EPA's ginormous power grab

[The_Dude 1,142]

Yeah ya gotta hand it to Ole Steve, he assesses posts pretty quick.

He just skips right down to the Link and makes the judgement call.

Doesn't make for worthwhile discussion but you must admit, it's a real time-saver.

Like you don't do the same when AJ posts something off Dailykos or huffingtonpost. Pot, meet kettle.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

From the Washington Times...which has about as much journalistic credibility as the back of a cereal box. Thanks for playin, Mister Troll.

Did you take "self important azzhole" lessons or does it come naturally to you? I guess unless something comes from your list of "approved" sites it has no merit. What a shame Steven, what happened to you? It is sad to see what you have become.

[scandal 951]

I didn't say a thing, I posted a story for discussion.

Ok, so discuss. You apparently have some view on the subject, right?

Do you agree with the gist of the article you posted, or disagree? Or did you just pick it randomly without having any opinion about it whatsoever?

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Ok, so discuss. You apparently have some view on the subject, right?

Do you agree with the gist of the article you posted, or disagree? Or did you just pick it randomly without having any opinion about it whatsoever?

After the welcome I got from Steven I must admit that I am a bit apprehensive to voice an opinion. But since you asked, I do think that this administration is using means other than laws passed by congress to get their objectives done. The power the EPA holds does give me a bit of pause. If the government wants to call CO2 a dangerous substance, fine, pass a law and regulate it. To do an end run through the EPA takes the checks and balances that normally regulates our government out of the equation.

[luckytxn 2,265]

After the welcome I got from Steven I must admit that I am a bit apprehensive to voice an opinion. But since you asked, I do think that this administration is using means other than laws passed by congress to get their objectives done. The power the EPA holds does give me a bit of pause. If the government wants to call CO2 a dangerous substance, fine, pass a law and regulate it. To do an end run through the EPA takes the checks and balances that normally regulates our government out of the equation.

Have to agree. The EPA yearly comes up with new ways to try to deepen their claws into the economy. It is all about power. Congress can do something about it but doubt they will as they are the ones that allow the EPA to do their own dirty work. The Feds have found a new scare tactic to rip our hard earned money from our hands and give it to their donors so they can get their payoffs by trying to force a bogus science like global warming. The EPA has taken the ball and ran with it.

[scandal 951]

After the welcome I got from Steven I must admit that I am a bit apprehensive to voice an opinion. But since you asked, I do think that this administration is using means other than laws passed by congress to get their objectives done. The power the EPA holds does give me a bit of pause. If the government wants to call CO2 a dangerous substance, fine, pass a law and regulate it. To do an end run through the EPA takes the checks and balances that normally regulates our government out of the equation.

Were you equally disturbed by Bush's Unitary theory of Executive power? By his many 'signing statements' when signing into law Congressional bills he didn't want to veto, but really didn't want to pass? By his 284 Executive orders issued during his 8 year term?

The EPA has been a legitimate part of the Executive Branch since Richard Nixon proposed and had it created. As such, it has the powers to regulate within the founding mandate of its charter - issued to it by Congress. It does not need to go to Congress for legislative approval of every regulation it issues, no more so than any other department of the Executive branch need do so. The EPA has been issuing regulations under both Democratic and Republican administrations for nearly 40 years. Why the sudden concern over its "constitutionality" now, all of a sudden in the first year of Obama's administration? What happened?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Were you equally disturbed by Bush's Unitary theory of Executive power? By his many 'signing statements' when signing into law Congressional bills he didn't want to veto, but really didn't want to pass? By his 284 Executive orders issued during his 8 year term?

The EPA has been a legitimate part of the Executive Branch since Richard Nixon proposed and had it created. As such, it has the powers to regulate within the founding mandate of its charter - issued to it by Congress. It does not need to go to Congress for legislative approval of every regulation it issues, no more so than any other department of the Executive branch need do so. The EPA has been issuing regulations under both Democratic and Republican administrations for nearly 40 years. Why the sudden concern over its "constitutionality" now, all of a sudden in the first year of Obama's administration? What happened?

The standard response by the Right - anything they don't agree with is unconstitutional. When they keep beating that drum, sheeple start to repeat it, or post threads like this. Unconstitutional! It's unconstitutional! Everybody's a constitutional scholar now.

[scandal 951]

The standard response by the Right - anything they don't agree with is unconstitutional. When they keep beating that drum, sheeple start to repeat it, or post threads like this. Unconstitutional! It's unconstitutional! Everybody's a constitutional scholar now.

You know, when I was a high school student in Canada, one of the most influential teachers I've had in my entire life was my chemistry teacher, Mr. Taguchi. He used to run our "Reach for the Top" club (a Canadian quiz show), and during those lunch hour sessions I learned about many, many things from Mr. Taguchi other than chemistry. One was the US system of government, my first exposure to the subject. As a Canadian, he found it amazing that the strongest criticism one could make of a US legal matter was that it was unconstitutional. Somehow, that seemed weak and unsatisfying to him.

Many years later, having read many more books, thought about it, and argued about it, I think that it's actually very satisfying to be able to have an entire complex modern society, with all its branches of governments and levels of government: federal, state, local, school board, hospital district, etc. all be unified under a constitutional framework. I'm all for using the constitution as the ultimate bedrock of the system.

And I think that any citizen who wants to challenge the constitutionality of a matter (EPA regulations? sure!) should be able to ask for his day in court. Ask - but not necessarily receive it. All of our armchair scholars seem to think that just because they believe something to be "unconstitutional" automatically should mean that the courts must hear their view and agree with it. It doesn't work that way, as Orly Taitz stubbornly insisted on finding out the hard way. Judges have every right to toss out suits that have no merit. Thank goodness for discretion in the judiciary.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You know, when I was a high school student in Canada, one of the most influential teachers I've had in my entire life was my chemistry teacher, Mr. Taguchi. He used to run our "Reach for the Top" club (a Canadian quiz show), and during those lunch hour sessions I learned about many, many things from Mr. Taguchi other than chemistry. One was the US system of government, my first exposure to the subject. As a Canadian, he found it amazing that the strongest criticism one could make of a US legal matter was that it was unconstitutional. Somehow, that seemed weak and unsatisfying to him.

Many years later, having read many more books, thought about it, and argued about it, I think that it's actually very satisfying to be able to have an entire complex modern society, with all its branches of governments and levels of government: federal, state, local, school board, hospital district, etc. all be unified under a constitutional framework. I'm all for using the constitution as the ultimate bedrock of the system.

And I think that any citizen who wants to challenge the constitutionality of a matter (EPA regulations? sure!) should be able to ask for his day in court. Ask - but not necessarily receive it. All of our armchair scholars seem to think that just because they believe something to be "unconstitutional" automatically should mean that the courts must hear their view and agree with it. It doesn't work that way, as Orly Taitz stubbornly insisted on finding out the hard way. Judges have every right to toss out suits that have no merit. Thank goodness for discretion in the judiciary.

The lack of substance in the claim itself is what I'm quickly losing patience on. It's like a movie critic saying a particularly movie sucked without saying why they thought it sucked. It's also incredibly convenient to dismiss policies under Obama as unconstitutional just because someone disagrees with them. Like you pointed out earlier, it was under Nixon's Administration that created the EPA and SCOTUS has already said that CO2 emissions can be regulated by the EPA. So what the author of this bullsh!t article is saying that the Judicial Branch, the EPA and Executive Branch are all undermining the powers of the Legislative Branch. Sorry, but have no patience for such Right Wing nuttery.

[scandal 951]

The lack of substance in the claim itself is what I'm quickly losing patience on. It's like a movie critic saying a particularly movie sucked without saying why they thought it sucked. It's also incredibly convenient to dismiss policies under Obama as unconstitutional just because someone disagrees with them. Like you pointed out earlier, it was under Nixon's Administration that created the EPA and SCOTUS has already said that CO2 emissions can be regulated by the EPA. So what the author of this bullsh!t article is saying that the Judicial Branch, the EPA and Executive Branch are all undermining the powers of the Legislative Branch. Sorry, but have no patience for such Right Wing nuttery.

I agree with you.

Increasingly the tone of the debate is getting more and more shrill, and the substance more and more silly.

Increasingly every routine matter is polarized into some kind of crucial defining left/right struggle.

Census takers are coming to your door with a form (gasp!) to be filled out? Let 'em know where you stand!!

The EPA acts within its mandate? Shoot first, questions later!

I think we do have many serious policy questions on which legitimate and honest differences of opinion can and should exist between left and right on the spectrum. And healthy debate of those issues is fun and rewarding. But the stupid stuff - mehh.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I agree with you.

Increasingly the tone of the debate is getting more and more shrill, and the substance more and more silly.

Increasingly every routine matter is polarized into some kind of crucial defining left/right struggle.

Census takers are coming to your door with a form (gasp!) to be filled out? Let 'em know where you stand!!

The EPA acts within its mandate? Shoot first, questions later!

I think we do have many serious policy questions on which legitimate and honest differences of opinion can and should exist between left and right on the spectrum. And healthy debate of those issues is fun and rewarding. But the stupid stuff - mehh.

It's hard to know how much of it is just political hackery by the sore losers and how much of it some of the RWN really believe (see Bachman), but the rhetoric is really rattling those out there who are already skittish and skeptical about guvmint. This is as much psychological game of fear and scapegoating as it is about any ideological differences. I mean really, if the majority of the Rethuglicans actually believe that the Obama Administration is trying to deliberately undermine our Constitution in every possible way, this country is in for some troubling times, politically. I remain hopeful though - that the RWN's will turn off more voters than they scare into supporting their nutty ideas.

[scandal 951]

It's hard to know how much of it is just political hackery by the sore losers and how much of it some of the RWN really believe (see Bachman), but the rhetoric is really rattling those out there who are already skittish and skeptical about guvmint. This is as much psychological game of fear and scapegoating as it is about any ideological differences. I mean really, if the majority of the Rethuglicans actually believe that the Obama Administration is trying to deliberately undermine our Constitution in every possible way, this country is in for some troubling times, politically. I remain hopeful though - that the RWN's will turn off more voters than they scare into supporting their nutty ideas.

I think we'll pull through just fine. I have great confidence in the overall rationality and decency and common sense of Americans. We've had alarmist crackpots before. We had the McCarthy era, we had Father Charles Coughlin, we had the yellow journalism of Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst. And yet, here we are. It's true that technology has empowered these forces of craziness. We have Rush on the radio, we have Fox on 24 hours a day, we have the blogosphere churning it out incessantly. But Coughlin also had national radio, and McCarthy had nothing less than all of official Washington by the short and curlies, afraid of his next threatened "outing". We'll get through this too.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think we'll pull through just fine. I have great confidence in the overall rationality and decency and common sense of Americans. We've had alarmist crackpots before. We had the McCarthy era, we had Father Charles Coughlin, we had the yellow journalism of Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst. And yet, here we are. It's true that technology has empowered these forces of craziness. We have Rush on the radio, we have Fox on 24 hours a day, we have the blogosphere churning it out incessantly. But Coughlin also had national radio, and McCarthy had nothing less than all of official Washington by the short and curlies, afraid of his next threatened "outing". We'll get through this too.

I hope so. In the meantime, I'm going to do my part and laugh in the face of anyone who peddles this ridiculous nonsense.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

@scandal and Steven. First of all, where in the world do you get the idea that I am some sort of a RWN? Where have I ever said anything that would cause you to label me as such? Just because I worry that a government agency is overreaching makes me so? In that case your opinion means nothing because you are falling into the catagory of a left wing nut. For the record, I never liked the EPA or the power granted it. Not just since Obama became president but since Nixon created it. And I was equally upset at Bush and his power grabs. I was hoping that Obama would live up to the hype and bring back transparancy to the government, I actually voted for him with that hope in mind. But to my dismay he is even worse than Bush. I am on the fence as far as Man Made GW goes. I really don't know. I don't think that we can do much to change it if we are in fact causing it with our CO2. It would require a total revamping of our economy and our way of life. If that would "save the world" then I suppose it would be worth the pain but the reality is that even if we reduced our CO2 to zero the rest of the world would just continue on and nothing would change except our own demise financialy. I would rather see us plan and prepare for what is coming. That we can do.

[scandal 951]

@scandal and Steven. First of all, where in the world do you get the idea that I am some sort of a RWN? Where have I ever said anything that would cause you to label me as such? Just because I worry that a government agency is overreaching makes me so? In that case your opinion means nothing because you are falling into the catagory of a left wing nut. For the record, I never liked the EPA or the power granted it. Not just since Obama became president but since Nixon created it. And I was equally upset at Bush and his power grabs. I was hoping that Obama would live up to the hype and bring back transparancy to the government, I actually voted for him with that hope in mind. But to my dismay he is even worse than Bush. I am on the fence as far as Man Made GW goes. I really don't know. I don't think that we can do much to change it if we are in fact causing it with our CO2. It would require a total revamping of our economy and our way of life. If that would "save the world" then I suppose it would be worth the pain but the reality is that even if we reduced our CO2 to zero the rest of the world would just continue on and nothing would change except our own demise financialy. I would rather see us plan and prepare for what is coming. That we can do.

Yes, it's all about you isn't it?

Please review my posts. Look for one instance where I refer to you as left, right, yellow, purple or polka dotted, let alone 'RWN'. Look for any reference from me using the phrase 'RWN' at all. You will not find one. What you will find in my posts is a concern that we have a too-shrill debate that has polarized left/right on issues that really shouldn't be thought of as left/right. How is that an attack just on the right? Or on you? You will find me disagreeing with you about whether or not the EPA is acting within its mandate as enacted by Congress. Surely I'm allowed to disagree with you, without attacking you, yes?

As to Steven, he can speak for himself.