This is an example of why I, as a nOOb was warned about walking softly in this forum.
There are many good folks here but there are others who seem to want to jump on a poster the very first chance they get?
If a person is not clear on a post, it is usually good manners to ask the person to explain themselves first .. isn’t it?
Walking softly isn't necessary, in fact by being as clear & direct as possible you'll be better off.
Oh, and thick skin helps too.
Lighten up Francis.
and Toughen up.
Baptism is given to all nOOb’s.
Ahmni Dahmni....
First, welcome to FR stirrinthepuddin.
Next, don't let my critiques of articles scare you away. In fact, the following is an example of how I typically start a post which I evidently should have done in your thread.
Thank you for referencing that article stirrinthepuddin. Please bear in mind that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.
The problem is that many journalists are evidently not aware of the federal government's constitutionally limited powers. Consequently they don't dig deep enough in their analysis of the federal government's constitutionally indefensible expansions of power, the EPA a good example of that.
Note that in order for Nixon to establish the EPA that he needed to do the following in compliance with the Constitution's Article V. Nixon needed to inspire Congress to propose an appropriate environmental amendment to the Constitution to the states for ratification. And if the states had chosen to ratify "Nixon's" amendment then Congress would have had the constitutional authority to legislatively address intrastate environmental issues and Nixon would have been a hero.
So the EPA is not the concern of my critique as much as it was wrongly established outside the framework of the Constitution by the Constitution-ignoring legislative and executive branches.
Welcome to Free Republic!