Posted on 03/11/2023 7:52:46 AM PST by rktman
The House of Representatives voted 227-198 Thursday to overturn the Biden administration’s “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) rule, which has been heavily criticized for broadening the definition of what are considered “navigable waters” subject to federal regulation under the Clean Water Act.
Republicans say the rule places a costly burden on landowners, ranchers, and farmers by claiming regulatory control over lands containing small streams and wetlands. All but one Republican, Pennsylvania Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, voted to overturn the rule, with nine Democrats joining.
The resolution was introduced early February and co-sponsored by 170 members of Congress.
“President Biden’s new WOTUS rule is a nuclear warhead aimed squarely at our farm families, small businesses, homebuilders, every property owner, and entire communities because of its overreaching definition,” Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee Chairman David Rouzer said in a statement.
“Cloaked under the guise of clean water, all this rule does is expand the federal government’s control over states, localities, and private landowners, making it harder to farm, build, and generate economic prosperity,” he said. “I encourage the Senate to pass this commonsense resolution to push back against onerous rules like this one.”
In February, twenty-four Republican state attorneys general filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to challenge the rule. The Supreme Court is also considering a case that could overturn the rule, Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, which was brought by a couple told by the EPA that they cannot build a house on their own land because it contains wetlands.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
It’s getting to be time to start killing.
"House Votes To Overturn ‘Overreaching’ Biden Water Rule"
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
While it's good that the House overturned Biden water rule, please consider the following.
When President James Madison vetoed the Bonus Bill of 1817, he wrote the statement below (3rd bullet) concerning the scope of Congress's Commerce Clause powers in the constitutionally required veto explanation.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
""The power to regulate commerce among the several States" can not include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses [emphasis added] in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such a commerce without a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led to the grant of this remedial power to Congress." —President James Madison, March 3, 1817: Veto Message on the Internal Improvements Bill
"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." —Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
Based on Madison's clarification of navigable water courses versus the post-17th Amendment ratification Congress's very limited Commerce Clause powers, the feds don't have the constitutional control over such water courses that they evidently think that they do imo.
”I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” —James Madison, Speech at the Virginia Convention to ratify the Federal Constitution (1788-06-06)
”To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” —Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson's Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791
”The system of the General Government is to seize all doubtful ground. We must join in the scramble, or get nothing. Where first occupancy is to give right, he who lies still loses all.” —Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1797.
"If it were, in fact, an unconstitutional exercise of power in congress to pass a law establishing the bank, nothing can manifest the impropriety of over-stepping the limits of the constitution, more than the act which we have just noticed. It shows that the most unauthorised acts of government may be drawn into precedents to justify other unwarrantable usurpations [emphasis added]." —Article 1, Section 8, Clause 6, St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries 1:App. 262--64, 1803.
Pelosi: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." (non-FR; 6 sec.)
“Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors, shall all become wolves [emphasis added]. It seems to be the law of our general nature.” - Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Edward Carrington January 16, 1787)
Patriots, the bottom line is this imo. What is your threshold of “pain” for peacefully stopping unconstitutionally big state and federal governments controlled by bully, constitutionally undefined political parties, from oppressing the people under their boots?
The inevitable remedy for ongoing, post-17A ratification, corrupt political party treason (imo)...
All MAGA patriots need to wake up their RINO federal and state lawmakers by making the following clear to them.
If they don’t publicly support either a resolution, or a Constitutional Convention, to effectively "secede" ALL the states from the unconstitutionally big federal government by amending the Constitution to repeal the 16th (direct taxes) and 17th (popular voting for federal senators) Amendments (16&17A), doing so before the primary elections in 2024, that YOU will primary them.
If the proposed amendment was limited strictly to repealing 16&17A, relatively little or ideally no discussion would be needed before ratification of the amendment imo.
With 16&17A out of the way, my hope is that Trump 47 becomes the FIRST president of a truly constitutionally limited power federal government.
In the meanwhile, I'm not holding my breath for significant MAGA legislation to appear in the first 100 days of new term for what may still prove to be another RINO-controlled House.
Trump will hopefully do another round of primarying RINOs for 2024 elections.
Already tried that. Result was red wave crashed and burned in mid-terms. Abortion issue killed the red wave. Young weemen came out of the wood work to vote. So did young men. Normally they do not show up in large numbers.
I think the abortion issue has killed off any GOP agenda possible.
2A should come in play. Only way out.
That is a mainstream GOP strategy...
All part of their decades-long circle-jerk strategy...
How many times did they vote to eliminate obamycare and dozens of other links in the chains we wear around our necks?
Yep, only while they have that wonderful excuse...
I think the “abortion issue” has killed more than 65 million people.
I think the “abortion issue” has killed more than 65 million people.
GOP likes to be the mninority party. That way they avoid getting blamed for deteriorating United States of America, but they continue to get rich in DC.
Correct, and it is now killing the GOP.
Josie Morris stealing water
https://www.bikeraft.com/a-long-distance-connection-on-the-green-river-josie-ben-morris/
If they can imprison political opponents without trial for years, hide exonerating evidence, and get away with it, do we have a judicial branch?
After your performance during the height of covidiocy, I don't really have much respect for your opinions.
WOTUS, the biggest federal land grab in history.
I would say there is something wrong when it takes 100’s of elected official from the house and the senate to override one mans rule. In the real constitution- Presidents have no such authority to begin with.
This has already been settled by the USSC in Rapanos v US and SWANNC.
States can tell the EPA to stick a sewer pipe up its butt.
Thanks.
Amen!
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.