How to Erase the Environmental Protection Agency

[DGS49]

This thread is intended for U.S. residents who understand the legal concept of "standing," as well as Article I of the Constitution.

Section 8 of Article I details the powers of Congress. The Tenth Amendment states, essentially, that the powers not given to the central government in the Constitution, are reserved to the States and the private sector.

Over the past 6 or 7 decades, Leftists on the Supreme Court have created a massive cornucopia of Federal power, based on the following words: "The Congress shall have the power...To regulate Commerce...among the several States..." These words are commonly referred to as "the power to regulate interstate commerce."

But what about the EPA? There is no other power in Article I that could be construed to allow Congress to regulate pollution, so the only possible relevant power is the interstate commerce clause. But that is nonsense. Just because some smoke in Ohio might waft into Pennsylvania, or some crap that drips into the Ohio river in Pittsburgh might end up killing a fish in Ohio doesn't mean that those things constitute "interstate commerce."

You scholars also know that the Supreme Court cannot just opine on matters of ConLaw on their own. There must be an actual case that is filed in a Federal Court and is appealed up to the Supreme Court. So think about what that case might be. Let's say the EPA decides to simply shut down the Clairton Coke Works in Clairton, PA. Too much pollution, no way of stopping it, SHUT THE DAMN THING DOWN!

So the U.S. Steel company and the State of Pennsylvania decide to fight the order in the Federal District court in Pittsburgh on the theory that the EPA has no such power because its very existence is unconstitutional. And parenthetically one must note that the State of Pennsylvania has a large and overbearing agency of its own that does the same thing as the EPA; it's called the Department of Environment Resources.

Whaddya think?

Other examples?

 

[Jaxson]

This thread is intended for U.S. residents who understand the legal concept of "standing," as well as Article I of the Constitution.

Section 8 of Article I details the powers of Congress. The Tenth Amendment states, essentially, that the powers not given to the central government in the Constitution, are reserved to the States and the private sector.

Over the past 6 or 7 decades, Leftists on the Supreme Court have created a massive cornucopia of Federal power, based on the following words: "The Congress shall have the power...To regulate Commerce...among the several States..." These words are commonly referred to as "the power to regulate interstate commerce."

But what about the EPA? There is no other power in Article I that could be construed to allow Congress to regulate pollution, so the only possible relevant power is the interstate commerce clause. But that is nonsense. Just because some smoke in Ohio might waft into Pennsylvania, or some crap that drips into the Ohio river in Pittsburgh might end up killing a fish in Ohio doesn't mean that those things constitute "interstate commerce."

You scholars also know that the Supreme Court cannot just opine on matters of ConLaw on their own. There must be an actual case that is filed in a Federal Court and is appealed up to the Supreme Court. So think about what that case might be. Let's say the EPA decides to simply shut down the Clairton Coke Works in Clairton, PA. Too much pollution, no way of stopping it, SHUT THE DAMN THING DOWN!

So the U.S. Steel company and the State of Pennsylvania decide to fight the order in the Federal District court in Pittsburgh on the theory that the EPA has no such power because its very existence is unconstitutional. And parenthetically one must note that the State of Pennsylvania has a large and overbearing agency of its own that does the same thing as the EPA; it's called the Department of Environment Resources.

Whaddya think?

Other examples?

Anyone who fights the EPA or is otherwise against it is a total moron. Why would you fight for more pollution?

 

[JoeMoma]

Anyone who fights the EPA or is otherwise against it is a total moron. Why would you fight for more pollution?

 

[Jaxson]

Sure, there are problems, but you don't eliminate traffic laws because some cars crash anyways.

 

[ReinyDays]

So ... you think Indiana sending their Militia into Illinois to shut down the sulfuric acid producing coal power plants is okay? ... a shooting war between two states? ... Indiana has no choice, the farmers' crops are all dying and everyone is starving to death ... either kill them or die yourself ...

What's New Orleans look like if everyone dumps their used motor oil into the Mississippi River? ...

Yes ... these are extreme examples ... but it happens all the time ... I don't see how an Indiana farmer wouldn't have standing if an Illinois power company was poisoning his land ... and the farmer can certainly file a lawsuit in Federal Court, which is very expensive for both sides ... so Congress in it's infinite wisdom created an administrative process to settle these disputes cheaply and effectively ... the EPA ...

Unlike the Soviet Union, EVERYTHING in the United States is open for political manipulation, including the environment ...

=====

Some clarity concerning interstate commerce ... it's assumed that all dollars have crossed state lines, thus any transaction involving dollars is always interstate ... and regulated by the Federal government ... and it's strictly illegal for states to issue their own currency ... ha ha ha ha ...

Our Founding Fathers used pesos ... just saying ...

 

[JoeMoma]

Sure, there are problems, but you don't eliminate traffic laws because some cars crash anyways.

Your question was who would fight the EPA.

 

[Jaxson]

Your question was who would fight the EPA.

If it affects you directly, sure, but most republicans are against the EPA because they want more pollution. 2 different things.

 

[Jarlaxle]

If it affects you directly, sure, but most republicans are against the EPA because they want more pollution. 2 different things.

That's a lie.

 

[Stryder50]

Anyone who fights the EPA or is otherwise against it is a total moron. Why would you fight for more pollution?

First, define what YOU mean by pollution.

If that includes carbon dioxide, then explain how denying and decreasing an essential ingredient to sustain @99+% of life (Green Plants/Flora) on this planet, which we other <1% need to survive, makes common sense or is a formula for sustaining life and making it thrive/survive. ??? !!!

Those whom know what they are talking about, and you seem not to be within that consensus, would be aware that current State and Federal EPA's are setting standards of compliance below the nature background levels, hence are setting a near impossible bar/goal to be achieved. IOTWs most EPAs have transcended into the realms of insanity and absurdity in their compliance goals/standards and are seeking to destroy economies and society to achieve a non-attainable goal.

But hey, you could help here. Just stop exhaling carbon dioxide for the rest of your life. You won't be missed.

 

[Stryder50]

If it affects you directly, sure, but most republicans are against the EPA because they want more pollution. 2 different things.

Bullshit.

This Republican has just spent most of this day working his gardens and helping his biological, carbon recycling, self-generating and expanding , CO2 sequestration units to grow further and produce some usable food in the next few months.

Concrete pounding, urban dwelling, useless eater, deadwood and non-productive parasites such as yourself are the ones whose existence is "against the EPA" and make/ " want more 'pollution' ".

 

[Coyote]

This thread is intended for U.S. residents who understand the legal concept of "standing," as well as Article I of the Constitution.

Section 8 of Article I details the powers of Congress. The Tenth Amendment states, essentially, that the powers not given to the central government in the Constitution, are reserved to the States and the private sector.

Over the past 6 or 7 decades, Leftists on the Supreme Court have created a massive cornucopia of Federal power, based on the following words: "The Congress shall have the power...To regulate Commerce...among the several States..." These words are commonly referred to as "the power to regulate interstate commerce."

But what about the EPA? There is no other power in Article I that could be construed to allow Congress to regulate pollution, so the only possible relevant power is the interstate commerce clause. But that is nonsense. Just because some smoke in Ohio might waft into Pennsylvania, or some crap that drips into the Ohio river in Pittsburgh might end up killing a fish in Ohio doesn't mean that those things constitute "interstate commerce."

You scholars also know that the Supreme Court cannot just opine on matters of ConLaw on their own. There must be an actual case that is filed in a Federal Court and is appealed up to the Supreme Court. So think about what that case might be. Let's say the EPA decides to simply shut down the Clairton Coke Works in Clairton, PA. Too much pollution, no way of stopping it, SHUT THE DAMN THING DOWN!

So the U.S. Steel company and the State of Pennsylvania decide to fight the order in the Federal District court in Pittsburgh on the theory that the EPA has no such power because its very existence is unconstitutional. And parenthetically one must note that the State of Pennsylvania has a large and overbearing agency of its own that does the same thing as the EPA; it's called the Department of Environment Resources.

Whaddya think?

Other examples?

Have you figured out a way to stop pollution from invading your neighbor? Another state? Until you can keep your environmental crapfests to your own house we need the EPA.

 

[Stryder50]

Have you figured out a way to stop pollution from invading your neighbor? Another state? Until you can keep your environmental crapfests to your own house we need the EPA.

Curious how YOU would define "pollution" and "environmental crapfests" ?
Specifics please, not vague generalities.

 

[Stryder50]

Have you figured out a way to stop pollution from invading your neighbor? Another state? Until you can keep your environmental crapfests to your own house we need the EPA.

I'm more concerned about 'pollution' from other Nation States whom don't have an EPA or comply with anything of that sort whom send their 'pollution' down wind and down stream to the rest of us in the world.

 

[Jaxson]

Bullshit.

This Republican has just spent most of this day working his gardens and helping his biological, carbon recycling, self-generating and expanding , CO2 sequestration units to grow further and produce some usable food in the next few months.

Concrete pounding, urban dwelling, useless eater, deadwood and non-productive parasites such as yourself are the ones whose existence is "against the EPA" and make/ " want more 'pollution' ".

Actually, I live on 60 acres of forested land, lol. Better luck next time, jackass.

Too much of anything can be a problem, like CO2.

 

[Jaxson]

First, define what YOU mean by pollution.

If that includes carbon dioxide, then explain how denying and decreasing an essential ingredient to sustain @99+% of life (Green Plants/Flora) on this planet, which we other <1% need to survive, makes common sense or is a formula for sustaining life and making it thrive/survive. ??? !!!

Those whom know what they are talking about, and you seem not to be within that consensus, would be aware that current State and Federal EPA's are setting standards of compliance below the nature background levels, hence are setting a near impossible bar/goal to be achieved. IOTWs most EPAs have transcended into the realms of insanity and absurdity in their compliance goals/standards and are seeking to destroy economies and society to achieve a non-attainable goal.

But hey, you could help here. Just stop exhaling carbon dioxide for the rest of your life. You won't be missed.

Define pollution? How about whatever is in the air, when the air you breath shortens your life. We're already there in all the major cities...

 

[Stryder50]

Actually, I live on 60 acres of forested land, lol. Better luck next time, jackass.

Too much of anything can be a problem, like CO2.

You still have the attitude of an urban dickhead.

By your non-logic same can be said of oxygen. Ever hear of oxidation?
General rule of thumb is plants need a minimum of 300ppm for threshold of optimal living. More helps. 400ppm is just of minimum optimal. That a ratio of 1/2500 for everything else in dry atmosphere.

Our planet has a long way to go before C2 is a problem. If you knew and understood past biosphere and hydrosphere levels you'd know we are at one of the lowest levels in billions of years.

Here's a start;

 

[Stryder50]

Define pollution? How about whatever is in the air, when the air you breath shortens your life. We're already there in all the major cities...

I was looking for specific substances ~items. Like say SO2, or such.
Clear now you are ignorant and a pile of hot air.
Not worth wasting effort to deal with anymore.

 

[martybegan]

This thread is intended for U.S. residents who understand the legal concept of "standing," as well as Article I of the Constitution.

Section 8 of Article I details the powers of Congress. The Tenth Amendment states, essentially, that the powers not given to the central government in the Constitution, are reserved to the States and the private sector.

Over the past 6 or 7 decades, Leftists on the Supreme Court have created a massive cornucopia of Federal power, based on the following words: "The Congress shall have the power...To regulate Commerce...among the several States..." These words are commonly referred to as "the power to regulate interstate commerce."

But what about the EPA? There is no other power in Article I that could be construed to allow Congress to regulate pollution, so the only possible relevant power is the interstate commerce clause. But that is nonsense. Just because some smoke in Ohio might waft into Pennsylvania, or some crap that drips into the Ohio river in Pittsburgh might end up killing a fish in Ohio doesn't mean that those things constitute "interstate commerce."

You scholars also know that the Supreme Court cannot just opine on matters of ConLaw on their own. There must be an actual case that is filed in a Federal Court and is appealed up to the Supreme Court. So think about what that case might be. Let's say the EPA decides to simply shut down the Clairton Coke Works in Clairton, PA. Too much pollution, no way of stopping it, SHUT THE DAMN THING DOWN!

So the U.S. Steel company and the State of Pennsylvania decide to fight the order in the Federal District court in Pittsburgh on the theory that the EPA has no such power because its very existence is unconstitutional. And parenthetically one must note that the State of Pennsylvania has a large and overbearing agency of its own that does the same thing as the EPA; it's called the Department of Environment Resources.

Whaddya think?

Other examples?

The EPA is constitutional, what is unconstitutional is when it expands its powers past it's congressional mandates. Specific Mandates. Mandates involving more than one State.

Because pollution can indeed affect several States at once, it does make it a constitutional purview of congress.

 

[Jaxson]

You still have the attitude of an urban dickhead.

By your non-logic same can be said of oxygen. Ever hear of oxidation?
General rule of thumb is plants need a minimum of 300ppm for threshold of optimal living. More helps. 400ppm is just of minimum optimal. That a ratio of 1/2500 for everything else in dry atmosphere.

Our planet has a long way to go before C2 is a problem. If you knew and understood past biosphere and hydrosphere levels you'd know we are at one of the lowest levels in billions of years.

Here's a start;

Did you get that chart out of a comic book? How about a serious link, I'm interested in seeing more about that. Maybe you have something there?.

 

[Jaxson]

I was looking for specific substances ~items. Like say SO2, or such.
Clear now you are ignorant and a pile of hot air.
Not worth wasting effort to deal with anymore.

Air quality: Pollution shortening lives by almost 10 years in Delhi, says study