The larger issue beyond WV vs EPA

[Foxfyre]

The pros and cons of WV vs EPA are being discussed but there is a far larger issue at play here namely:

How much authority, if any, SHOULD a federal department or agency have to write rules and regulations with the force of law?

The Constitution gives the sole authority to write and pass laws to the elected representatives of the people, yet most of the laws we are required to obey are written and enforced by nameless, faceless people in a vast bureaucracy of three million employees and thousands of government contractors with an unknown number of employees.

Most federal rules and regulations with force of law now on the books were never read, much less passed, by our elected representatives. Probably nobody has ever fully counted them but they number at least into the tens of thousands, probably more, involving millions of pages of text. An estimated 190,000 pages of new rules and regulations went onto the books in the first two years of the Obama administration alone and at least one new law goes on the books every day.

There aren't enough legal minds in the world to sift through all that and advise how to comply with it.
The most sinister aspect is that since every person, every business, every corporation is unlikely to comply with every jot and tittle of every law, anybody could be targeted by the government for violating some technicality. That gives government a terrible power over the people.

And the fact is our elected representatives don't want to go on the record as endorsing a law that is deeply unpopular with their constituents. It's much easier to let that unelected faceless bureaucracy do it.

In WV vs EPA the SCOTUS ruled that the elected representatives of the people did not give the EPA authority to control CO2 emissions or close power plants. Therefore the EPA did not have constitutional authority to do so.

So how much constitutional authority does the IRS have to force people to comply with a tax code that fills several library shelves or how much authority does OSHA have to force a small business owner with five employees to buy a more fireproof cabinet? Can the EPA legally fine or jail me if I clear the brush away from my home on the grounds it might be habitat for some endangered species?

Should all the thousands and thousands of rules and regulations be presented to Congress to vote yay or nay before they have the force of law?

What do you think?

P.S. can we keep this sort of on topic and reasonably civil please?

 

[Votto]

Congress should do their jobs period, which means pass laws and not regulations that bypass the voters.

But since they run the show they do as they please. They certainly don't want to vote of controversial issues that unelected unelected bureaucrats can do for them.

I look for them to subvert this ruling as they do their own thing once again.

Remember, like federal laws on immigration, democrats don't have to follow the law, because they are the law.

 

[Foxfyre]

Congress should do their jobs period, which means pass laws and not regulations that bypass the voters.

But since they run the show they do as they please. They certainly don't want to vote of controversial issues that unelected unelected bureaucrats can do for them.

I look for them to subvert this ruling as they do their own thing once again.

That's been the M.O. for decades, yes. But I wonder if West Virginia's success in challenging an unelected bureaucracy's power might not inspire others who are drowning in government rules and regulations to challenge other agencies?

 

[1srelluc]

I see a lot of 6-3 in the regulatory agencies' future.

 

[pknopp]

There may be negative repercussions to this ruling as I noted when it happened but it is the correct ruling. A correct ruling isn't decided on the possible repercussions of a ruling.

If Congress is concerned, do your job. I've always hated that they would try and pass their obligation off. Now hopefully the courts at some point decide the same where it comes to war.

 

[Votto]

That's been the M.O. for decades, yes. But I wonder if West Virginia's success in challenging an unelected bureaucracy's power might not inspire others who are drowning in government rules and regulations to challenge other agencies?

They better do it quick before democrats either pack the courts or have those on the bench assassinated.

 

[toobfreak]

The Constitution gives the sole authority to write and pass laws to the elected representatives of the people, yet most of the laws we are required to obey are written and enforced by nameless, faceless people in a vast bureaucracy of three million employees and thousands of government contractors with an unknown number of employees.

Look at the Obamacare ACA---- it was all written by unelected people behind the scenes then voted on by a Congress who admitted not even reading it! All alphabet laws and regulations enacted without Congress must be dissolved and placed back at the hands of congress. I'm not sure which I like better, the resulting chaos that will ensue as Congress scrambles to consider all of the issues making them actually WORK for a change or that by the time the ball gets rolling, an entirely republican-controlled congress might be in place to handle it all!

 

[1srelluc]

There may be negative repercussions to this ruling as I noted when it happened but it is the correct ruling. A correct ruling isn't decided on the possible repercussions of a ruling.

If Congress is concerned, do your job. I've always hated that they would try and pass their obligation off. Now hopefully the courts at some point decide the same where it comes to war.

Yep, SCOTUS is telling congress that it's their job to make the rules, or amend them, not the regulatory agencies.

 

[johngaltshrugged]

That's been the M.O. for decades, yes. But I wonder if West Virginia's success in challenging an unelected bureaucracy's power might not inspire others who are drowning in government rules and regulations to challenge other agencies?

The truth is, even when the feds are challenged & lose, they often ignore the courts & go ahead with what they want to do anyway.
It's only when judges & courts start holding their feet to the fire that mini tyrants like the EPA start behaving again

 

[Votto]

The truth is, even when the feds are challenged & lose, they often ignore the courts & go ahead with what they want to do anyway.
It's only when judges & courts start holding their feet to the fire that mini tyrants like the EPA start behaving again

To be fair, if SCOTUS declared guns needed to be rounded up, at least half the country would ignore it and Sheriffs all over the country have already said the would not enforce it.

Then again, the Second Amendment is a blatant Constitutional right that needs no interpretation, thus does not need such from SCOTUS.

That is why they just chip away at guns any way they can to get what they can knowing whatever laws or regulations they pass will not stop the violence on the streets.

 

[pknopp]

Look at the Obamacare ACA---- it was all written by unelected people behind the scenes then voted on by a Congress who admitted not even reading it!

This ruling won't stop that.

 

[Votto]

This ruling won't stop that.

True, similar legislation is being written for the stooges to sign for various other things.

It's a 24/7 Left wing job. In fact, it's the only work those on the Left actually do.

 

[pknopp]

True, similar legislation is being written for the stooges to sign for various other things.

It's a 24/7 Left wing job. In fact, it's the only work those on the Left actually do.

No Congress person from either side sits down and writes a bill.

 

[sealybobo]

The pros and cons of WV vs EPA are being discussed but there is a far larger issue at play here namely:

How much authority, if any, SHOULD a federal department or agency have to write rules and regulations with the force of law?

The Constitution gives the sole authority to write and pass laws to the elected representatives of the people, yet most of the laws we are required to obey are written and enforced by nameless, faceless people in a vast bureaucracy of three million employees and thousands of government contractors with an unknown number of employees.

Most federal rules and regulations with force of law now on the books were never read, much less passed, by our elected representatives. Probably nobody has ever fully counted them but they number at least into the tens of thousands, probably more, involving millions of pages of text. An estimated 190,000 pages of new rules and regulations went onto the books in the first two years of the Obama administration alone and at least one new law goes on the books every day.

There aren't enough legal minds in the world to sift through all that and advise how to comply with it.
The most sinister aspect is that since every person, every business, every corporation is unlikely to comply with every jot and tittle of every law, anybody could be targeted by the government for violating some technicality. That gives government a terrible power over the people.

And the fact is our elected representatives don't want to go on the record as endorsing a law that is deeply unpopular with their constituents. It's much easier to let that unelected faceless bureaucracy do it.

In WV vs EPA the SCOTUS ruled that the elected representatives of the people did not give the EPA authority to control CO2 emissions or close power plants. Therefore the EPA did not have constitutional authority to do so.

So how much constitutional authority does the IRS have to force people to comply with a tax code that fills several library shelves or how much authority does OSHA have to force a small business owner with five employees to buy a more fireproof cabinet? Can the EPA legally fine or jail me if I clear the brush away from my home on the grounds it might be habitat for some endangered species?

Should all the thousands and thousands of rules and regulations be presented to Congress to vote yay or nay before they have the force of law?

What do you think?

P.S. can we keep this sort of on topic and reasonably civil please?

I am now okay with the new supreme court and the new America. From now on, the EPA doesn't have power. Congress has power. If the congress wants to give the EPA power fine but the EPA should not have the power it has. The decisions need to be made in Congress.

Now we all know this congress will not act on environmental protections. But if the voters are stupid enough to vote for polluters then I guess we get the planet we deserve.

So if voters don't like the new way things are done, they'll vote out Republicans. If voters like what's going on, they'll continue to elect Republicans who are strict constitutionalists and who will do nothing about guns, global warming or an economy that only works for the richest of us Americans.

 

[Foxfyre]

Look at the Obamacare ACA---- it was all written by unelected people behind the scenes then voted on by a Congress who admitted not even reading it! All alphabet laws and regulations enacted without Congress must be dissolved and placed back at the hands of congress. I'm not sure which I like better, the resulting chaos that will ensue as Congress scrambles to consider all of the issues making them actually WORK for a change or that by the time the ball gets rolling, an entirely republican-controlled congress might be in place to handle it all!

Congress voted on the original ACA bill that was so horrendous I doubt ANYBODY has ever read it in its entirety to this day. As Pelosi said, they had to pass it to find out what was in it. That may be the single more incredibly irresponsible phrase any politician has ever uttered.

But the original bill with roughly half as many words as are in the King James Bible pales in size compared to the 20,000 pages of rules and regulations to implement it that were on the books by 2013 and that number has increased a great deal since then. I venture no elected representative of the people, Republican or Democrat, has bothered to even look at any of that.

If SCOTUS did nothing else for us but insist that bureaucrats and other unelected entities can be authorized to enforce specific laws passed by Congress but cannot write and enforce laws without a Congressional vote, it just might begin to rein in an ungovernable government.

 

[Foxfyre]

This ruling won't stop that.

No, but if a congressperson doesn't read the bill but votes on it anyway and there is something deeply unpopular or awful in it, at least that gives his/her opponent legitimate ammo for the next campaign.

 

[TeeDub]

I am now okay with the new supreme court and the new America. From now on, the EPA doesn't have power. Congress has power. If the congress wants to give the EPA power fine but the EPA should not have the power it has. The decisions need to be made in Congress.

Now we all know this congress will not act on environmental protections. But if the voters are stupid enough to vote for polluters then I guess we get the planet we deserve.

So if voters don't like the new way things are done, they'll vote out Republicans. If voters like what's going on, they'll continue to elect Republicans who are strict constitutionalists and who will do nothing about guns, global warming or an economy that only works for the richest of us Americans.

We can't vote in China or India FOOL.

 

[sealybobo]

We can't vote in China or India FOOL.

All you can worry about is here. If we clean up our backyard and oceans and down the road they are destroying OUR planet, maybe that's a good reason to go to war.

So what's your point anyways? Sounds like you're saying fuck it if they aren't going green you may as well throw your trash in the ocean. Why bother right?

 

[sealybobo]

We can't vote in China or India FOOL.

Clean up your own lake and stop worrying about China

Amazon.com : magnet fishing kit

magnet fishing kit

 

[martybegan]

I am now okay with the new supreme court and the new America. From now on, the EPA doesn't have power. Congress has power. If the congress wants to give the EPA power fine but the EPA should not have the power it has. The decisions need to be made in Congress.

Now we all know this congress will not act on environmental protections. But if the voters are stupid enough to vote for polluters then I guess we get the planet we deserve.

So if voters don't like the new way things are done, they'll vote out Republicans. If voters like what's going on, they'll continue to elect Republicans who are strict constitutionalists and who will do nothing about guns, global warming or an economy that only works for the richest of us Americans.

Actually these rulings are leading us back to the original intent of the United States.

It's progressives that have fought for more ability to govern removed as far from the people governed as possible.