Posted on 08/28/2015 7:46:46 AM PDT by rktman
A federal judge has ruled that a controversial regulation that would give the Environmental Protection Agency jurisdiction over small streams and ditches is bureaucratic overreach and has halted the implementation of the rule.
The judge was not pleased with the EPA, who said they would go ahead and implement the regulation in the 37 states that did not sue to end it.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The Donald won’t touch this with a 50’ pole.
Jail the EPA leader for contempt of court and don’t them out until Obama sends a letter that he will uphold the court’s decision.
It’s time the courts assert their authority over this little racist marxist and his minions. They think they are free from the power of congress and the courts. We still have a constitution even if Marxists find it inconvenient.
It seems like the idiots who are supposed to be better than the dems are in fact far worse than the dems.
If this was some agency or person who crossed liberals and their ideology, you can bet asses would be in prison.
You defy them, there will be consequences.
And, at the same time, they can do anything they want without any consequence at all, like Hillary Clinton.
And not only will Republicans not enforce any consequence to any action, they will assist in any way they can the getting away with it.
I think we are reaching a point where “citizen’s arrests” may be the only way to move forward holding anyone to account.
Hard to abide by “Rule of Law” when those in power have gone lawless...
I had done some scratching concerning the federal government unconstitutionally expanding its powers by abusing treaty power and discovered the following. In the early 20th century, and with the help of activist justices, Congress had evidently used its power to negotiate treaties to steal 10th Amendment-protected state power to regulate water rights imo.
More specifically, although I'm happy that Native Americans were insured a supply of water for agricultural purposes, as evidenced by the Supreme Court's decision in Winters v. United States (Winters) activist justices had given Congress the green light to regulate intrastate water rights, such federal legislative powers wrongly interpolated from Congress's power to negotiate treaties imo.
It turns out that the activist justices who had decided Winters had argued that the Supremacy Clause, Section 2 of Article VII, in conjunction with Congress's power to negotiate treaties, trumped 10th Amendment-protected state power to regulate intrastate water. In fact, the justice who had argued that treaties trump the 10th Amendment, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., is one of main justices credited for fostering the idea of the "living Constitution” where activist justices basically interpret the Constitution any way that they want to.
However, regarding such a perspective on the scope of Congress's power to negotiate treaties, and as similarly noted with respect to controversial United Nations issues, please consider the following.
Thomas Jefferson, based on his experience as Vice President and President of the Senate, had officially clarified that Congress cannot use its power to negotiate treaties as a back door to establish new powers for itself, powers not based on the limited powers which the states have delegated to Congress via the Constitution.
“In giving to the President and Senate a power to make treaties, the Constitution meant only to authorize them to carry into effect, by way of treaty, any powers they might constitutionally exercise.” —Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
“Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way.” —Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1812.
Also note that the Supreme Court had later reflected on Jefferson’s words, clarifying that Congress cannot use it’s power to negotiate treaties as a backdoor way to expand its constitutionally-limited powers.
"2. Insofar as Art. 2(11) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice provides for the military trial of civilian dependents accompanying the armed forces in foreign countries, it cannot be sustained as legislation which is "necessary and proper" to carry out obligations of the United States under international agreements made with those countries, since no agreement with a foreign nation can confer on Congress or any other branch of the Government power which is free from the restraints of the Constitution [emphasis added] [emphasis added].” — Reid v. Covert, 1956.
So while patriots have been concerned about "closing the barn door so the horses can't escape," stopping corrupt Congress from using its power to negotiate treaties to limit constitutional rights with the help of the UN, little did we know that one horse had already escaped from the barn in the early 20th century with respect to 10th Amendment-protected water rights, compliments of activist justices.
Regarding the EPA, note that the Founding States had made the first numbered clauses in the Constitution, Sections 1-3 of Article I, evidently a good place to hide them from Congress, to clarify that all federal legislative powers are vested in the elected members of Congress, not in the executive or judicial branches or in non-elected government bureaucrats like those running the EPA. So Congress has a constitutional monopoly on federal legislative / regulatory powers whether it wants it or not imo.
So not only has Congress wrongly delegated legislative powers to non-elected bureaucrats in blatant defiance of Sections 1-3 mentioned above, the EPA in this example, but Congress has delegated powers that the states have never granted to Congress expressly via the Constitution, regulating intrastate water rights in this example.
Also note that the post-17th Amendment Senate should have protected the states by killing the bills which led to the establishment and funding of the EPA. The ill-conceived 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and corrupt senators and Constitution-ignoring EPA bureaucrats along with it.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again—
When the government is LAWLESS, why should the people be LAWFUL?
When certain segments of society can IGNORE the law, why should any other segments OBEY the law?
When certain individuals are ABOVE the law, why should the rest be UNDER the law?
Either the LAW applies to us ALL, or the LAW applies to NO ONE!!!
Hmmmm. Perhaps I need some new business cards made up stating that. :>} All lives matter or no lives matter?
Well, gee—If the EPA can ignore this judge, I guess Christians can ignore the Supreme Court.
Government top to bottom is in reality ‘people’. To think another person is to be your guardian/benefactor belies common sense. My years of experience with government local to fed has taught me that putting one’s fate in the hands of other people is folly. Perhaps I have become more cynical with age. What has happened to/in this Nation since my oversea duty in WWII contributed to such.
Then how about private citizens that own the land with this water on it step up and defend their property against the EPA? Hold EPA agents at gunpoint if necessary until law enforcement arrives to take them into custody.
I think I read something about a gentleman in Wyoming with cattel that is at odds currently with the epa over his stock pond that he dug/built. Because the water eventually would make its way in to some “navigable” river someplace, current fines are $16+ million.
We the people, need to resist the EPA.
In my line of work, I dealt with EPA, and other state agencies for 30 years. I could almost write a book about navigating these sharks and their tactics.
You could be a millionaire with that kind of knowledge. LOL! I would say the boat already sailed but I think the epa has blocked it’s movement.
“...the EPA, who said they would go ahead and implement the regulation in the 37 states that did not sue to end it.”
Cruz pointed that out when it came to the gay marriage thing. The SCOTUS ruling only applied to the states in the lawsuit. Of course nobody else cares about the rule of law when it comes to conservative issues - so it is defacto nationwide.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.