Federal regulations costing US $1.9T annually
- Thread starter anatta
- Start date
That's Bureaucracy in a nutshell.
Some people obviously aren't intelligent enough to comprehend passive regulation.
Legion Troll
A fine upstanding poster
When you're a stupid and lazy piece of shit, you shouldn't have a problem when people tell you. Apparently I proved my point.
Right, who cares about discrimination in housing?
You just can't keep your feet out of your mouth to save your life.
Riddle me that, cracker why are you so often on the wrong side of things but don't even know it?
Oh wait, most racism is ignorance based isn't it?
I forget so easily.
Yes it is. Why did you point out that particular law elsewise?
God damn you are a stupid cracker.
Legion Troll
A fine upstanding poster
Explain it.
"Cracker"? I guess you don't consider that term racist.
It seems you couldn't pucker up to his ass any better either. Keep kissing it boy.
Umm, no.
The Coast Guard is essentially limited to Navigable waters, though they have driven me to the scene of marine incidents in four wheel drive trucks.
The Army Corp of Engineers jurisdiction is without doubt navigable waters though they do many land based operations as well.
The EPA, Sorry no such limitation was ever enunciated or even imagined except by you. All potable waters perhaps except that lets off any salt or brackish waters which they also have a mandate to protect from poluters.
Nope, you are just totally full of shit....again.
Now, on th d subject of vernal pools, it is arguable that there is an occasional federal over reach but as Mott points out, where do you draw the line? Better for too little DDT or 2,4,5 T or whatever to be disbursed than too much, right? Better safe than sorry.
There are checks and balances in place, contrary to your say so.
The courts are there too be used by any victem of government over reach.
Nice try though. A for effort but you still failed.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I really thought you'd know that the NSA is getting serious stiffies right now.
How many more poisonings would there be without regs?
Anyone? Anyone?
Fucking idiot. No one is saying there are not stupid laws and regs. There are. The checks and balances are the courts. Courts review laws every day.
That's just it -take it to court, nd going against the EPT for ephemeral waters for ex. is onerous EPA over-reach, w
here beforehand one could more easily deal with state guidelines.
Like MOOSE's (DCJ) experience up in Alaska - he would be going up against the federal gov't, instead of local jurisdictions.
The attorneys would be more costly, the reg's more restrictive one size fits all, with no possibility of allowances like staes could use
(states are inherenty more nimble/flexible then remote fed'l bureaucracies.
Are you talking law enforcement with the Coast Guard and construction with the Army Corp?
I'm talking about jurisdiction or regulating - nothing else - i.e the scope of “waters of the United States” protected under the Clean Water Act.
Prior to WOTUS it was generally navigable waters ( which I think is interstate -or tangential to interstate) vs. intrastate waters
which were state purviews.
I'd have to look more carefully , but that is in general how I've seen "navigable waters" defined...next post please.
Maybe kids were getting adicted to nicotine before e-cigs were regulated zipperhead.
Of course oxy and hydrocodone are scheduled the same, why wouldn't they be? What a fucking freak you are.
Furthermore the travesty was that the regulatory agency for firearms was regulating a drug and or farm product. You are crying about an act of correction as if it were a bad thing. Your world view is so disturbing to me.
Prove the jurisdiction of the EPA was ever limitted to navagable waters.
Furthermore most of Alaska is Federal so really bad example.
Last edited:
Federal court blocks EPA rule on waterways
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/08/27/breaking-federal-court-blocks-epa-rule-on-waterways/
their new rule that expands their authority by redefining the legal term “navigable waterways” was about to take effect tomorrow. A federal judge in North Dakota shut that down this afternoon, ruling that the EPA had exceeded its authority and jurisdiction from Congress:
A federal judge in North Dakota on Thursday blocked a new Obama administration rule that would give the federal government jurisdiction over some smaller waterways just hours before it was set to go into effect.
U.S. District Judge Ralph Erickson in Fargo issued a temporary injunction against a the rule which would have given the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers authority over some streams, tributaries and wetlands under the Clean Water Act. The rule was scheduled to take effect Friday.
“The risk of irreparable harm to the states is both imminent and likely,” Erickson said in granting the request of 13 states to temporarily stop the rule from taking effect. The judge said that among other things, the rule would require “jurisdictional studies” of every proposed natural gas, oil or water pipeline project in North Dakota, which is at the center of an energy exploration boom.
The government tried telling the judge that he didn’t have the jurisdiction to block the order, arguing that it had to go to the appellate court, but Erickson summarily rejected that argument. “If the exceptionally expansive view advocated by the government is adopted,it would encompass virtually all EPA actions under the Clean Water Act,” Erickson wrote of the procedural demand made by the EPA. “It is difficult to imagine any action the EPA might take in the promulgation of a rule that is not either definitional or regulatory.”
On the merits, Erickson ruled, the states were likely to succeed in their suit. Erickson highlights several applicable passages to Rapanos, in which Justice Anthony Kennedy joined in a concurrence that struck down an earlier attempt to expand the Clean Water Act to arrogate jurisdiction over wetlands. “While the Agencies assert that the definitions exclusion of drains and ditches remedies the defect,” Erickson writes of the overbroad rule, “the definition of a tributary here includes vast numbers of waters that are unlikely to have a nexus to navigable waters within any reasonable understanding of the term.”
Erickson also sees at least a fair chance of success for the states in proving the rule to be capricious and arbitrary:
The Rule asserts jurisdiction over waters that are remote and intermittent waters. No evidence actually points to how these intermittent and remote wetlands have any nexus to a navigable-in-fact water. The standard of arbitrary and capricious is met because the Agencies have failed to establish a “rational connection between the facts found” and the Rule as it will be promulgated.
The Rule also arbitrarily establishes the distances from a navigable water that are subject to regulation. … Once again, the court has reviewed all of the information available to it and is unable to determine the scientific basis for the 4,000 feet standard. Based on the evidence in the record, the distance from the high water mark bears no connection to the relevant scientific data purported to support this because any water that is 4,001 feet away from the high water mark cannot be considered “similarly situated” for purposes of 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(a)(8). While a “bright line” test is not in itself arbitrary, the Rule must be supported by some evidence why a 4,000 foot standard is scientifically supportable. On the record before the court, it appears that the standard is the right standard because the Agencies say it is.
This is, of course, just a temporary restraining order. Erickson will have to conduct a trial on the merits, and for the moment it’s unclear whether this applies to states not party to this suit. However, it seems at least somewhat likely based on these comments that Erickson isn’t likely to be convinced that the rule is either necessary or within the jurisdiction granted EPA by Congress. It may take long enough that the EPA will fall under a Republican administration, which can moot the entire question by withdrawing the rule change altogether
++
Here the states have asserted their jurisdictions have been compromised..
but if the states had not sued for the remedy ( not sure how this worked out) the EPA would have gotten this over-reach without challenge,
and depending on the final outcome might still do so.
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/08/27/breaking-federal-court-blocks-epa-rule-on-waterways/
their new rule that expands their authority by redefining the legal term “navigable waterways” was about to take effect tomorrow. A federal judge in North Dakota shut that down this afternoon, ruling that the EPA had exceeded its authority and jurisdiction from Congress:
A federal judge in North Dakota on Thursday blocked a new Obama administration rule that would give the federal government jurisdiction over some smaller waterways just hours before it was set to go into effect.
U.S. District Judge Ralph Erickson in Fargo issued a temporary injunction against a the rule which would have given the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers authority over some streams, tributaries and wetlands under the Clean Water Act. The rule was scheduled to take effect Friday.
“The risk of irreparable harm to the states is both imminent and likely,” Erickson said in granting the request of 13 states to temporarily stop the rule from taking effect. The judge said that among other things, the rule would require “jurisdictional studies” of every proposed natural gas, oil or water pipeline project in North Dakota, which is at the center of an energy exploration boom.
The government tried telling the judge that he didn’t have the jurisdiction to block the order, arguing that it had to go to the appellate court, but Erickson summarily rejected that argument. “If the exceptionally expansive view advocated by the government is adopted,it would encompass virtually all EPA actions under the Clean Water Act,” Erickson wrote of the procedural demand made by the EPA. “It is difficult to imagine any action the EPA might take in the promulgation of a rule that is not either definitional or regulatory.”
On the merits, Erickson ruled, the states were likely to succeed in their suit. Erickson highlights several applicable passages to Rapanos, in which Justice Anthony Kennedy joined in a concurrence that struck down an earlier attempt to expand the Clean Water Act to arrogate jurisdiction over wetlands. “While the Agencies assert that the definitions exclusion of drains and ditches remedies the defect,” Erickson writes of the overbroad rule, “the definition of a tributary here includes vast numbers of waters that are unlikely to have a nexus to navigable waters within any reasonable understanding of the term.”
Erickson also sees at least a fair chance of success for the states in proving the rule to be capricious and arbitrary:
The Rule asserts jurisdiction over waters that are remote and intermittent waters. No evidence actually points to how these intermittent and remote wetlands have any nexus to a navigable-in-fact water. The standard of arbitrary and capricious is met because the Agencies have failed to establish a “rational connection between the facts found” and the Rule as it will be promulgated.
The Rule also arbitrarily establishes the distances from a navigable water that are subject to regulation. … Once again, the court has reviewed all of the information available to it and is unable to determine the scientific basis for the 4,000 feet standard. Based on the evidence in the record, the distance from the high water mark bears no connection to the relevant scientific data purported to support this because any water that is 4,001 feet away from the high water mark cannot be considered “similarly situated” for purposes of 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(a)(8). While a “bright line” test is not in itself arbitrary, the Rule must be supported by some evidence why a 4,000 foot standard is scientifically supportable. On the record before the court, it appears that the standard is the right standard because the Agencies say it is.
This is, of course, just a temporary restraining order. Erickson will have to conduct a trial on the merits, and for the moment it’s unclear whether this applies to states not party to this suit. However, it seems at least somewhat likely based on these comments that Erickson isn’t likely to be convinced that the rule is either necessary or within the jurisdiction granted EPA by Congress. It may take long enough that the EPA will fall under a Republican administration, which can moot the entire question by withdrawing the rule change altogether
++
Here the states have asserted their jurisdictions have been compromised..
but if the states had not sued for the remedy ( not sure how this worked out) the EPA would have gotten this over-reach without challenge,
and depending on the final outcome might still do so.
I think it was navigable waterways and tributaries.. I'll have to do the research, but it was assuredly not this 4000ft.rule, ephemeral streams /ponds etc..
I'll have to look at this later
oxy is much more addictive, but also for severe pain, while hydro is for moderate to severe pain.
They are not the same treatment plans. yet they are now scheduled the same
Take sciatica.. by making it a schedule 2most G.Practioners will not prescribe hydro with out going to pain clinics for any more then very short term use
which are expensive, time consuming,
Clinics rely on X-Ray/MRI (again shooting up costs) where beforehand doctors could prescribe with normal ( un-extreme )measures.
Moreover many doctors will not prescribe, and there is now a war on pain managment -attempting to de-legitimize it.
Doctors are cutting back patients to below what they need. This is DEA over-reach.
a further consequence is the rise of heroin and fentanyl when it's been established there really isn't that much cross addiction from pills to heroin.
Yet pain management is being blamed for that rise.
Five myths about heroin
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-d:homepage/story
I'm glad you find my views "disturbing" mindless big gov't one size fits all counter-productive needlessly intrusive over-regulation
should feel that way.
++
Yet tobacco use was going down without FDA regs,, I'm not claiming anything on this one about use though..
only that we did fine for centuries without having the FDA involved. State and local regs , and societal norms were reducing cigs by more then half since I was a kid . So what was the affirmative purpose of FDA reg?
Last edited:
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Why are you so fucking illiterate?