For example: We abolish the EPA .Yet there are still thousands of pages of marxist ,anti-capitalism enviromental laws like that species act or whatever. Someone or some agency has to do environmental impact studies etc. to enforce those laws, to make sure that no habitat of some insect or forest or whatever is “harmed” by a power plant or construction or factory etc.. Of course those are horrible laws but it is the President's duty to see that those laws are enforced.So these laws have to be repealed first.
Why don't people understand that it is laws that are the problem: case in point the 3000 page government socialist healthcare law just recently passed.
Take CO2 for example. Public sentiment was such that Congress wouldn't declare it a pollutant, but the agency still did, and thinks that we're still obligated to abide by their regulations despite the fact that Congress chose not to act.
So there is value in reining in the enforcement agencies, even though part of the problem originates elsewhere. I see the argument for a non-political body to make some determinations in a technical field to avoid politicizing what is actually provable fact, but the way it's implemented it's like double jeopardy to our rights. If EITHER the political or administrative people want to shave away some of our rights, they get to just shave away. That's not right. Maybe the agency can make scientific findings and then submit them to Congress to be included in laws, then to be enforced by an executive agency but with no adding other things to regulate on their own say-so, but whatever, this way has to go.