Citizens May Finally Get Some Relief from Abusive Agencies

Discussion in 'What's On Your Mind?' started by Elizabeth Conley, Jan 10, 2012.

  1. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

  2. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

  3. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    This is complex.....

    And I don't think you're going to get the ruling you want.

    If the Court rules in favor of the Sacketts, and I think it will, it will be that their due process rights were violated, not that they should, or shouldn't be allowed to build their house. The case will then go back to the lower court to look at the due process issue. Then it will issue its decision. It could be for the Sacketts, or it could be for the EPA. Either way it gets appealed again.

    That's my fearless prediction. ;)

    I don't know if it's familiar or not..... I may have come in late on a discussion....
     
  4. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    What I
    I want a ruling that the Sackett's due process rights have been violated. I have no idea if they should be allowed to build their house or not. I just think Federal Agencies shouldn't be allowed to curtail our Constitutional Rights with their pettifogging rules.

    Look at this:
    "The Clean Water Act bars judicial review..."

    Really? The Legislative branch can grant the Executive Branch the power to ignore the Judicial Branch?

    I'm not following the logic here.
     
  5. lkkinetic

    lkkinetic Original Member

    How much spillover do you all think that a due process violation finding would have to other agencies? For example, would that be another piece of ammo we could use to battle TSA/DHS?
     
  6. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    I hope so.

    I don't know if the Sacketts should be allowed to build their house or not. I do know that Federal Agencies run roughshod over our Constitutional Rights all the time, claiming the power to deprive us of the exercise of our rights without ever facing a meaningful judicial review or having their arbitrary rules pass through a legislative process. If we can get some due process rights back, maybe we can get some property rights back and who knows what else?

    If the federal agencies can do whatever they want to us, why do we have a legislative and judicial branch? Let's just be honest and send the judges and legislators home. We'll call it an austerity measure to reduce the deficit.
     
  7. DeafBlonde

    DeafBlonde Original Member

    I would think so, but what do I know; I'm just a DeafBlonde! :rolleyes:
     
  8. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    I think you'll get that.

    I'm not seeing where the Executive Branch comes in...

    They're looking at it as a compliance issue. Generally, if it's a only a compliance issue, you have to comply and no due process issue is raised. If you want to drive, you have to have a driver's license. If you want to be a real estate agent, you have to have a license.

    I think where the EPA is getting in trouble is that they've now moved into fining these folks, it's beyond compliance - and the amount is substantial. $75K! That should trigger due process.
     
  9. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    The EPA is an agency of the Executive Branch.

    To many citizens the various federal agencies' power to independently write and enforce rules that have the same force and effect as laws is a serious threat to our economy and individual liberty.

    http://geoffdavis.house.gov/REINS/about.htm
     
  10. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    Hmm. I don't think so. The cases are pretty different..... I can see a due process issue coming up if someone got fined $11K for not finishing the security process, but otherwise, I'm not seeing it. But that could just be me looking at things too narrowly.
     
  11. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    Ahh, got'cha.

    I just went to the wikipedia page on the EPA. Did you know that it was created by Richard Nixon?
     
  12. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    Human beings are human beings. They are prone to corruption, laziness, all sorts of vices. No matter which walk of life, no matter where, no matter how old, what background, what color, what race, what age, etc. etc. etc. Corrupt people do corrupt things, whether they work for a government agency or for Wall Street.

    I don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bath water. Yes, there are corrupt EPA agents. Yes, there are corrupt FDA agents. Yes, there are corrupt bankers, brokers, and real estate agents, all of whom work in the private sector. And I would wager there are a lot more of them in the Wall Street professions than in government.

    I'm not in favor of ditching the entire EPA because of some corrupt people or (expletive deleted)-backwards actions. The EPA has also done a lot of good.

    If we left our water supply up to The Market, a lot of us would've died from cholera long ago. That's if we could even afford to buy water. (Just ask the people of Cochabamba, Bolivia.)

    I live in the Chesapeake Bay region. Wetlands are incredibly important for the health of this ecosystem. And I'm not sorry the EPA kicks some people's and factory farms' and corporations' asses in trying to keep the bay clean. The biggest problem, in fact, is the corruption in favor of polluters, not against Mom & Pop Citizen. If these huge businesses could get away with dumping raw sewage into rivers, they would. Without a second thought. (expletive deleted), they already do.
     
    barbell likes this.
  13. barbell

    barbell Coach Coach

    Cracker, what?
     
  14. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    I also live on the Chesapeake Bay. A goodly portion of my backyard drains into the Bay, and I take that responsibility seriously.

    I'm not suggesting abolishing the EPA. I am suggesting that all Federal Agency rules that substantially effect commerce and individual liberties be voted on by legislators. I suggest this because I think the powers the Executive Branch has usurped from the legislative branch for their Agencies have given legislators a way of dodging responsibility for many of the government activities that harm their constituents. I further suggest that all Agency activities that substantially effect commerce and individual liberty be subject to judicial review.

    It is laughable to me that the EPA claims that having to answer for their activities in court would hamper their ability to perform the agency's function. Citizens don't curl up in a fetal ball and suck their thumbs every morning because they are subject to the Law of the Land. Why would it be such a trauma-drama for a federal agency? I call bravo sierra. The EPA is seriously dysfunctional to even hint at such narcissistic pretensions.

    All I'm suggesting is that the checks and balances carefully crafted into our U.S. Constitution be restored. The Judicial, Legislative and Executive branches of the federal government must all do their jobs. No more passing the buck for any of 'em.
     
  15. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Yup, back when we were all nurturing our first warm, fuzzy feelings about the environment.

    It wasn't so bad when it focused on real pollution problems. To justify its continued existence and expansion, EPA has moved itself way beyond that.
     
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  16. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    Here's something that's related:


    When I was in college, I had a friend, a professor, who used to say: "If businessmen could make money by grinding up babies in blenders, they would do it." I thought he was simply using a metaphor. Later, I came to understand that the example was literal. He was right.
     
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  17. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    Don't get me started on Monsanto.
     
  18. lkkinetic

    lkkinetic Original Member

    This idea is along the lines of what I had in mind as far as TSA/DHS implications; if there's a way for the Sackett ruling to lead to Pistole not being able to thumb his nose at Congress any more, that would be great.
     
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  19. Doober

    Doober Original Member

    Ah, yes - that certainly sounds familiar.
     
  20. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    Some of us are old enough to remember this. It seemed reasonable at the time, remember that this was the era where the Detroit River caught on fire from all the pollution in it.....Like a lot of things Tricky Dicky did, this was another bad idea.
     
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.

Share This Page