Posted on 06/11/2018 2:11:33 PM PDT by blueyon
A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction to 11 more states against former President Barack Obama’s Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule Friday, Politico reported.
A federal judge in North Dakota exempted 13 other states from the rule in 2015 after the rule was finalized. Friday’s wave of injunctions, issued by U.S. District Court Judge Lisa Godbey Wood of Georgia’s Southern District, symbolizes the growing opposition to the rule. “The WOTUS rules are a blatant power grab by the EPA,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, said in a June 2017 statement. “The federal government exceeded its statutory authority by attempting to regulate areas that Congress never intended to be under federal jurisdiction, and directly infringed on the states’ ability to regulate their own natural resources.”
Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Kentucky are all covered under Godbey’s ruling. An injunction to cover the entire nation has been filed in a federal court in Texas, Politico reported.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Eight years of nuthin down the drain.
That congress never gave them power to do.
What about the constitution never granted them power in the first place.
This idiocy started before the Obamanation.
Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Kentucky, and Texas.
Let’s hope this is the beginning of states standing up to the tyranny of unconstitutional federal acts and bullying of America. States MUST start exercising their constitutional sovereignty and SOME STATE SOMEWHERE has got to decide to become FINANCIALLY INDEPENDENT OF THE FEDS.
We must once again become an INDEPENDENT and FREE nation.
Federal rules over “waters of the U.S.” should be limited to “navigable waters” as in waters that commerce can use between, or to and from the states. States can surely have “clearn water” rules of their own and also negotiate common rules, with each other where needed, regarding other waters transitting, or laying across states’ borders; waters that are not considered navigable waters.
That would place some rivers, like the Mississippi for instance, under federal rules, and some lakes, like the Great Lakes, but it would leave out of the federal writ some rivers, like the Colorado for instance, and many lakes, like Lake Tahoe for instance.
We clearly need more judges appointed like this one. What’s the count now as far as nominees being slow-walked through the Republican controlled Senate?
“This idiocy started before the Obamanation.”
The Bent One grabbed land like crazy
Utah’s Clean Coal Rip-off and Clinton’s Gift to Communist China
http://www.citizensgroup.us/utahs-clean-coal-rip-off-and-clintons-gift-to-communist-china/
p.s. There is a “branch” of the Clinton Foundation in Hong Kong. Wonder how much was donated to them at this period of time???
Was not WOTUS suspended by Pruitt?
MORE WINNETH!!!! (say that like Shakespeare!!! lol. ;D)
Hopefully Trump will take the drain away from Barry as well.
“What about the constitution never granted them power in the first place.”
The Nazis at the EPA are well known for defying both the US Congress and the USSC. The problem we have is that the gutless Congress refuses to rein in these criminal eco-fascists. Most of the EPA leadership should be swinging from ropes for sedition.
Sooner or later, the task to hunt these pigs down and administer street justice will fall to righteous citizens. The orders from the deep state to the EPA fascists is to destroy private property, the primary bulwark of a constitutional government.
Good news.
Are we cloning humans yet? No? OK, are we cloning judges yet?
“Federal rules over “waters of the U.S.” should be limited to “navigable waters” as in waters that commerce can use between, or to and from the states. States can surely have “clearn water” rules of their own and also negotiate common rules, with each other where needed, regarding other waters transitting, or laying across states’ borders; waters that are not considered navigable waters.”
You have it half right. First, jurisdiction and policing of waters of the US should fall under the common law of trespass, not some federal regulation. The common law is enforced by states, counties, towns and individual citizens.
It’s real simple: if you interfere with my right (a state, county, town or individual)to use a waterway, you get sued under English common law, the foundation of our constitutional republic. If you pollute the waterway or block it, you get sued.
There’s hundreds of years of common law rulings to take care of trespass of waterways. Never rely on federal fascist bureaucrats to issue rulings because those rulings can change from week-to-week and month-to-month.
I like your thinking; maybe.
Can judges be relied on to be unbiased, non-political, fare and independent in such matters? When the results of such suits are rejected by one party and appealed to higher courts, will we not have, at some points, no legal recourse but to accept judges legislating from the bench? Will we over the long run just move from an imperial executive to an even more imperial judiciary?
I think the problem is that we do not have any sizeable body of jurists today that represent any “majority” or concensus view of a “common law” approach to settling all such matters by lawsuits, and I expect any abrupt change to such a situation will see today’s jurists falling back on the legal language and legal thinking in then abondoned federal law and regulations (like how much of “X” constitues a polutant to the water).
An ideal is easy to think of. Changing modes of transportation mid way is not without complications that have to be considered and addressed.
Conservatism in the orginal Western and early U.S. tradition is a tradition of gradual changes toward some ideal, respecting as much as necessary existing modes and traditions. Whereas the French tradition was for immediate abrupt change and ignoring the consequences of all that was disrupted by a moving train being designed as it moved.
I guess I am suggesting your idea may be an ideal we should have in mind, as we seek to tear down what already is one brick at a time and not wholesale. It may even be that we can be more convinving with each step, with each step proving itself, than we can be selling wholesale at once adoption of your ideal.
Excellent.
Your response to me is well thought-out. English common law is one of the pillars of our free republic.
For example, in 19th century Michigan, a copper smelter in Calumet was spewing out black smoke that soiled the laundry of ladies who hung out their curtains to dry.
The ladies filed a trespass common law suit with the Mayor’s office against the smelter company, claiming a common law trespass.
The mayor brought a common law lawsuit against the smelter company for blowing black smoke onto the lady’s laundry. Two weeks later, the smelter installed cages onto the chimneys to catch black particles blowing into the air.
Common law in action.
I do like your legal ideals.
However, I just a minute ago got to laughing.
I was thinking about the tort bar, and (a) OMG how they would love a universal application of your ideal, and (b) how sleazy and corrupt so much of the tort bar is. LOL
I’m afraid the Texas AG is wrong. The WOTUS over reach is not a “blatant power grab by the EPA”. It is a blatant power grab by the US Army Corp of Engineers, who claim jurisdiction over US navigable waters. US EPA has been catastrophic for our freedom but this one is all on the USACE, not EPA.
Every agency has been railroaded by Obama, including USACE.
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.