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 ...
Back in his day, my Paw-T. (Grandfather) would have handled things QUITE differently to say the least.....
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.
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.
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.
I'd say that the EPA is about to get their butt handed to them.
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.
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...
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.
"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.
"It is the right and responsibility of every man to read and interpret the Constitution for himself." - Thomas Jefferson.
That means that the federal government is bound by whatever treaties it signs, just as it is bound by the Constitution. Just as the Constitution conveys no authority for Congress to grant itself new powers, neither can any treaty.
I saw a video where he said he'd oppose Agenda 21. If he makes that a mainstay of his stump speeches he will gain a lot of support.
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.