What is the two most important aspects of our Constitutional rights in this country? The first is ownership of property and the second is the individual freedom to chose. Without the right to own property we wouldn't be able to claim anything as our own, and which includes, not just land, but money as well. The state would have the power to control everything, making subservience and capitulation a way of life.
Over the last 8 years, the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) was and is the most abusive federal agency, using it's power, making legislation that could only have been legitimate, lawful if congress had made the rules and regulations. Barack made the demand, the EPA made the rules.
The EPA, without Constitutional authority, rammed down the throats of the public it's demands for obedience. This agency is out of control, targeting the rights and freedoms of citizens to do it's bidding. This EPA agency, under the authority of Barack Ogbjma was used as a club to beat the citizens into obeying rules and regulations that for all intent and purpose was used only to force the population into servitude.
But the people understood what was happening and decided the EPA was not an agency for the protection of the environment, but just another Ogbjma domestic terrorist organization that reeked chaos and conflict on them, and that needed to be subdued and or eliminated.
The people decided enough is enough and grabbed their collective pitchforks and headed to the voting booth. And to make the needed changes in the EPA and other Barack rogue agencies, the people elected Donald Trump.
Who knew the people were smarter then the elites in Washington?
EPA Poised to Undo Obama’s Federal Power Grab
Daren Bakst / @darenbakst /
A highly controversial rule from the Obama administration may finally be on its way out.
On Tuesday, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that it is going to put an end to the Obama administration’s federal power grab known as the “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) rule. Specifically, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers are proposing to rescind the rule and, for the interim until a new rule is developed, recodify the regulations prior to the WOTUS rule.
The Trump administration should be commended for taking this critical action. The EPA and Army Corps of Engineers, through the Clean Water Act, were seeking to regulate almost every water imaginable.
For example, under the rule, federal agencies could have regulated certain man-made ditches and even dry land that may hold some water only a few days of the year after major rains. The rule was so broad and subjective, property owners would have had a very difficult time even knowing what was subject to regulation. For that matter, the level of subjectivity was so great that even government officials enforcing the rule wouldn’t have been able to agree on whether specific waters could be regulated. By trying to regulate almost every water, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers would have been forcing property owners to secure far more permits, including for normal activities such as farming.
The EPA and Army Corps now appear to recognize that protecting the environment doesn’t have to come at the expense of property rights and the rule of law. Critics will inevitably use scare tactics to say that getting rid of the WOTUS rule will harm the environment. The opposite is the case. Getting rid of the rule now allows both the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers to develop a new rule that is both clear and objective. This will help property owners and improve compliance—and it will help the EPA and the Army Corps by providing them clarity and direction in their enforcement of the law.
It will also, if properly drafted, allow states to play the primary role that was envisioned under the Clean Water Act, which explicitly recognized “the primary responsibilities and rights of states to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution.”
This is likely to provide greater environmental protection, since states are in a far better position to identify and address the unique environmental needs of their waters than the federal government.
The EPA and Army Corps of Engineers’ new rule will hopefully properly define “waters of the United States.” For now, though, rescinding the WOTUS rule is the necessary start to that process.
Over the last 8 years, the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) was and is the most abusive federal agency, using it's power, making legislation that could only have been legitimate, lawful if congress had made the rules and regulations. Barack made the demand, the EPA made the rules.
The EPA, without Constitutional authority, rammed down the throats of the public it's demands for obedience. This agency is out of control, targeting the rights and freedoms of citizens to do it's bidding. This EPA agency, under the authority of Barack Ogbjma was used as a club to beat the citizens into obeying rules and regulations that for all intent and purpose was used only to force the population into servitude.
But the people understood what was happening and decided the EPA was not an agency for the protection of the environment, but just another Ogbjma domestic terrorist organization that reeked chaos and conflict on them, and that needed to be subdued and or eliminated.
The people decided enough is enough and grabbed their collective pitchforks and headed to the voting booth. And to make the needed changes in the EPA and other Barack rogue agencies, the people elected Donald Trump.
Who knew the people were smarter then the elites in Washington?
EPA Poised to Undo Obama’s Federal Power Grab
Daren Bakst / @darenbakst /
A highly controversial rule from the Obama administration may finally be on its way out.
On Tuesday, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that it is going to put an end to the Obama administration’s federal power grab known as the “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) rule. Specifically, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers are proposing to rescind the rule and, for the interim until a new rule is developed, recodify the regulations prior to the WOTUS rule.
The Trump administration should be commended for taking this critical action. The EPA and Army Corps of Engineers, through the Clean Water Act, were seeking to regulate almost every water imaginable.
For example, under the rule, federal agencies could have regulated certain man-made ditches and even dry land that may hold some water only a few days of the year after major rains. The rule was so broad and subjective, property owners would have had a very difficult time even knowing what was subject to regulation. For that matter, the level of subjectivity was so great that even government officials enforcing the rule wouldn’t have been able to agree on whether specific waters could be regulated. By trying to regulate almost every water, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers would have been forcing property owners to secure far more permits, including for normal activities such as farming.
The EPA and Army Corps now appear to recognize that protecting the environment doesn’t have to come at the expense of property rights and the rule of law. Critics will inevitably use scare tactics to say that getting rid of the WOTUS rule will harm the environment. The opposite is the case. Getting rid of the rule now allows both the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers to develop a new rule that is both clear and objective. This will help property owners and improve compliance—and it will help the EPA and the Army Corps by providing them clarity and direction in their enforcement of the law.
It will also, if properly drafted, allow states to play the primary role that was envisioned under the Clean Water Act, which explicitly recognized “the primary responsibilities and rights of states to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution.”
This is likely to provide greater environmental protection, since states are in a far better position to identify and address the unique environmental needs of their waters than the federal government.
The EPA and Army Corps of Engineers’ new rule will hopefully properly define “waters of the United States.” For now, though, rescinding the WOTUS rule is the necessary start to that process.
No comments:
Post a Comment