[Carry_Okie]

The only serious issue is what the courts should do about EPA’s violation of law. EPA’s statutory violation cannot be dismissed as a harmless error. Congress enacted the requirement for Science Advisory Board review because it believed it would make a difference in the standards and regulations EPA issued, and that has proven true time and time again. EPA’s violation relating to these rules is especially consequential, as the two affidavits of the former chairman of the Science Advisory Board explain: these are precisely the type of rules that Congress intended the Board to evaluate, and EPA’s failure to obtain the required peer review is inexcusable.

PATRICK HENRY, Virginia Ratifying Convention: This, sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility — and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves.

[HiTech RedNeck]

I can sympathize with Henry here.

On the other hand, a Constitution that had some kind of Ombudsman built into it, would it end up being any better than our current situation?