Posted on 10/09/2022 5:00:44 AM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
Too many on the Left believe that Article 3 of the Constitution, the judicial powers afforded by the Constitution, should be ignored when Congress enacts legislation that is unconstitutional.
Next June, the Supreme Court will rule in the case of Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. It will decide whether Congress has the authority to determine if owners of a plot of land can use that private property to build a home without first gaining permission from the EPA. In plain language, is private property still protected by the Constitution, or can the federal government at its whim seize that property by disallowing the building of a home?
The statute at issue is the Clean Water Act, which finds its constitutional basis in the commerce clause, Article 1, Section 8. This clause grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. That constitutional provision also grants Congress the power to "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper." The federal courts have determined that regulation of commerce includes jurisdiction over the nation's navigable waters. In this context, "navigable waters" does not mean dry land.
Michael and Chantell Sackett wanted to build a home near Priest Lake, Idaho. The EPA said no. The administrative agency said the Sackett property contained "wetlands" that qualified as "navigable waters" subject to regulation by the Clean Water Act.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
But would like to see SCOTUS expand the case to include the Constitutional authority for the EPA.
It’s a real treat getting permits to run an electrical distribution line over navigable waters...
I don’t think this is just about private property rights, but how far the Feds can stretch the definition of ‘navigable waters’. If the Court does a strict reading of the Clean Water Act, then ‘navigable waters’ will mean water you can navigate, and not ponds, mud puddles, etc.
As the saying goes: ‘What the laws says, not what it should say’.
They had to back off.
The other fact is that they use mitigation...use that wetland and create an area "over here"....but twice as large.
The bottom line...Many of the wetland maps (and Flood Plain Maps) were created indiscriminately.
They went too far....designating every drainage way a farmer created as a wetland....roadside ditches...ponds dug for watering farm animals....
Currently, there is no absolute right to own and keep private property. Article 5 allows the taking of property by the government. We call this eminent domain. Granted, the EPA 'forbidding' building is different than eminent domain, but just as a past Supreme court legislated the right to abortion under the guise of right to privacy, I could see a liberal court using eminent domain as the basis for the EPA position.
Just as Joseph Stalin said "It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes." - we have courts/justices who say, "It's not what the law says, it's what we say the law says".
We quickly forget all that Trump accomplished.
We have a drainage ditch thru the pasture that has water when it rains. The EPA tried to claim jurisdiction, claiming it was a navigable waterway. Trump ended this nonsense.
Thank you, President Trump.
If Scalia is to be believed, then the EPA does have that Commerce Clause power =>
“Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.”
Raich => https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html
> we have courts/justices who say, “It’s not what the law says, it’s what we say the law says” <
Yep. Here’s a perfect example of that. The 6th Amendment: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed... “
Not the second word there, “all”. All means all!
Well, the Supreme Court has ruled that “all” actually means crimes carrying a possible penalty of more than six months imprisonment. That flies in the face of common sense. “Six months” is not even mentioned in the 6A.
So if you are charged with a crime carrying a six month imprisonment or less, you cannot ask for a jury trial based on the 6A. You are at the mercy of some judge.
This is a pet peeve of mine. If they can ignore the plain language of the 6A, they can ignore anything.
I hope so! Calling water puddles and standing water in fields “navigable” is ridiculous. Overreach.
All agencies and bureaucracies want to expand their control. Scope creep don’t you know.
Private property is foundational to our entire existence as a nation. Can people have stuff and utilize it without government interference.
“They went too far....designating every drainage way a farmer created as a wetland....roadside ditches...ponds dug for watering farm animals....”
In the desert they have designated even small dry sandwashes as “streams and wetlands”. It is absurd.
I remember part of Hillary’s Healthcare initiative.....there was also the “River Keeper” nonsense where they’d (government) would have complete authority over any land/area where water flowed (or once had). It would have turned half the country into marshlands of property they could control and tax in practicality.
I so look forward to Clarence Thomas’ majority opinion.
I can almost guarantee it will be a pleasant walk through the history of the commerce and navigable waters clauses.
With any luck it will set up the reversal of Wickard v. Filburn.
Our government is completely out of control.
I’d like to first see 50% of the government workers let go except for the USPS.
Complete overhaul of all upper management in the most agencies with a deep dive into their previous decisions on if they were based on logic, wisdom, and constitutionality or if it was ideology. If it was the latter they get their walking papers.
I realize the possibility of this happening is between slim and none but it should still happen.
The Clean Water Act is just another example of the complete perversion of the Commerce Clause. In the late 18th century, the word “regulate” was taken to mean “make regular”. When someone wanted to ship goods from PA to the port of Boston for example to then ship them to England, they were forced to pay taxes to the states in between. The purpose of the Commerce Clause was to eliminate barriers to commerce such as this and not to grant the government almost an unlimited power to direct commerce and pick winners and losers.
Next June?
Maybe the most fearsome and dangerous act by any gooberment agency is the clean water act. I thought we were safe when Trump ended it but NO, plugs and his handlers had to kick it in gear again.
Gooberment employees should be given something serious and personal to think about. For the most part, Gooberment employment is not an honorable profession. A decent person would find another job.
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.