Posted on 03/25/2014 3:37:58 PM PDT by jazusamo
In what critics are describing as a government land grab, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a change Tuesday to the Clean Water Act that would give it regulatory authority over temporary wetlands and waterways.
The proposal immediately sparked concerns that the regulatory power could extend into seasonal ponds, streams and ditches, including those on private property.
"The ... rule may be one of the most significant private property grabs in U.S. history," said Louisiana Sen. David Vitter, the top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
The EPA proposal would apply pollution regulations to the country's so-called "intermittent and ephemeral streams and wetlands" -- which are created during wet seasons, or simply after it rains, but are temporary.
At issue is whether the smaller streams and wetlands are indeed part of the "waters of the United States."
The Supreme Court ruled on the issue in 2001 and 2006. The second ruling restricted the federal government's authority by stating such waters must be "relatively" permanent or continuously flowing and sizeable, like "oceans, rivers, streams and lakes."
In defending the proposed change, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers said Tuesday that determining Clean Water Act protection for streams and wetlands became "confusing and complex" following the high court decisions.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Thanks to information I recently got from freeper Ben Fiklin in a related thread, I had done some scratching and discovered the following. In the early 20th century and with the help of activist justices, Congress had evidently used its power to negotiate treaties to usurp 10th Amendment-protected state power to regulate water rights imo.
More specifically, although I'm happy that Native Americans were insured a supply of water for agricultural purposes, as evidenced by the Supreme Court's decision in Winters v. United States activist justices had given Congress the green light to Congress to regulate intrastate water rights, such federal legislative powers wrongly interpolated from Congress's power to negotiate treaties imo.
More specifically, activist justices had argued that the Supremacy Clause, Section 2 of Article VII, in conjunction with Congress's power to negotiate treaties, trumped 10th Amendment-protected states power to regulate water. In fact, the justice who had argued that treaties trump the 10th Amendment, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., is one of main justices credited for fostering the idea of the "living Constitution."
However, regarding such a perspective on the scope of Congress's power to negotiate treaties, and as similarly noted with respect to controversial United Nations issues, please consider the following. Thomas Jefferson, based on his experience as Vice President and President of the Senate, had officially clarified that Congress cannot use its power to negotiate treaties as a back door to establish new powers for itself, powers not based on the limited powers which the states have delegated to Congress via the Constitution.
“In giving to the President and Senate a power to make treaties, the Constitution meant only to authorize them to carry into effect, by way of treaty, any powers they might constitutionally exercise.” —Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.“Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way.” —Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1812.
Also note that the Supreme Court had later reflected on Jefferson's words, clarifing that Congress cannot use it's power to negotiate treaties as a backdoor way to expand its constitutionally-limited powers.
"2. Insofar as Art. 2(11) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice provides for the military trial of civilian dependents accompanying the armed forces in foreign countries, it cannot be sustained as legislation which is "necessary and proper" to carry out obligations of the United States under international agreements made with those countries, since no agreement with a foreign nation can confer on Congress or any other branch of the Government power which is free from the restraints of the Constitution (emphasis added)." --Reid v. Covert, 1956.
So while patriots have recently been concerned about "closing the barn door so the horses can't escape," stopping corrupt Congress from using its power to negotiate treates to limit constitutional rights with the help of the UN, little did we know that one horse had already escaped from the barn in the early 20th century, compliments of activist justices.
Also regarding the EPA, note that the Founding States had made the first numbered clauses in the Constitution, Sections 1-3 of Article I, evidently a good place to hide them from Congress, to clarify that all federal legislative powers are vested in the elected members of Congress, not in the executive or judicial branches or in non-elected government bureaucrates. So Congress has a constitutional monopoly on federal legislative / regulatory powers whether it wants it or not imo. So not only has Congress wrongly delegated legislative powers to non-elected bureaucrats in blatant defiance of the previous mentioned clauses, but Congress has delegated powers that the states have never granted to Congress via the Constitution, regulating water rights in this example.
Are we having fun yet?
AGAIN!!??!!
Neofascists in government are not new. Since 1972 the Supreme court has ruled decisively two or three times that ephemeral water and puddles that are created in ruts and hollows do not invalidate the concept of private property ownership.
For many years, it was the Corps (heh heh) of Engineers which abused the concept of "navigable waters."
Now it's the EPA?
I can't wait to see what the "new reality Supreme Court decides this time. In the past most owners were driven to bankruptcy before the Supreme Court ruled n the case. We're talking ten years or more!
This is one of the reasons we need a CoS with an amendment to prevent the alphabet agencies created by Congress from stealing our rights and our property.
>>For many years, it was the Corps (heh heh) of Engineers which abused the concept of “navigable waters.”
Now it’s the EPA?<<
Yes, and I understand the “navigable waters” has already been abused by the EPA, now they want jurisdiction over “seasonal” waters.
Well said, good post.
Well, I wouldn’t go that far, but these folks do act like tyrants.
So, in other words, just disobey the ruling?
The EPA should be abolished, and all its buildings razed to the ground!
Jim, I agree with that. I say eliminate the EPA and get to work on those laws.
In spirit, I think many Conservatives understand the need to keep Corporations or private entities from leaving behind massive chemical or other contamination spills on property.
That sort of thing should be watched, but the takings and absurd regulations need to be gutted.
Why not?...what they are doing is treasonous...they are deliberately out to distroy this country.
As you and I see it, I agree. As they see it, they’re merely doing something they think must be done to save the nation for the next generation.
I just think it’s easier to dump them out of government service, and let them sink back into the woodwork.
The goal is to lop off about 80 to 90% of the government work force. This is an excellent place to get started.
Next... education. No longer would schools be used for indoctrination, other than to be appreciative and loyal to the United States.
Homosexual agenda
Leftist agenda
The U. N.s agenda
The Anti-Christian agenda
The Anti-White agenda
It stops that very day.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.
It would be better to shut down our entire education system for a year, revamp it, and start kids in again.
When it starts over, have good people in place who are interested in our kids being competitive both nationally and internationally.
I would keep teachers on a short leash, rehiring only the ones who sincerely had the children’s well being in mind.
I especially agree with you on your views regarding Education.
As to the EPA elites, I believe their agenda has nothing to do with keeping things for subsequent generations, but that they are using their agenda to achieve power in order to make us, the people, slaves. I stand by my earlier comments about the Capitol Steps.
Lop off the 80 to 90%, yes, and lop off the heads of the 5 or 10% of those at the top...hang ‘em high for all to see...as a caution to those later who would thing about following the same ‘conviction’...
Always odd how they take land that’s beautiful...makes them smell like thieves.
Exactly, in fact I believe, Congress will have to approve this for it to go forward.
We don't need to dismantle the EPA. Some things it does is good. But we do need checks and balances to prevent land grabs like this.
One check that is needed, is that the EPA needs to be subject to judiciary review and not just special EPA administrative courts.
We need an office of constitutional rights, to investigate acts by other offices and stop those that violate constitutional rights. Such as the right to be secure in one's properties and not to have them seized without compensation.
“... We don’t need to dismantle the EPA. Some things it does are good. ...”
-
Ninety % of what the EPA does could be done cheaper and better by the states.
The other 10 % is unnecessary altogether.
ping to 13
Are we having fun yet?
You bet!
Thanks for replying B4Ranch. I didn't mean to post that. Trouble with Internet connection.
--------------
Do y'all remember discussions in this message board concerning how socialists are trying to unconstitutionally expand the federal government's powers using the federal government's power to negotiate treaties? Current related issues concern Constitution-ignoring USA politicians working through the UN to try to force US citizens to comply with foreign laws. Examples of such laws are gun control, parenting control and Agenda 21 issues, issues which the states have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to address.
Thanks to information I recently got from freeper Ben Fiklin in a related thread, I had done some scratching and discovered the following. In the early 20th century and with the help of activist justices, Congress had evidently used its power to negotiate treaties to usurp 10th Amendment-protected state power to regulate water rights imo.
More specifically, although I'm happy that Native Americans were insured a supply of water for agricultural purposes, as evidenced by the Supreme Court's decision in Winters v. United States activist justices had given Congress the green light to Congress to regulate intrastate water rights, such federal legislative powers wrongly interpolated from Congress's power to negotiate treaties imo.
More specifically, activist justices had argued that the Supremacy Clause, Section 2 of Article VII, in conjunction with Congress's power to negotiate treaties, trumped 10th Amendment-protected states power to regulate water. In fact, the justice who had argued that treaties trump the 10th Amendment, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., is one of main justices credited for fostering the idea of the "living Constitution."
However, regarding such a perspective on the scope of Congress's power to negotiate treaties, and as similarly noted with respect to controversial United Nations issues, please consider the following. Thomas Jefferson, based on his experience as Vice President and President of the Senate, had officially clarified that Congress cannot use its power to negotiate treaties as a back door to establish new powers for itself, powers not based on the limited powers which the states have delegated to Congress via the Constitution.
“In giving to the President and Senate a power to make treaties, the Constitution meant only to authorize them to carry into effect, by way of treaty, any powers they might constitutionally exercise.” —Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
“Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way.” —Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1812.
Also note that the Supreme Court had later reflected on Jefferson's words, clarifing that Congress cannot use it's power to negotiate treaties as a backdoor way to expand its constitutionally-limited powers.
"2. Insofar as Art. 2(11) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice provides for the military trial of civilian dependents accompanying the armed forces in foreign countries, it cannot be sustained as legislation which is "necessary and proper" to carry out obligations of the United States under international agreements made with those countries, since no agreement with a foreign nation can confer on Congress or any other branch of the Government power which is free from the restraints of the Constitution (emphasis added)." --Reid v. Covert, 1956.
So while patriots have recently been concerned about "closing the barn door so the horses can't escape," stopping corrupt Congress from using its power to negotiate treates to limit constitutional rights with the help of the UN, little did we know that one horse had already escaped from the barn in the early 20th century, compliments of activist justices.
As a side note concerning EPA-related regulations, please consider the following. Note that the Founding States had made the first numbered clauses in the Constitution, Sections 1-3 of Article I, evidently a good place to hide them from Congress, to clarify that all federal legislative powers are vested in the elected members of Congress, not in the executive or judicial branches or in non-elected government bureaucrates. So Congress has a constitutional monopoly on federal legislative / regulatory powers whether it wants it or not imo. So not only has Congress wrongly delegated legislative powers to non-elected bureaucrats in blatant defiance of the previous mentioned clauses, but Congress has delegated powers that the states have never granted to Congress via the Constitution, regulating water rights in this example.
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.