View Full Version : Legislation Introduced to Abolish the EPA
http://www.fedsmith.com/2017/02/03/legislation-introduced-to-abolish-the-epa/
Yes, I saw that 2 days ago...
I can only hope there's a public outcry, similar to the comments made by the Floridians in this article. (Matt Goetz, a congressman from Florida, drafted the bill)
http://floridapolitics.com/archives/231406-matt-gaetzs-drafted-bill-abolish-environmental-protection-agency
This would be another big mistake. Anyone remember smog? Lead in paint? Toxic waste dumps? The Ozone layer? The Exxon Valdez? Who oversaw, mandated change, and held people accountable for these things?
Keep writing your representatives. Can't hurt; might help. Otherwise, we're screwed.
When am I going to wake up??
Remember, the EPA was established by the well-known leftist president, Richard M. Nixon....
(I could see reducing some of the EPA's functions and sending them to the states. But watersheds and air currents don't respect state boundaries, and there's clearly a legitimate and important role for the Federal government to play in making sure our shared resources are properly protected.)
Remember, the EPA was established by the well-known leftist president, Richard M. Nixon....
(I could see reducing some of the EPA's functions and sending them to the states. But watersheds and air currents don't respect state boundaries, and there's clearly a legitimate and important role for the Federal government to play in making sure our shared resources are properly protected.)
Back when Republicans were not irredeemable monsters...I even voted for some. :~)
Back when Republicans were not irredeemable monsters...I even voted for some. :~)
I did too. This is unconscionable!
gimmethesimplelife
2-3-17, 11:03pm
What is this country coming to under Trump? I am of the opinion that it will be unrecognizable four years from now and in such a way that the majority of his supporters will be frothing at the mouth for a Democrat, even Hillary Clinton, to take his place. Time will tell....but abolishing the EPA? Great, let's prove to the world that all that matters in the US is money, even over the earth that sustains us. Very bright move, Republicans. Very bright. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
2-3-17, 11:03pm
I did too. This is unconscionable!I very much agree. Rob
I suspect there are tea party and libertarians in Congress who think this is their chance to advance a pet idea or make a name. One of our congressmen is working on legislation to strip federal funding from National Public Radio and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. With Pruitt in the EPA driver's seat anything is possible and it would probably cause less of a fuss just to whittle down the staff or merge the EPA into another agency. If we are going to make businesses more profitable at the expense of sound national environmental regulations, it is a dark place we're going.
I understand the concept of pushing this back to the states, but there are so many things that affect the air and water quality, migratory birds, and the fates of public lands regardless of state boundaries that it just doesn't make sense.
May I ask a question please?
Do not all the initiatives from Trump have to be reviewed and analyzed and then refined by your elected representatives? Are they not in the range of left to right in their thinking? Is this all an attempt to make them work, discuss and compromise together instead of coasting along negatively on the public dime?
Is Trump forcing your elected members to really earn their money? Is this not part of "cleaning the swamp"?
Am I being clueless or naive? i really believe in democracy and the power of the intelligence of men and women elected to represent their constituents. They will have to work harder than they have ever done before, I think.
May I ask a question please?
Do not all the initiatives from Trump have to be reviewed and analyzed and then refined by your elected representatives? Are they not in the range of left to right in their thinking? Is this all an attempt to make them work, discuss and compromise together instead of coasting along negatively on the public dime?
Is Trump forcing your elected members to really earn their money? Is this not part of "cleaning the swamp"?
Am I being clueless or naive? i really believe in democracy and the power of the intelligence of men and women elected to represent their constituents. They will have to work harder than they have ever done before, I think.
Trump has changed the law so that he can change what he wants. I heard today that he has 20 executive orders going to repeal. Here is some information to scroll through. Just look at the ones from the last week. You may have to copy link and put in browser.
https://www.congress.gov/search?q={%22source%22:%22legislation%22}
A few in our local paper today...
--Nullify disclosure of foreign payments... (helps Trump... definitely a conflict of interest!)
--Mountaintop-Removal mining ... stop protecting streams, forests and drinking water caused by strip-mining
--Mental Issues, Gun Checks ..
too numerous.... VERY FRIGHTENING!
There are many more.
May I ask a question please?
Do not all the initiatives from Trump have to be reviewed and analyzed and then refined by your elected representatives? Are they not in the range of left to right in their thinking? Is this all an attempt to make them work, discuss and compromise together instead of coasting along negatively on the public dime?
Is Trump forcing your elected members to really earn their money? Is this not part of "cleaning the swamp"?
Am I being clueless or naive? i really believe in democracy and the power of the intelligence of men and women elected to represent their constituents. They will have to work harder than they have ever done before, I think.
Oh, he'll definitely get push-back, but the problem is, it's a Republican Senate AND House of Representatives, and with most people toeing the party line, chances are that what he says will stick.
iris lilies
2-4-17, 9:09am
I suspect there are tea party and libertarians in Congress who think this is their chance to advance a pet idea or make a name. One of our congressmen is working on legislation to strip federal funding from National Public Radio and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. With Pruitt in the EPA driver's seat anything is possible and it would probably cause less of a fuss just to whittle down the staff or merge the EPA into another agency. If we are going to make businesses more profitable at the expense of sound national environmental regulations, it is a dark place we're going.
I understand the concept of pushing this back to the states, but there are so many things that affect the air and water quality, migratory birds, and the fates of public lands regardless of state boundaries that it just doesn't make sense.
I was gobsmacked to hear a right leaning talk show host on NPR, Charlie Sykes, who calls himself "a classical liberal aka a conservative." He is on air for a few nights. He was upbeat and engagIng.
I checked the radio dial twice to make sure I was listening to NPR!
I'm sure it is just coincidence, and the effort to defund NPR comes regularly, but how interesting it is to have a conservative running an NPR talk show during a time when conservatives are running NPR funding. Hmm.
He is a cancer that must be stopped before it metastasizes and kills the entire body.
So how soon before we see rivers on fire again?
The way I get it, executive orders have fairly broad power, but they can either be ruled unconstitutional by the judicial branch or they can be cancelled or modified by Congressional vote. Orders can also be indirectly denied by Congress rejecting any funding that might be required and unlike Congressional law, can be reversed by another executive order from a succeeding administration.
My examples would the EPA created by Nixon's executive order can be reversed by another executive order, but Congressional law like Obamacare requires Congressional approval to reverse or repeal. Maybe someone with more constitutional knowledge can correct or add to that, but it's my understanding.
frugal-one
2-4-17, 10:46am
The way I get it, executive orders have fairly broad power, but they can either be ruled unconstitutional by the judicial branch or they can be cancelled or modified by Congressional vote. Orders can also be indirectly denied by Congress rejecting any funding that might be required and unlike Congressional law, can be reversed by another executive order from a succeeding administration.
My examples would the EPA created by Nixon's executive order can be reversed by another executive order, but Congressional law like Obamacare requires Congressional approval to reverse or repeal. Maybe someone with more constitutional knowledge can correct or add to that, but it's my understanding.
Don't we have a Republican congress?
http://www.voanews.com/a/us-election-congress-senate-house/3586879.html
"Don't we have a Republican congress?"
Sure, for two more years and elected by the will of the people of the country. I may not like it but seems like that's the way the government works.
Trump has changed the law so that he can change what he wants.
The President simply has no power under the US Constitution to change the law on his own.
"Don't we have a Republican congress?"
Sure, for two more years and elected by the will of the people of the country. I may not like it but seems like that's the way the government works.
Sort of reminds me of 2009, when we were instructed that "elections have consequences".
If the GOP is smart, they won't overreach the way the Dems did back then and save themselves a mid-term beat down.
One lives in hope.
The way I get it, executive orders have fairly broad power, but they can either be ruled unconstitutional by the judicial branch or they can be cancelled or modified by Congressional vote. Orders can also be indirectly denied by Congress rejecting any funding that might be required and unlike Congressional law, can be reversed by another executive order from a succeeding administration.
My examples would the EPA created by Nixon's executive order can be reversed by another executive order, but Congressional law like Obamacare requires Congressional approval to reverse or repeal. Maybe someone with more constitutional knowledge can correct or add to that, but it's my understanding.
This is an excellent article on the steps that would have to be taken in order to dismantle certain laws. Trump has already invoked the little-used Congressional Review Act for his repeal of a securities disclosure rule and emissions limits on drilling operations.
http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2016/12/7/13855470/donald-trump-epa-climate-regulations
ApatheticNoMore
2-4-17, 11:59am
May I ask a question please?
Do not all the initiatives from Trump have to be reviewed and analyzed and then refined by your elected representatives?
not all, here is a status of a few of Trumps proposals and where they are (what is needed for them to be law), note that not everything had to go through both branches of congress (or even one in some cases):
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/us/politics/trump-agenda-tracker.html
Are they not in the range of left to right in their thinking?
not really no and Republicans have both branches of Congress
Is Trump forcing your elected members to really earn their money? Is this not part of "cleaning the swamp"?
earn their money from lobbyists? Yea I'm sure they will.
Sort of reminds me of 2009, when we were instructed that "elections have consequences".
Funny, my memory of the old trope "elections have consequences" is from about eight years earlier after W won the election in a close 5/4 vote.
If the GOP is smart, they won't overreach the way the Dems did back then and save themselves a mid-term beat down.
One lives in hope.
I realize that you are an eternal optimist, but I also generally consider you to be a realist. I'm seeing a serious conflict going on.
I don't know......but it feels like Trump is lining people up in positions that will pave the way for whatever he wants. Seems like there's not a law he can't get by.
I can't believe the republicans in congress will constantly sell their souls to the devil, in order to stay in "power".
Funny.......I was lazy this morning and watched the TV movie "Every Woman's Dream". Not the greatest, but sort of interesting. It was about an attractive, seemingly smart guy who leads a double life and is a pathological liar. At the end, a psychiatrist lists the 10 characteristics of a narcissist, of whom this guy was one. Well.......I'd say it fit Trump to a T!
gimmethesimplelife
2-4-17, 2:58pm
So how soon before we see rivers on fire again?I love your post here, Creaker. This truly says it all for me. A good visual to get the point across to those who are capable of seeing it. Rob
Funny, my memory of the old trope "elections have consequences" is from about eight years earlier after W won the election in a close 5/4 vote.
I don't doubt it's been said a lot over the centuries. I remember the particularly smug version our new "transformative" president delivered eight years ago. We will survive the Trump years the same way we survived the Obama years.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Politics-Voices/2014/1121/Elections-have-consequences-Does-Obama-regret-saying-that-now
The President simply has no power under the US Constitution to change the law on his own.
The Republicans blocked things from going through when Obama was in office. Now the law has been changed so that cannot happen. I consider that changing the law big time!
Also, executive orders can change law. See some of my other posts, as well as, Catherine's post above.
The Republicans blocked things from going through when Obama was in office. Now the law has been changed so that cannot happen. I consider that changing the law big time!
Also, executive orders can change law. See some of my other posts, as well as, Catherine's post above.
No. You are incorrect.
I don't doubt it's been said a lot over the centuries. I remember the particularly smug version our new "transformative" president delivered eight years ago. We will survive the Trump years the same way we survived the Obama years.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Politics-Voices/2014/1121/Elections-have-consequences-Does-Obama-regret-saying-that-now
When candidates that I didn't vote for won in other years, I could get over it. Not so much now when there is continual drama and changes in laws that will affect many people and the environment for years to come. I am not sure we will survive it. Some of the changes will have LASTING effects.
The Republicans blocked things from going through when Obama was in office. Now the law has been changed so that cannot happen. I consider that changing the law big time!
Also, executive orders can change law. See some of my other posts, as well as, Catherine's post above.Are you talking about the filibuster? If so, that is not a law but a procedural rule in the Senate that was changed by the Democrats under Harry Reid's direction. The Republicans are talking about tweaking it further to their benefit, but it's hardly precedent setting.
Are you talking about the filibuster? If so, that is not a law but a procedural rule in the Senate that was changed by the Democrats under Harry Reid's direction. The Republicans are talking about tweaking it further to their benefit, but it's hardly precedent setting.
I stand corrected. It is the same premise.
I stand corrected. It is the same premise.
No. Laws are quite different things.
Are you talking about the filibuster? If so, that is not a law but a procedural rule in the Senate that was changed by the Democrats under Harry Reid's direction. The Republicans are talking about tweaking it further to their benefit, but it's hardly precedent setting.
What Harry Reid sowed, so shall they reap.
No. Laws are quite different things.
Look up premise.
Look up premise.
You are still incorrect. They are not "the same premise".
This might prove handy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Otbml6WIQPo
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.