Looking forward to reducing the power of the EPA

Taichiliberal said:
Yeah, well last time I checked some jokers supposition and conjecture means squat if the actual documents say or allude to NOTHING of the sort.
Click to expand...

here's the thing about that document and what you say it does or does not 'allude' to.

Before the constitution was ratified, several of these individuals went out amongst the people of the several colonies, printed these essays, and explained in great detail what the powers and restrictions would be upon the central government. This was done so that the people KNEW what was expected and what was protected from encroachment by this newly formed government. Not a single framer, debater, politician, or lawmaker refuted any single one statement that these essays and speeches held. Not a single one.

So, given this information that nobody refuted what was told to the people of the entire 13 colonies who were going to vote to ratify this constitution, do you think that there was some secret clause written in sanscrit on the back side of the constitution that said 'neener, we lied'?
 
Taichiliberal said:
No, you're just being stubborn. Emission standards for automobiles, for industrial smoke stacks. They are NOT giving out naturally produced elements that pollute the air....acid rain being one factor.
Click to expand...

that is not what cypress said. I'm just going off his statement. correct him, don't criticize me.
 
Cypress said:
Oh God, do you RonTards and Lyndon Larouch-ettes ever tire of this nonsensical hyperbole?

Listen man, the environment doesn’t recognize state boundaries. Air, water, and wildlife do not feel compelled to stop at the border of Kansas. The Grand Canyon’s air gets fucked up by pollution from southern California. Vermont’s lakes used to be degraded by acid rain originating in Ohio. That's why RonTards literally look retarded when they whine about "states rights", especially where the environment is concerned.

Federal environmental law and the EPA establish certain national baselines and minimums of environmental quality. It’s up to the States to the implement their own programs to meet those minimum standards, or to adopt their own laws that provide an equivalent, or higher degree of environmental protection.

If your state is too lazy to adopt it’s own regulatory programs and laws that meet certain minimum standards, that’s your states fault. USEPA typically only steps in when a State is too lazy to meet certain baseline environmental performance metrics. I can’t speak for your state, but in my state the vast majority of environmental performance and quality is implemented and legislated by the state and it’s agencies.
Click to expand...

When the issue of acid rain first came about, the defense of companies who resisted shelling out the cash to adapt their smokestacks with the proper filtration systems was, "Well, if you can prove that the chemicals in the acid rain that killed a lake came specifically from my plant, then I'll make the changes". Mind you, they didn't deny that their plant didn't meet the standards set by the EPA per se...they were just playing games and stalling.

When Mt. Saint Helen blew it's top, I remember the ash falling in my backyard on Long Island, NY days later. But yet, greedy corporate SOB's and the stupid asses who blindly support them will tell you that the crap that came from their smokestacks can't possibly travel across state lines to screw up a lake's eco-system.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Yeah, well last time I checked some jokers supposition and conjecture means squat if the actual documents say or allude to NOTHING of the sort.
Click to expand...

SmarterThanYou said:
here's the thing about that document and what you say it does or does not 'allude' to.

Before the constitution was ratified, several of these individuals went out amongst the people of the several colonies, printed these essays, and explained in great detail what the powers and restrictions would be upon the central government. This was done so that the people KNEW what was expected and what was protected from encroachment by this newly formed government. Not a single framer, debater, politician, or lawmaker refuted any single one statement that these essays and speeches held. Not a single one.

So, given this information that nobody refuted what was told to the people of the entire 13 colonies who were going to vote to ratify this constitution, do you think that there was some secret clause written in sanscrit on the back side of the constitution that said 'neener, we lied'?
Click to expand...


Bottom line: there was NOTHING in Sections 8-10 that support Blackstone's supposition and conjecture. And to date, anyone who tries to push what you are asserting with regards to a total dismantling of an agency without due process (and no idea of how to replace them) was politely told, "Nah, ain't happening."
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
No, you're just being stubborn. Emission standards for automobiles, for industrial smoke stacks. They are NOT giving out naturally produced elements that pollute the air....acid rain being one factor.
Click to expand...

SmarterThanYou said:
that is not what cypress said. I'm just going off his statement. correct him, don't criticize me.
Click to expand...

Not quite, as I followed the exchange. You can't juxtapose opinions and content to try and support your contentions.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Bottom line: there was NOTHING in Sections 8-10 that support Blackstone's supposition and conjecture. And to date, anyone who tries to push what you are asserting with regards to a total dismantling of an agency without due process (and no idea of how to replace them) was politely told, "Nah, ain't happening."
Click to expand...

and therein lies the beauty of the constitution. It defines the powers of the government, therefore, if it isn't in there, it can't be done.

blackstones commentaries are what the people understood the constitution to be. If you're now stating that there was indeed a 'gotcha' to the constitution, i'd like to see it. As to the 'nah, ain't happening'......that just goes to show that people don't care about the constitution anymore, so why the hell should us militants?
 
AssHatZombie said:
The EPA is going down. It's a rogue agency, infected with bad science.
Click to expand...

Funny, but when Whitman was pulling all types of questionable tactics under the Shrub, jokers like you were willing to take a bullet for her. Now that the industrial corporations are going to made to actually clean up their act AND pay for it without screwing the public, jokers like you are once again acting against your best interest in some misguided act of loyalty. Sad. :(
 
SmarterThanYou said:
and therein lies the beauty of the constitution. It defines the powers of the government, therefore, if it isn't in there, it can't be done.

A moot point which doesn't change the fact that what you and Blackstone assert is WRONG.

blackstones commentaries are what the people understood the constitution to be. If you're now stating that there was indeed a 'gotcha' to the constitution, i'd like to see it. Nice try, but I clearly stated what was wrong in relation to what YOU originally asserted, and logically showed how your attempt to support your originally assertion with the Blackstone quote was WRONG. As to the 'nah, ain't happening'......that just goes to show that people don't care about the constitution anymore, so why the hell should us militants?
Click to expand...
Spare me the childish sour grapes just because I proved you wrong on a point. You want to throw out the baby with the bath water, yet you offer NOTHING in replacement. History shows that we have AMENDMENTS to the Constitution when the original document does not adequately cover a situation. If you had originally stated that there should be an amendment that gives better oversight to the agencies in question, then we would have no debate. You didn't do this, and the road you took lead to a dead end for you. You can stubbornly hold onto your contentions and beliefs, but as I've shown, they logically just can't stand close examination.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Spare me the childish sour grapes just because I proved you wrong on a point. You want to throw out the baby with the bath water, yet you offer NOTHING in replacement. History shows that we have AMENDMENTS to the Constitution when the original document does not adequately cover a situation. If you had originally stated that there should be an amendment that gives better oversight to the agencies in question, then we would have no debate. You didn't do this, and the road you took lead to a dead end for you. You can stubbornly hold onto your contentions and beliefs, but as I've shown, they logically just can't stand close examination.
Click to expand...

no. The EPA is unconstitutional and should be disbanded.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Spare me the childish sour grapes just because I proved you wrong on a point. You want to throw out the baby with the bath water, yet you offer NOTHING in replacement. History shows that we have AMENDMENTS to the Constitution when the original document does not adequately cover a situation. If you had originally stated that there should be an amendment that gives better oversight to the agencies in question, then we would have no debate. You didn't do this, and the road you took lead to a dead end for you. You can stubbornly hold onto your contentions and beliefs, but as I've shown, they logically just can't stand close examination.
Click to expand...

are you seriously trying to say that blackstones commentaries to the people, william rawles essays, even chief justice john marshalls papers about the constitution were wrong?
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Spare me the childish sour grapes just because I proved you wrong on a point. You want to throw out the baby with the bath water, yet you offer NOTHING in replacement. History shows that we have AMENDMENTS to the Constitution when the original document does not adequately cover a situation. If you had originally stated that there should be an amendment that gives better oversight to the agencies in question, then we would have no debate. You didn't do this, and the road you took lead to a dead end for you. You can stubbornly hold onto your contentions and beliefs, but as I've shown, they logically just can't stand close examination.
Click to expand...

SmarterThanYou said:
are you seriously trying to say that blackstones commentaries to the people, william rawles essays, even chief justice john marshalls papers about the constitution were wrong?
Click to expand...

Are you seriously trying to align your original contention with what they are saying, because that bridge just doesn't exist.

Got news for you, there are papers and essays by professionals, great minds, experts, etc., that I'm sure YOU disagree with. I've already given my comments and responses. You don't have to like or agree with them, but so far you can't logically disprove them.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Are you seriously trying to align your original contention with what they are saying, because that bridge just doesn't exist.

Got news for you, there are papers and essays by professionals, great minds, experts, etc., that I'm sure YOU disagree with. I've already given my comments and responses. You don't have to like or agree with them, but so far you can't logically disprove them.
Click to expand...

it's alot more substantial to align my original contention using documents from the framers as well as those directly involved within the first decade of ratification than for you to disprove those documents with scholars 100+ years after.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Actually, the Bush EPA already made the determination that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that the agency is charged with regulating. You may recall a minor dust-up when it was revealed that the Bush White House simply refused to open the email from the EPA attaching the endangerment finding and instead ordered that the document be substantially re-written.

The Obama EPA isn't breaking any new ground here. They're just doing what they were tasked with doing without interference from political operatives in the White House.
Click to expand...

Actually it wasn't Bush administration, but SCOTUS:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/world/americas/03iht-scotus.1.5124385.html

Environmentalists hail Supreme Court ruling on carbon
By Linda Greenhouse
Published: Tuesday, April 3, 2007

WASHINGTON — The new ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on carbon dioxide emissions is a strong rebuke to the Bush administration, which has maintained that it does not have the right to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, and that even if it did, it would not use the authority.

The ruling does not force the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate auto emissions, but the agency would almost certainly face further legal action if it fails to do so.

In one of its most important environmental decisions in years, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 on Monday that the agency has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases in automobile emissions...
Click to expand...
 
SmarterThanYou said:
Mott, why don't you just flat out state that you think the 50 states soveriegnty be disbanded in favor of an all powerful central government.

That is basically what you're stating here.

we could have 50 little baronies all swearing fealty to our rotating king and parliament.
Click to expand...
Oh no. I'd much rather live in libertarian fairy land where all our problems are solved by wishful thinking and magical libertarian fairy dust.

and while your prattling on about ideological nonsense and imaginary threats to our liberties people will fucking die, suffer serious illnesses and debilitation and our quality of life and standard of living will be seriously degraded and our future generations natural resources will be pissed away.

When you can come up with a better national plan for dealing with industrial pollutants, hazardous materials and hazardous waste we'll be all ears. Until then your just a clueless blow hard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top