Photos: What America looked like before the EPA
More:
http://tinyurl.com/7qfqjgn Still more:
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/04/a-photographic-blast-from-the-past
And still more:
http://www.archives.gov/research/arc/topics/environment/documerica-topics.html via Grist, thepoliticalcarnival.net
http://tinyurl.com/7qfqjgn Still more:
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/04/a-photographic-blast-from-the-past
And still more:
http://www.archives.gov/research/arc/topics/environment/documerica-topics.html via Grist, thepoliticalcarnival.net
Show me where it's authorized to the federal government by the Constitution (and where ANY federal entity other than Congress is empowered to write laws), then you can keep it. Or don't you support the rule of law...?
ReplyDeleteOuch! What say ye fred?
ReplyDeleteBill---wanna bet on a reply? :-)
Congress wrote a law delegating their authority to write laws concerning the environment to the EPA. As they did with the FDA, FCC, NHTSA and many other departments. The Congress may pass such laws because they can pass laws to provide for the general welfare. Note it says GENERAL welfare not YOUR welfare.
ReplyDeleteAnd since you are such a great supporter of the rule of law I am sure you have never exceeded the speed limit, never did any illegal drugs, never got drunk outside your house - public drunkenness is illegal. You can get drunk in a bar legally but how do you get home?
Excellent, we're getting somewhere. Congress is authorized to pass legislation conducive to "the general welfare" (which is a phrase found only in the Constitution's preamble, not within Article 1, Section 8) only in the context of the expressly enumerated powers. The 10th Amendment confirms this limitation.
ReplyDeleteNow Randy, kindly direct me to the passage of the Constitution that explicitly authorizes the Legislative Branch to further delegate the powers that were lawfully delegated to IT by the People to the Executive Branch. Is the Executive Branch Constitutionally authorized to pass laws? Have you heard of the concept of "separation of powers," and the purpose thereof?
Finally,
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce."
-James Madison-
(1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
Source: Federalist No. 45
Stated differently, that something has been capriciously rendered "illegal" -- that our "indefinite" rights to peaceful "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" have been infringed -- by an intendedly limited federal government long since slipped its intended restraints does not thereby somehow magically render it within that government's delegated authority. See: 'The War on People Who Use (Some) Drugs'™, or indefinite detention, just for two topical examples.
The supreme court has never had a problem with it. Maybe you should ask them. You can always delegate authority but not responsibility. The congress has delegated the authority. It does not violate the separation of powers since they can always take it back. You may not like that but that is the way things are.
ReplyDelete