EV Cheating Scandal [LOCKED DUE TO POLITICS]

[Phrozen]

Henry, the Constitution specifies that the Federal Government is responsible for national security. The Air Force is part of our national security.

It also says that the Federal Government is responsible for the "general welfare," among other things. I would argue that citizens being able to breathe is pretty important to their general welfare.

Sponsored

 

[mkhuffman]

It also says that the Federal Government is responsible for the "general welfare," among other things. I would argue that citizens being able to breathe is pretty important to their general welfare.

The "general welfare" statement is in the preamble to the Constitution. The preamble is the introduction, and the actual responsibilities assigned to the Federal Government (how it provides for the general welfare) are in the articles that follow. Which are very clear, if you read them. And none of them say a thing about protecting the environment. Zero. And it says that everything not specified is assigned to the states and the people.

The EPA is illegal.

 

[Phrozen]

The "general welfare" statement is in the preamble to the Constitution. The preamble is the introduction, and the actual responsibilities assigned to the Federal Government are in the articles that follow. Which are very clear, if you read them. And none of them say a thing about protecting the environment. Zero. And it says that everything not specified is assigned to the states and the people.

The EPA is illegal.

Read Article 1, Section 8

The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposrs and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and the general welfare of the United States, but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

I like breathing. Your mileage seems to vary.

In any event, the CAFE standards are a USDOT initiative, not the EPA

 

[devmach-e]

Illegal as it is not authorized by the Constitution, which defines what the Federal Government is allowed to do. All branches of government allowing it to happen does not change the fact that there is no EPA clause in the Constitution. Buddy.

There doesn't need to be a specific clause in the Constitution that creates the EPA. Just as there isn't one for the FAA, FCC, FDA, DoT, and a whole host of other government agencies. But those agencies were created by acts of Congress and delegated authority to regulate those sectors.

The Interstate Commerce Clause would then allow the Federal Government to help resolve disputes between the states. Assuming there are disputes, which I doubt. Everyone wants clean water and clean air.

That Interstate Commerce Clause would also allow the Federal government to setup agencies that could resolve disputes between the states by setting up uniform regulations that would prevent, say, a coal plant in one state with lax standard dumping tons of coal ash into a river upstream of another state that has more stringent requirements for what can be dumped into a waterway that traverses multiple states. Oh wait, we already do that.

 

[DennisD]

It doesn’t have to be a big bad “sky is falling” thing to register.

Just a simple “we need to keep our air and water clean so let’s pass these laws” and you get no pushback.

“The world is going to end if it’s 1 degree warmer in 100 years and we can prevent that by spending billions and doing things you don’t like……” lots of pushback.

I get that the people in charge think that “fear and anger” are the best ways to motivate action. But that isn’t true if it’s meant to divide people and we need everyone on board.

The amount of people who think that we can do something about the weather are about equal to the amount of people who think those people are crazy.


Amount of people who want clean air and water? Rounds to 100%

Not sure if that figure would be 100% if you added "if it costs you money" to the end of that statement. That figure would go down to around 50% again.
There are too many people that really don't care in the end. If they did, we wouldn't need to gently persuade them as you suggest. They would have already been on board.

 

[kodiakng]

You can have the last word, friend. We don't need another thread shut down due to petty political sniping. Good day to you.

LOL starting the politically charged thread and then this. well done, sir.

 

[kodiakng]

Illegal as it is not authorized by the Constitution, which defines what the Federal Government is allowed to do. All branches of government allowing it to happen does not change the fact that there is no EPA clause in the Constitution. Buddy.



The Interstate Commerce Clause would then allow the Federal Government to help resolve disputes between the states. Assuming there are disputes, which I doubt. Everyone wants clean water and clean air.

let's fast forward this discussion past the illegal federal reserve system, bringing back the gold standard, and just get straight to the illegitimate ratification of the 16th amendment shall we?

 

[Ghost Ryder]

LOL. Haven't kept up on WSJ in recent years, huh?

I know a lot of people on the right have complained that the WSJ has moved to the left. No one is happy.

 

[mkhuffman]

Read Article 1, Section 8

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

Yeah, I see the EPA is authorized there. Not.

 

[Phrozen]

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

Yeah, I see the EPA is authorized there. Not.

Well, luckily for me, the Supreme Court agrees with my interpretation. Incidentally, how long can you hold your breath?

 

[mkhuffman]

There doesn't need to be a specific clause in the Constitution that creates the EPA. Just as there isn't one for the FAA, FCC, FDA, DoT, and a whole host of other government agencies. But those agencies were created by acts of Congress and delegated authority to regulate those sectors.


That Interstate Commerce Clause would also allow the Federal government to setup agencies that could resolve disputes between the states by setting up uniform regulations that would prevent, say, a coal plant in one state with lax standard dumping tons of coal ash into a river upstream of another state that has more stringent requirements for what can be dumped into a waterway that traverses multiple states. Oh wait, we already do that.

Resolving disputes is not the same as regulating CO2. But I agree that resolving disputes would involve helping to resolve a dispute about pollution. Which is why we don't need an EPA. The EPA doesn't resolve disputes. It mandates and dictates.

 

[devmach-e]

Why do you believe congress supported the establishment of the EPAs regulation powers in the manner they did when they clearly had the votes for a constitutional amendment?

They had the power to propose a Constitutional amendment. But it would still require three-quarters of the state legislatures to ratify it.

 

[mkhuffman]

let's fast forward this discussion past the illegal federal reserve system, bringing back the gold standard, and just get straight to the illegitimate ratification of the 16th amendment shall we?

Why is the 16th Amendment illegitimate? Was the process to pass it followed per the Constitution?

This is very simple. If you don't like what the Constitution says, there is a process for changing it. Instead our politicians violate the process and pass laws they are not authorized to pass. And we don't care. Or at least most of us don't care.

The law is only as good as people with integrity are willing to stand up for it. Our history is full of people without integrity. It is the human condition, unfortunately.

 

[devmach-e]

Resolving disputes is not the same as regulating CO2. But I agree that resolving disputes would involve helping to resolve a dispute about pollution. Which is why we don't need an EPA. The EPA doesn't resolve disputes. It mandates and dictates.

If you regulate things to begin with, and everybody follows a common set of rules, then there's no reason to have to resolve disputes.

California started regulating their air and water before the EPA did. They were granted a waiver in the Clean Air Act to continue to enforce more stringent requirements. The previous administration tried to revoke that waiver. Did you oppose that?

 

[kodiakng]

Why is the 16th Amendment illegitimate? Was the process to pass it followed per the Constitution?

glad to see you agree.

This is very simple. If you don't like what the Constitution says, there is a process for changing it. Instead our politicians violate the process and pass laws they are not authorized to pass. And we don't care. Or at least most of us don't care.

the legality of the delegation of executive functional agencies and commissions (EPA, FCC, FAA, etc) has been upheld by SCOTUS precedent for decades.

The law is only as good as people with integrity are willing to stand up for it. Our history is full of people without integrity. It is the human condition, unfortunately.

yes, and people with integrity have stood up for it for decades. you just don't agree with their interpretation of the legal underpinnings.

Sponsored