Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 02/06/2015 7:20:02 AM PST by reaganaut1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: reaganaut1

The EPA thinks that the water coming off your roof during & after a rain event is under their control. In Oregon, they fined a man for using barrels under his downspouts to contain roof runoff & then using the water in a controlled manner for his garden.

The EPA is completely out of control.


2 posted on 02/06/2015 7:25:19 AM PST by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: reaganaut1

bump for later read


7 posted on 02/06/2015 7:45:15 AM PST by CPT Clay (Follow me on Twitter @Clay N TX)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: reaganaut1
Holding a congressional hearing to examine the implications of an administrative rule and then possibly asking the agencies involved to reconsider it is constitutionally ridiculous. It could make sense for the bureaucrats to suggest that a law be amended by Congress, but makes no sense for bureaucrats to rewrite or decree a law, which stands unless the legislators decide they don’t like it.

Well said.

9 posted on 02/06/2015 7:53:10 AM PST by WayneS (Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: reaganaut1

I was just thinking about this last night. Control the water and you control everything and everyone. You can’t control the weather, but you sure can dam everything up. The EPA is like a president overdoing executive orders. Get rid of it. Period.

I want to know what the least amount of bureaucracy America needs and I am not necessarily pro-big business because power corrupts and they all need oversight.


10 posted on 02/06/2015 7:54:38 AM PST by huldah1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: reaganaut1

Money quote:

“With the constant expansion of the regulatory state since the 1930s, Americans have gotten used to having to obey (although sometimes battle) rules decreed by those bureaucrats. It is a bad habit that we should break, argues Columbia Law School professor Philip Hamburger in his powerful book Is Administrative Law Unlawful?

“His unequivocal answer is that it is unlawful.”

http://www.amazon.com/Administrative-Law-Unlawful-Philip-Hamburger/dp/022611659X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1423168298&sr=1-1&keywords=philip+hamburger+administrative+law


14 posted on 02/06/2015 8:12:01 AM PST by cuban leaf (The US will not survive the obama presidency. The world may not either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: reaganaut1

The problem with the argument’s legal reasoning is that such cases of “administrative laws” are simply a result of (1) Congress validly delegating powers of implementation to administrators and (2) failing to write any system of redress into those powers. The intent of Congress was a radical imposition of burdensome environmental laws; they just did it such a way that they could duck responsibility when their constituents got angry.

The key is to realize WHY Congress limited the Clean Water Act to navigable waterways: it was how Congress claimed the authority to pass such legislation in the first place. By applying it to “navigable waterways,” they are invoking the Commerce clause. The outrage is that states’ attorney generals aren’t defending state territory from federal domination, and leaving these poor farmers to fend for themselves.


15 posted on 02/06/2015 8:21:40 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: reaganaut1
EPA starts with the premise that any drop of moisture anywhere affects the hydrological cycle, which is true in the abstract, and then asserts that it has the authority to regulate anything that affects the hydrological cycle, which is false, and then seeks to grab as much power as it can without provoking a political backlash.

At the rate they are going, if you break out in a heavy sweat on a hot and muggy day, you will need a federal permit and a remediation plan, if they don't just let you off with a fine.

The left thinks this is just peachy. After all, the EPA already claims jurisdiction over the carbon cycle, so it can theoretically regulate anything that grows, breathes, dies and decays, or burns. If your goal is a comprehensively federally regulated society in which government can control any activity it desires, this is a blank check, which is what our would be dictators desire.

16 posted on 02/06/2015 8:34:05 AM PST by sphinx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson