Where's It At In The Constitution?

Classic Liberal said:
So much for article 4, but where's the constitutional authority/amendment for an "Environmental Protection Agency?"

If a State is prohibited by a non-elected federal bureaucracy of any usage of lands within the State it's "confiscation"

Definition of CONFISCATE

1
: appropriated by the government : forfeited
2
: deprived of property by confiscation (Mirriam Webster, English Dictionary)
Click to expand...

If this is about Nevada, the Feds absolutely own 85% of Nevada, it is in the Nevada constitution, it was never confiscated, it was purchased and paid for by the US and the constitution gives congress the right to make laws concerning "property owned by the US" (quoted from the Constitution).

The myth that the Feds can't own property has been debunked.
 
Rune said:
No, there is definite criteria to determine a wetland, and the only restriction is that construction must be 100 feet from the actual wetland.

Nice try though.

And no, they can't "take it over".
Click to expand...

While this is true, the EPA has proposed a rule that would give them the authority to define "other waters" under the CWA as well as defining ephemeral water as navigable water. While they probably wouldn't go after every mud puddle in the country, this is a bad precedent and I wouldn't put it past them to do just such a thing.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I have 7 large dogs. I have to do poop patrol daily to avoid smell. If you can't control the smell, maybe you shouldn't have pigs.
Click to expand...

smell is a natural byproduct of pig production which is why zoning came into being. seven dogs poop a lot, 700 pigs poop A LOT MORE and what you do with this to make it of some value does not smell nice either.
 
putsometrebleinit said:
While this is true, the EPA has proposed a rule that would give them the authority to define "other waters" under the CWA as well as defining ephemeral water as navigable water. While they probably wouldn't go after every mud puddle in the country, this is a bad precedent and I wouldn't put it past them to do just such a thing.
Click to expand...
yes, they are looking to expand what is refereed to as wetland that will certainly render a lot of real estate undevelopeable. I happen to be a conversationalist sort of guy and I believe in the import of maintaining wetlands. But these rules and others that came before changed plans of people who bought this land in the knowledge of how it was categorized. This is the crux of the argument. Changing the rules hurts people. And it really doesnt do anything to maintain wetlands.
 
Celticguy said:
yes, they are looking to expand what is refereed to as wetland that will certainly render a lot of real estate undevelopeable. I happen to be a conversationalist sort of guy and I believe in the import of maintaining wetlands. But these rules and others that came before changed plans of people who bought this land in the knowledge of how it was categorized. This is the crux of the argument. Changing the rules hurts people. And it really doesnt do anything to maintain wetlands.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It's not the expansion of the definition of wetlands that bothers me because I understand the importance of such a fragile ecosystem. What I take issue with is the fact that the EPA and/or Army Corps of engineers will be able to take control of streams, creeks, ponds, and other tributaries regardless of whether or not they are permanent, this sort of overreach is a potentially huge violation of property rights as well as a potential threat to my livelihood and others. I also worry that due to crony capitalism people will be able to skirt regulations. Like you said, I see the laws doing more to hurt people than help the environment.
 
Where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to establish the EPA, I can't seem to find it!!!!! BTW, doesn't the Constitution say that "The Congress" shall make all laws (Article One, Section 8)? Where does the EPA get the power to impose regulatory law that was never passed by the Congress or signed into law by any President? Is the EPA a gang of unconstitutional, non-elected thugs?????
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I have 7 large dogs. I have to do poop patrol daily to avoid smell. If you can't control the smell, maybe you shouldn't have pigs.
Click to expand...

LMAO; too ironic coming from Captain Chaos. But he owns pigs and the smell is not his problem. It becomes YOURS and you should be okay with it; after all, it his HIS right to do anything he wants with his property unfettered by Government intrusion... RIGHT?

You should also be okay if he decides to put a chemical factory next door and dump his waste into the neighboring creek. After all, who needs regulations in the world of chaos you promote!! Right?
 
putsometrebleinit said:
While this is true, the EPA has proposed a rule that would give them the authority to define "other waters" under the CWA as well as defining ephemeral water as navigable water. While they probably wouldn't go after every mud puddle in the country, this is a bad precedent and I wouldn't put it past them to do just such a thing.
Click to expand...

Big Government Nanny State Liberals never have a problem with Government bureaucrats defining things; as long as it is their "deciders". Otherwise, they hypocritically think Government is bad. ;)
 
Classic Liberal said:
Where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to establish the EPA, I can't seem to find it!!!!! BTW, doesn't the Constitution say that "The Congress" shall make all laws (Article One, Section 8)? Where does the EPA get the power to impose regulatory law that was never passed by the Congress or signed into law by any President? Is the EPA a gang of unconstitutional, non-elected thugs?????
Click to expand...

It isn't; but all your ranting won't make it go away.
 
Celticguy said:
smell is a natural byproduct of pig production which is why zoning came into being. seven dogs poop a lot, 700 pigs poop A LOT MORE and what you do with this to make it of some value does not smell nice either.
Click to expand...

you're a fool if you think you can contain 700 pigs in a residential area.
 
Celticguy said:
Right because zoning laws forbid it. But you neglect that some lots are bigger than others and there is nothing to stop one from buying adjacent lots.
Click to expand...

it has zip to do with zoning laws. i'm speaking strictly space. even if you had a two acre lot, you could not fit more than 60 pigs in it.
 
Classic Liberal said:
Where in our Constitution can I find the federal government’s power to acquire/confiscate State lands and establish them as “Federal Lands” without an amendment to our Constitution?

Has anybody in Washington D. C. ever read the Constitution? Has anybody in the federal government ever been loyal to their oath of office?

“I do solemnly swear to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of The United States Of America, so help me God.”
Click to expand...

It is in Article 1, Section 8.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top