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

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Hears Case of 'Dream House' Stopped by EPA (EPA claims homeowners have NO rights)
Fox News ^ | 1/9/2012 | Shannon Bream

Posted on 01/09/2012 6:55:59 PM PST by tobyhill

Since 2007, Mike and Chantell Sackett have been fighting to build their dream home on the Idaho lot they bought years ago. The Sacketts say they had gotten local permits and spent thousands prepping the land for construction - then the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) showed up.

The EPA told the Sacketts their property contained wetlands and issued a compliance order mandating that they return it to its original state or risk facing fines starting at $37,500 per day.

The Sacketts say they were stunned, and asked the EPA for a hearing on the matter. The agency denied their request, so the Sacketts decided to file a lawsuit. The EPA has argued that the agency is equipped to handle complaints like the Sacketts through administrative procedures, and that landowners have no constitutional right to proceed from a compliance order directly into federal court.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: Idaho
KEYWORDS: agenda21; bhoepa; corruption; crushepa; cwii; democrats; economy; envirofascism; environazis; epa; epacorruption; epajackboots; fuepa; govtabuse; idaho; lping; markets; obama; openspace; propertyrights; rapeofliberty; shutdownepa; tyranny; unconstitutional; waronliberty; waronlliberty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

1 posted on 01/09/2012 6:56:05 PM PST by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

I’d love to see the EPA Nazis get what they’ve got coming to them but it won’t happen in Barry’s Amerika with Barry’s courts.


2 posted on 01/09/2012 6:57:35 PM PST by FlingWingFlyer ("Climate Change" my a.... All weather is local.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Know What Your Gov't Is Up To
By Keeping The News Going
On The WWW #1 Conservative Site
Free Republic!!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!


3 posted on 01/09/2012 7:01:23 PM PST by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Bush’s fault!


4 posted on 01/09/2012 7:03:00 PM PST by depressed in 06 ( Where is the 1984 Apple Super Bowl ad when we need it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

The EPA (thanks go to RMN, as I recall) has no Consitutional basis,save the “general welfare” clause which is just the preamble and not an article with legal weight.

It needs to be dissolved and the occupants sent hiking.


5 posted on 01/09/2012 7:17:36 PM PST by One Name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steelyourfaith

Ping.


6 posted on 01/09/2012 7:18:27 PM PST by Army Air Corps (Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Isn’t all of DC built on what would have been called ‘wetlands?’


7 posted on 01/09/2012 7:26:56 PM PST by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA
"Isn’t all of DC built on what would have been called ‘wetlands?’"

Much is built on drained and filled land, but it's still a dismal swamp.

8 posted on 01/09/2012 7:32:14 PM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: One Name
The EPA (thanks go to RMN, as I recall) has no Consitutional basis,save the “general welfare” clause which is just the preamble and not an article with legal weight.

When Congress passed the Environmental Protection Act, they claimed authority under the Commerce Clause, claiming to find that air pollution has a "substantial effect on interstate commerce".

This "substantial effects" doctrine started under FDR, beginning with Wickard v Filburn and the AAA.

We need to overturn Wickard, and get rid of everything Congress has done that relies solely on these claims of "finding a substantial effect on interstate commerce".

9 posted on 01/09/2012 7:34:59 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer
I'd like to see the EPA Nazi's beat with bats. Teach them the meaning of liberty.
10 posted on 01/09/2012 7:36:18 PM PST by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal The 16th Amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

Dismal swamp, indeed. I was just told by my resident expert that the area where the Mall is had been swampland (who’d have guessed?) with a creek, Tiber Creek, running thru it.

Why do I think the EPA as it is today isn’t what Nixon had in mind when he started it. It’s true, we did need to clean our air and waterways back then. But it’s gotten insane. Hope this couple wins at SCOTUS to end the madness.


11 posted on 01/09/2012 7:49:50 PM PST by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Yea, the same crap that said a farmer growing corn for his own cattle affected interstate commerce...

I agree that air blows from state to state. If one state started burning trash and affected another state or it’s waterways the courts should be able to handle it- we don’t need an agency shoving bullshit down everyone’s throat and strangling business, IMHO.


12 posted on 01/09/2012 7:50:40 PM PST by One Name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

“We need to overturn Wickard, and get rid of everything Congress has done that relies solely on these claims of “finding a substantial effect on interstate commerce”. “

Not gonna happen. There is too much riding on maintaining Wickard.


13 posted on 01/09/2012 7:54:41 PM PST by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

“The Natural Resources Defense Council, writing a brief in support of the EPA, said that the Sacketts “should not be rewarded for failing to utilize the multiple administrative processes that they could (and should) have followed to achieve a resolution of their concerns.””

IOW they should just file the paperwork in our agency and accept our decision.

These gov’t people are out of control.


14 posted on 01/09/2012 8:01:11 PM PST by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: webstersII
Not gonna happen. There is too much riding on maintaining Wickard.

As long as we believe that, it will be true. The federal government has assumed that power, and there are people who don't want the States to ever have it back, so they don't want anyone to believe it's possible. I will not be one of them.

If there must be war, let it be, but let it be for the Constitution.

15 posted on 01/09/2012 8:03:39 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

“As long as we believe that, it will be true”

You miss the point.

It’s not the leftists that have to be defeated on this issue, it’s the conservatives that would have to have a change of heart. They agree with Wickard, so they are not likely to go along with you.


16 posted on 01/09/2012 8:09:01 PM PST by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill; TEXOKIE; ELVISNIXON.com; SunkenCiv; E. Pluribus Unum; CharlyFord; cripplecreek; ...
Now, which republican candidate was it that pledged to do away with the EPA?
17 posted on 01/09/2012 8:12:02 PM PST by Baynative (The penalty for not participating in politics is you will be governed by your inferiors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: webstersII
It’s not the leftists that have to be defeated on this issue, it’s the conservatives that would have to have a change of heart. They agree with Wickard, so they are not likely to go along with you.

A conservative that doesn't believe in holding to the original intent of the Constitution would be oxymoronic. If you believe that the Constitution is a "living document" that means whatever we want it to mean then there is nothing to conserve. It will all be brand new tomorrow.

18 posted on 01/09/2012 8:20:41 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

“A conservative that doesn’t believe in holding to the original intent of the Constitution would be oxymoronic.”

Agreed.

You’ve been here awhile. Surely you’ve realized that many supposed conservatives on FR are really no different than liberals; both groups believe it’s acceptable to use the power of gov’t to create the type of society they desire. Neither really believe in freedom.


19 posted on 01/09/2012 8:34:24 PM PST by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: depressed in 06

This started in 2007, so yes, it is Bush’s fault...to the degree that any Prez has control over the Lefties infiltrating the Federal Bureaucracies


20 posted on 01/09/2012 8:34:32 PM PST by Sioux-san
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks Baynative.


21 posted on 01/09/2012 8:37:40 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Merry Christmas, Happy New Year! May 2013 be even Happier!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: webstersII

I operating under the premise that eventually the unintended consequences will convince them otherwise, and I’m going to help that along every chance I get.


22 posted on 01/09/2012 8:53:07 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Fifth Amendment: “...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;...”

The questions before the court is whether this is:
a. being deprived of property, and (if so)
b. does “due process of law” include the right to a hearing in a court of law?

In the past, the Court has ruled that limiting a property’s use due to wetlands, zoning restrictions, or other limitations, is not a “taking” since it does not deprive the owner of all uses. However, in this case, fines of $37,500 per day and a permit costing 12 times the $23,000 purchase price of the land may be a “taking”.


23 posted on 01/09/2012 8:57:46 PM PST by Qout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Qout

They’re poking at the symptoms. We need to go stomp on the problem.


24 posted on 01/09/2012 9:02:24 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

bfl


25 posted on 01/09/2012 9:08:29 PM PST by Gabz (Democrats for Voldemort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sioux-san
...to the degree that any Prez has control over the Lefties infiltrating the Federal Bureaucracies

Precisely the problem. As, so well documented in the "Failure Factory" by Bill Gertz.

I propose the next President implement the rubber room concept from the NY public schools. The civil service has a right to a lifetime job, but, not that job. Transfer them to a job where the only thing they have to is show up, no phones, no personal phones. Failure to show up is cause for dismissal. It is cheaper to pay them to do nothing, than, to screw things up. My first thought was a fenced in college campus in Vermont, but, it is becoming evident that Gitmo is increasingly less occupied.

26 posted on 01/09/2012 9:18:58 PM PST by depressed in 06 ( Where is the 1984 Apple Super Bowl ad when we need it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Since the EPA has essentially told the Supremes that they don’t have the right to serve as a check and balance on the decisions of the Executive Branch, it is in the Court’s self-interest to find this case in favor of the property owners. I predict a ruling in favor of the Sacketts.


27 posted on 01/09/2012 9:22:49 PM PST by Qout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

“We need to overturn Wickard, and get rid of everything Congress has done that relies solely on these claims of “finding a substantial effect on interstate commerce”. “

I would leave one part in place - I would use the Commerce Clause to stop states from cleaning out pass-through drivers (like Delaware does). I think that was the intent of the clause in the first place...and to prevent state-by-state tariffs on each other.


28 posted on 01/09/2012 10:33:51 PM PST by BobL ("Heartless" and "Inhumane" FReepers for Cain - we've HAD ENOUGH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; One Name
ON: The EPA (thanks go to RMN, as I recall) has no Consitutional basis,save the “general welfare” clause which is just the preamble and not an article with legal weight.

TL: When Congress passed the Environmental Protection Act, they claimed authority under the Commerce Clause, claiming to find that air pollution has a "substantial effect on interstate commerce".

Many of the enabling statutes upon which the EPA relies, (such as the ESA) cite treaties for their authority.

29 posted on 01/09/2012 10:43:54 PM PST by Carry_Okie (The RNC would prefer Obama to a conservative nominee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
their property

Those are the key words. It is their property, not the EPA's property. As long as they are not hurting anyone else's property, the EPA needs to back off.

30 posted on 01/10/2012 12:06:58 AM PST by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qout

An answer is also in the opening sentence of Article III. Our judiciary has the sole power to judge.

For EPA to write its laws, enforce its laws and judge its laws is the very definition of tyranny. They should not have any penalty power whatsoever.


31 posted on 01/10/2012 2:35:20 AM PST by Jacquerie (No court will save us from ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps; Dr. Bogus Pachysandra; grey_whiskers; ApplegateRanch; Whenifhow; WL-law; ...
This is Liberty's immediate opportunity to drive a stake into the heart of the monstrous EPA.

Thanx for the ping Army Air Corps !

 


Beam me to Planet Gore !

32 posted on 01/10/2012 3:28:48 AM PST by steelyourfaith (If it's "green" ... it's crap !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BobL
I would leave one part in place - I would use the Commerce Clause to stop states from cleaning out pass-through drivers (like Delaware does). I think that was the intent of the clause in the first place...and to prevent state-by-state tariffs on each other.

It was indeed. Most of the problems we have with the federal government can be fixed by simply making them comply with the original intent of the Constitution. They still can and should be expected to do what they were authorized to do within the original intent of that grant of power. That would be one of those things.

33 posted on 01/10/2012 4:55:25 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Many of the enabling statutes upon which the EPA relies, (such as the ESA) cite treaties for their authority.

Congress can not do by treaty what it is not authorized to do absent the treaty. All the powers the federal government has are given to them by the States. Congress cannot negotiate with foreign governments to acquire power, because no foreign government has the authority to grant it any power. Only the States can do that.

34 posted on 01/10/2012 5:00:48 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

NEWT!


35 posted on 01/10/2012 5:46:19 AM PST by snowrip (Liberal? You are a socialist idiot with no rational argument.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Congress can not do by treaty what it is not authorized to do absent the treaty.

That is what we are led to believe all righty. It may not be true. Not a one has ever been struck down by the courts. For example: The main treaty underlying the ESA has been on the books for seventy years and it wildly exceed Constitutional limitations on Congress.

36 posted on 01/10/2012 6:42:15 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The RNC would prefer Obama to a conservative nominee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

I wonder why the EPA didn’t show up at the WH to make Moochelle fill in that garden and return it to it’s normal state. After all, dangerous substances are in the ground and the food she grows.

It’s outrageous.


37 posted on 01/10/2012 6:46:44 AM PST by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: indylindy

We’ve donated to the Pacific Legal Fund for years. They fight this kind of malignant governmental overreach all the time. Take a look at their site for great info.


38 posted on 01/10/2012 6:55:00 AM PST by hal ogen (1st Amendment or Reeducation Camp?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
There is indeed a disconnect between what the Constitution says Congress can do, and what they get away with doing.

The Constitution enumerates the powers of the federal government that are granted to it by the States. It is incumbent upon the States to insure that it stays within those limits. It codifies explicitly what the federal government is authorized to do, and implicitly what the States are justified in resisting, and if necessary going to war over to keep it within those limits.

39 posted on 01/10/2012 7:05:38 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Rather than take how the media describes the oral argument session as gospel, you can read them yourself. The oral arguments are here : Supreme Court Oral Arguments. Sorry for linking to a PDF, but that's all that is at the court. I thought of converting it to HTML, but it's pretty long, and I don't really have the time for it right now.

I thought some of the cross was interesting, though any long-time court watcher will tell you that you can't necessarily discern how a Justice will vote based on questions made during orals. Several like to play devil's advocate. As usual, Thomas didn't ask any questions, as is generally his way. I've read that he considers orals to be more theater than substance.

40 posted on 01/10/2012 7:33:51 AM PST by zeugma (Those of us who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Back in his day, my Paw-T. (Grandfather) would have handled things QUITE differently to say the least.....


41 posted on 01/10/2012 7:34:30 AM PST by Maverick68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
There is indeed a disconnect between what the Constitution says Congress can do,

That may not be true either. I think the Constitutional language the article cites was meant to be a get-around on its supposed limitations from the beginning (and yes, I know well about the preamble to the BOR). Read the article. The research cites original sources and parses the language of the Supremacy Clause in Article VI and the ratification powers in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 carefully, as well as what some of the founders had to say about it. It wasn't pretty, especially Hamilton's Federalist 75.

It is incumbent upon the States to insure that it stays within those limits.

The Civil War ended that fantasy.

It codifies explicitly what the federal government is authorized to do, and implicitly what the States are justified in resisting, and if necessary going to war over to keep it within those limits.

One might like to think so, especially in the case of Texas, but no, it is not true, especially since the Civil War. It may have been the pitch, but it certainly has not turned out to be true in practice.

42 posted on 01/10/2012 7:35:55 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The RNC would prefer Obama to a conservative nominee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
The Supremacy Clause can only be used in support of an existing enumerated power. They can't created new powers with it.

As far as the Civil War goes, that was a different set of circumstances. That was a disagreement between the States over a constitutional amendment that was properly ratified by a majority of the States. This is a disagreement between the States and the national government over a power that was never granted to the national government by the States, either in the Consitution proper or by amendment.

43 posted on 01/10/2012 7:49:04 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


44 posted on 01/10/2012 8:28:59 AM PST by RedMDer (Forward With Confidence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
The Supremacy Clause can only be used in support of an existing enumerated power. They can't created new powers with it.

You need to learn a bit more about the Law of Nations before asserting that. The United States was acknowledged as a nation by treaty. Until it was, there was little likelihood of its survival, as no one could be assured it could keep its agreements as a nation, of which paying debts is and was the chief concern. Now, lest you think that a lesser concern, remember that after the Revolutionary War we were broke. Without loans to build the infrastructure of national defense (aka a "navy") we were ripe for reconquest and the founders knew it. My take is that the Constitution itself was a precondition for such loans as Hamilton had arranged, pending satisfaction of specific stipulations, particularly insofar as coining money is concerned. Hence, to compare Hamilton's outright lies in Federalist 75 to the history documented in Farrand's Record is a red flag.

They can't created new powers with it.

They do it all the time, for which there is always a legal justification. Fools scream "Usurpation of power!!!" and it happens anyway. If you truly understood how dirty the process is, you'd be a little more circumspect instead of endlessly repeating the popular cover story. So if you won't read the piece and cannot provide a concrete example of how a treaty has been rescinded by the courts after it has gone into force, then I'm done with you. Enjoy your fantasy.

45 posted on 01/10/2012 8:40:36 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The RNC would prefer Obama to a conservative nominee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
Justice Samuel Alito asked Justice Department attorney Malcolm Stewart, “Don't you think most ordinary homeowners would say this kind of thing can't happen in the United States?”
**************************************************

I'd say that the EPA is about to get their butt handed to them.

46 posted on 01/10/2012 8:47:41 AM PST by kara37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
I'm just a private citizen, with a copy of the US Constitution, and various history books that tell me that this document enumerates the powers granted to the US government and that anything that wasn't granted to it still belongs to the States.

The Founders, according to their writings, intended for the Constitution to be read and understood by the common man, and that by reading it they would know what the powers of the national government are. To the degree that it doesn't work that way, we appear to be out of compliance with the original intent of the document.

47 posted on 01/10/2012 9:21:06 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: depressed in 06

Well said - no one is going to Gitmo - one of those FEMA detention centers that they are readying for the Patriots could be converted nicely into solitary confinement...


48 posted on 01/10/2012 10:03:32 AM PST by Sioux-san
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

This land confiscation is being done in line with Agenda 21. Newt said he’d can Agenda 21 with an executive order the first day.


49 posted on 01/10/2012 10:25:30 AM PST by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
The Founders, according to their writings, intended for the Constitution to be read and understood by the common man, and that by reading it they would know what the powers of the national government are. To the degree that it doesn't work that way, we appear to be out of compliance with the original intent of the document.

"Appear"? "Original intent"? You don't and cannot know entirely said intent, so you admit that you are not qualified to judge objectively by adding "appear" along with your "common man" standard, which is subjective in every case, including yours. Unfortunately for that case as regards public intent, there was a large fraction of the people who did not care about or support either the Revolution or the Constitution. So just what the "common man" thought was being sold was subjective, many may have in fact included those who understood Patrick Henry's rat while others thought it was a necessary evil. The problem for you is, what does it actually SAY as opposed to how it was sold. There was intent for public consumption and there was intent for public benefit; i.e., survival of the nation as an independent entity.

It was the political class of its day that brought this about. Hence, their hidden agenda IS of import to you as regards what it says LEGALLY, not just what it means to you. The Constitution clearly states that treaties are co-equal to it. The problem is powers of enforcement, which you think are limited but the treaties indicate otherwise. Better parse that comma in the Supremacy Clause both ways or you just won't get it. Read the article or stay ignorant. Your choice. I'm done with you until you have.

50 posted on 01/10/2012 11:21:10 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The RNC would prefer Obama to a conservative nominee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

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.

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