Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Eva

I’m not sure i understand what you mean when you say state EPA rules. I think you mean state environmental agencies’ rules?

I think that I would have to agree with Miller and Issa on this bill though, because of the simple fact that decisions such as these should lie with individual states. Anything less would be a federal usurpation of state sovereignty. While federal law is rule of the land, a state should have the right to make that rule even stronger should they so wish... Even if i don’t agree with the outcome in situations such as the one that you are speaking of, state’s rights should be protected.


47 posted on 07/13/2011 5:34:16 PM PDT by Veritas_et_libertas (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. ~Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]


To: Veritas_et_libertas

While it might be true in some cases, the Supreme Court has ruled that in matter of shipping, the states cannot interfere, putting tighter restrictions on than the feds require. The ruling was called, Intertanko. It involved WA State and oil tankers.

The danger with the new pilot program is that the leftist environmentalists will use it as precedent to take over other areas beyond surface transportation.

The fact is that the state rules will only apply if they are at least as stringent as the EPA rules. If the states want looser rules, the federal rules will apply.

The danger is mostly for people in blue states where the left control the environmental agencies.


48 posted on 07/13/2011 8:59:43 PM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson