from that? Businesses could pollute our water and air and not have to worry about having to pay for it. Great. And Republicans would get rid of the EPA? Well, of course they would. Those environmental regulations really do cut into profits....businesses should have the right to pollute our water and air without government interference that costs jobs!

freeman3 wrote:In case you have forgotten here are some of the accomplishments of the EPA.http://grist.org/article/here-are-4-big ... d-already/

But hey, Instead of having cleaner air and water let's worry that the EPA is somehow making up laws and is a fascist dictatorship out to get farmers.

Sigh. Yes, because conservatives want dirty air and polluted water . . . or, maybe they just want a modicum of property rights?

This EPA expansion doesn't just hit farmers. Trust me. If you're on the east coast, this will involve everyone who owns more than an acre or two. You're almost bound to have some puddles--because it rains out here.

Wonder who would benefit from that? Businesses could pollute our water and air and not have to worry about having to pay for it. Great. And Republicans would get rid of the EPA? Well, of course they would. Those environmental regulations really do cut into profits....businesses should have the right to pollute our water and air without government interference that costs jobs!

Or, we could get "crazy" and try having a system where the Congress passes laws, the President executes them, and the judiciary rules on their Constitutionality.



Yeah, I know, crazy talk. We're much better off having former environmentalist group members running a rogue agency. I mean, come on, who needs that whole "representative government" thing?

rickyp wrote:Fate

However, it's more likely a GOP President will dismantle the agency.

Sure. And Gay marriage too.
The legal hurdles would be immeasurable.And the first hurdle (GOP President, also seems improbable today)
Historically, agencies get created ...and maintained. And if you need more evidence that the morass of jurisdictions and powers is unknowable here:

Legislative definitions of a federal agency are varied, and even contradictory, and the official United States Government Manual offers no definition.[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_f ... r_entities

Screaming "unconstitutional" sure does get some people fired up. But the final judgement on whether something is "constitutional" is seldom arrived at definitively. For all kinds of reasons. But mostly because the constitution is vague and many of the laws enacting agencies are equally vague.
This present opportunities for the well heeled to obstruct and litigate forever... Who do you think the oft repeated litigation of EPA regulations serves Fate?
Follow the money.

Dude, your posts have zero credibility. You tried to tell me the judicial branch was the fourth branch of government. You didn't even read the link you posted to "prove" that.

Once you apologize, or at least own that, I'll respond to your silliness.

The point is that there are very powerful interests out there that would like very much to not have to worry about pollution and get their profits. We gut the EPA...we get the the polluted air, water and land we deserve.

freeman3 wrote:The point is that there are very powerful interests out there that would like very much to not have to worry about pollution and get their profits. We gut the EPA...we get the the polluted air, water and land we deserve.

Or we gut property rights, and we get the government overreach we deserve

bbauska wrote:

freeman3 wrote:The point is that there are very powerful interests out there that would like very much to not have to worry about pollution and get their profits. We gut the EPA...we get the the polluted air, water and land we deserve.

Or we gut property rights, and we get the government overreach we deserve

Which is my point. Really, I'd love to host you and take you to some property I'm involved in. I'll bring an environmental engineer and a member of our environmental police. I know both. They can explain the intricacies of every puddle on our property. It's, um, "fascinating."

Btw, we don't manufacture or dump anything.

And, that's my point. By regulating everything and everyone, the government, essentially denies there is any such thing as "private property." Everything is subject to its scrutiny, whether or not there is any reasonable expectation or fear of any harm coming to the community. Ever.

That is the very definition of "overreach."

Yes, but you're advocating throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Instead of just pinpointing issues where the EPA has purportedly overreached, you want to get rid of the agency that has helped to improve air and water quality. You are aligning yourself with interests that do pollute and would rather not have to deal with regulations on it. This seems to be more about ideology--the government is getting too powerful!--than a balanced appraisal of what the EPA does.

You say you're concerned about clean air and water. Well, of course everyone is, even the ones that pollute. But of course their personal financial interests override that when it comes to their business (at least for some). Those interests are happy to well-publicize any poor farmer that gets picked on by the EPA. But it's just anecdotal--how often does it happen?

In any case, what's more important your ideology/world-view or clean air and water?If you really cared about clean airand water, you would simply oppose the EPA on this particular issue, not calling for its demise.

freeman3 wrote:Yes, but you're advocating throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Instead of just pinpointing issues where the EPA has purportedly overreached, you want to get rid of the agency that has helped to improve air and water quality.

It has also "helped" create eco-disasters.

I want to throw the baby out because, quite frankly, he's old and ugly and needs to fend for himself. Again, the EPA is filled with eco-fanatics. They go from the Sierra Club (or similar groups) to the EPA and back again. There is no balance with the EPA.

If I was in Congress, I'd fight to defund the EPA.

You are aligning yourself with interests that do pollute and would rather not have to deal with regulations on it. This seems to be more about ideology--the government is getting too powefurful!--than a balanced appraisal of what the EPA does.

The government is too powerful and the EPA is one of the less merciful arms of government.

You say you're concerned about clean air and water. Well, of course everyone is, even the ones that pollute. But of course their personal financial override that when it comes to their business (at least for some). Those interests are happy to well-publicize any poor farmer that gets picked on by the EPA. But it's just anecdotal--how often does it happen?

Often enough. Beyond that, when the EPA is run by political fanatics, we can expect exactly what we are seeing--an out of control bureaucracy, unaccountable to the people.

In any case, what's more important your ideology/world-view or clean air and water?If you really cared about clean airand water, you would simply oppose the EPA on this particular issue, not calling for its demise.

There is no way to save it. It must be put to death. In fact, the only alternative I can see is this: I would propose cutting it by 2/3 and putting it under Congress, rather than the President. The problem is that it does, in effect, legislate. That needs to come to a screeching halt. If all they were doing was obeying what Congress passed and the President signed, that would be an entirely different matter.

fate

Or, we could get "crazy" and try having a system where the Congress passes laws, the President executes them, and the judiciary rules on their Constitutionality

That's what you've got you clueless jackass. Its just that you don't agree with the results
Congress passes the laws that govern the United States, but Congress has also authorized EPA and other federal agencies to help put those laws into effect by creating and enforcing regulations.
They do this because Congresss can't effectively run all of the agencies with legislation. Hell, Congress has trouble passing any kind of bill these days... if they had to write and pass the required regulations everything about a functioning modern state would eventually grind to a halt.

a primer for how they operate.
http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/ba ... regulation


They aren't alone in this. Most agencies create and enforce regulations.
And here's something interesting. The approval of the EPA is four times higher than that of Congress.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/179522/ameri ... risis.aspx

Courtesy RickyP. Can the personal attacks.

bbauska wrote:Courtesy RickyP. Can the personal attacks.

It's all good. He's still stuck on the fourth branch of government thing. Instead of admitting a lack of knowledge, he's going on the attack. It's brilliant!

Doctor Fate wrote:

bbauska wrote:Courtesy RickyP. Can the personal attacks.

It's all good. He's still stuck on the fourth branch of government thing. Instead of admitting a lack of knowledge, he's going on the attack. It's brilliant!

I know you can take it, and you are a big boy. We ALL need to be cognizant of our courtesy to one another.

fate
I

nstead of admitting a lack of knowledge, he's going on the attack

Your clueless. My reference to the fourth branch was sarcastic. And it is a reference to the lawyers not the courts. Their ability to tie up any law or regulation for their clients makes them the fourth branch. (Using the third branch - the courts)
You complain that regulatory bodies like the EPA create regulations beyond their authority. And yet its clear that the laws creating the EPA give them that authority. Admittedly vaguely - because Congress wrote the laws creating the EPA vaguely. This is the Congress you seem to think is the best place to write the detailed regulation required to carry out the duties and roles of every agency but which can't pass any legislation...
You complain that this is unconstitutional but you can't point to anything that illustrates why the EPA creating regulations is in any way unconstitutional. So, yeah, you're clueless.

The issue might be about balance of power but it isn't the power of the EPA that's really the problem. The issue is the ability of any stakeholder to litigate regulations and laws ad nauseum.
Although its entirely constitutional that corporations can go to court and hold up the execution of regulations what it means is that the law is never really passed and enforced. The cost of litigation in delaying the express wishes of the government for the vast majority of stake holders is enormous.
And a reason why American complain about their bureaucracy.
But its the structure that was written into the Constitution. And every Agency has the powers that Congress originally intended.

rickyp wrote:fate
I

nstead of admitting a lack of knowledge, he's going on the attack

Your clueless. My reference to the fourth branch was sarcastic. And it is a reference to the lawyers not the courts. Their ability to tie up any law or regulation for their clients makes them the fourth branch. (Using the third branch - the courts)

Here's the original, almost-literate, paragraph. I'll let the reader decide if this is "sarcastic" or not:

rickyp wrote: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.

It's a knee-slapper, no doubt about that.

Of course, it's also "sarcasm" to make a complete hash of English. For example "Your clueless" would be what? My copy of the DVD of the Alicia Silverstone movie?

But, wait . . . there's more!

You complain that regulatory bodies like the EPA create regulations beyond their authority. And yet its clear that the laws creating the EPA give them that authority.

So, "its clear" . . . what is it that you refer to as "clear" and to what does it belong (the neuter possessive pronoun you used demands "clear" be a noun)?

The EPA doesn't have the authority to make the Clean Water Act say something it does not say.

Admittedly vaguely - because Congress wrote the laws creating the EPA vaguely. This is the Congress you seem to think is the best place to write the detailed regulation required to carry out the duties and roles of every agency but which can't pass any legislation...

I see. So, your point is . . . democracy is messy, so let's have less of it?

You complain that this is unconstitutional but you can't point to anything that illustrates why the EPA creating regulations is in any way unconstitutional. So, yeah, you're clueless.

Actually, I have pointed it out. I'll let the EPA make my point for me:

The CWA made it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit was obtained.

Now, look why the judge ruled against the EPA:

A federal judge on Thursday blocked an Obama administration rule, set to go into effect Friday, that seeks to put more small bodies of water and wetlands under federal protection to ensure clean drinking supplies.

U.S. District Judge Ralph Erickson of North Dakota issued a preliminary injunction against implementation of the regulation, saying a group of 13 states was likely to succeed in their lawsuit challenging the Environmental Protection Agency regulation as unlawful.

The judge faulted several facets of the rule, both on its substance and the procedure the EPA followed in writing it. He said the rule suffered from a “fatal defect” of allowing regulation of ditches and streams that were remote from navigable waters where federal authorities have jurisdiction.

“It appears likely that the EPA has violated its Congressional grant of authority in its promulgation of the rule,” Judge Erickson wrote in an 18-page order.

So, from "navigable" to "ditches." There's a problem. That's going over the EPA's authorized limit.

There was no new legislation. The EPA decided on its own to just make up some new rules.

Feel free to apologize.