Judge blocks Trump order to EPA that "prairie potholes" are NOT "navigable waters"
Do ya think having plenty of food in this country is a good thing, or a bad thing?
Most rational people would say it's a good thing. So if a Democrat policy prevented farmers from continuing to farm land they'd farmed for decades, that would reduce the food supply, right?
So what policy would do that, and why? Here's the connection: We all agree that clean water is good. And it's reasonable that water in rivers that run through more than one state might be regulated by the federal government, since the states might disagree. Such rivers and lakes bordering two or more states are called "navigable waters," and when Congress passed a law giving the federal gruberment the power to regulate "navigable waters," no one thought that was a power grab.
Anyone who understands English knows that the term "navigable waters" means bodies of water large enough to be used for transport by ships or other large vessels. But the usual meaning of words meant nothing to Democrats bent on grabbing more power, and as early as 1973 the EPA simply declared that when Congress wrote "navigable waters," what they really meant was "...and all other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds."
I'm not making that up. That's a quote from the EPA's diktat.
As you could guess, this insane power grab angered a LOT of Americans, and it soon ended in the Supreme Court. In a major case that hinged on the correct definition of the term, the majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court said “navigable waters” meant “relatively permanent, standing or flowing bodies of water.”
See, "navigable"-- you can navigate a ship or similar vessel across such a body. It doesn't seem as though it's a tough concept, eh? Or one that could easily be re-defined to include...um..."prairie potholes, wet meadows" and the like.
But radicals in the EPA kept coming up with new rationalizations, hoping one would persuade the court. Among the absurd arguments the EPA has used, they've claimed they had the authority to regulate ponds that were not linked to any river and were entirely within a single state because...wait for it...those ponds were used by migratory birds. Since the birds flew across state lines, the EPA claimed that allowed it to regulate the pond under.. the Interstate Commerce clause!
Another absurd claim made by the EPA to try to control lakes entirely within a single state (thus hardly "navigable waters" was that since lakes, rivers, and streams were often used by residents of other states for recreation, this brought them under EPA regulation because of the Interstate Commerce clause.
Still another claim the EPA tried was that since fish caught in a lake lying entirely within one state could conceivably be sold in another state, this constituted Interstate Commerce, which meant the lake and every molecule and creature in it could be regulated by the federal gruberment--the EPA.
And of course the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers--two of the many power-mad federal agencies--were only too happy to use the new rule to sue farmers and ranchers for millions.
Okay, now you're certain I'm just spoofing ya, cuz no sane government could possibly do anything remotely like that without the media screaming bloody murder, and the citizens rising up and killing every federal official or judge who had any part of it. And since you didn't hear about it, it couldn't possibly have...
Oh really?
In 2012 the Corps of Engineers fined a California farmer $2.8 million for planting over the kinds of puddles left after seasonal rains, by calling them "vernal pools"--ponds that appear for a few weeks in the spring. The farmer eventually settled for $1 million after trying to fight the fine in court.
You'd think the Supreme Court ruling in Rapanos would have settled the matter. And back when presidents felt themselves constrained by rulings from the Supreme Court, that would have been true. But Barry Soetoro was not such a president. Barry was an emperor who would do as he pleased. And he simply ordered the EPA to keep regulating meadows and ponds,
And sure enough, in 2015, with Obama's green light, the EPA finalized the “waters of the U.S.” (WOTUS) "rule," in which the agency once again claimed seasonal and insignificant bodies of water were--absurdly--“navigable waters,” and thus that it had the authority to regulate such under the Clean Water Act.
Barry: "Constitution? Congress writes laws? Hey, why bother with that when I can just pick up the phone and order stuff I want done. Maybe sign an executive order or two or ten"
So in February of last year President Trump--mindful of the Supreme Court's ruling on exactly this topic--issued an executive order of his own, ordering the EPA to restrict its regulation of waters to "navigable waters" “consistent with the opinion of Justice Antonin Scalia in Rapanos v. United States.”
In other words, Trump sought to undo the lawless power grab by Obama.
And as predictably as the sun rising, last week a federal judge in South Carolina ruled that the Trump administration couldn't do that. In other words, Obama's order to the EPA--in total defiance of the Supreme Court ruling on the clear and ordinary meaning of "navigable waters"--would be allowed to stand, while president Trump's order seeking to bring the EPA into compliance with the Supreme Court would be blocked.
It's insane. Just like DACA, where Obama ignored a valid U.S. law to allow illegal aliens brought into the country as children to stay here. A judge admitted Obama's order was unconstitutional, but still blocked a Trump order that sought to end the unconstitutional, illegal program ordered by Obama.
Insane.
Still think there's no such thing as the Deep State?
Most rational people would say it's a good thing. So if a Democrat policy prevented farmers from continuing to farm land they'd farmed for decades, that would reduce the food supply, right?
So what policy would do that, and why? Here's the connection: We all agree that clean water is good. And it's reasonable that water in rivers that run through more than one state might be regulated by the federal government, since the states might disagree. Such rivers and lakes bordering two or more states are called "navigable waters," and when Congress passed a law giving the federal gruberment the power to regulate "navigable waters," no one thought that was a power grab.
Anyone who understands English knows that the term "navigable waters" means bodies of water large enough to be used for transport by ships or other large vessels. But the usual meaning of words meant nothing to Democrats bent on grabbing more power, and as early as 1973 the EPA simply declared that when Congress wrote "navigable waters," what they really meant was "...and all other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds."
I'm not making that up. That's a quote from the EPA's diktat.
As you could guess, this insane power grab angered a LOT of Americans, and it soon ended in the Supreme Court. In a major case that hinged on the correct definition of the term, the majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court said “navigable waters” meant “relatively permanent, standing or flowing bodies of water.”
See, "navigable"-- you can navigate a ship or similar vessel across such a body. It doesn't seem as though it's a tough concept, eh? Or one that could easily be re-defined to include...um..."prairie potholes, wet meadows" and the like.
But radicals in the EPA kept coming up with new rationalizations, hoping one would persuade the court. Among the absurd arguments the EPA has used, they've claimed they had the authority to regulate ponds that were not linked to any river and were entirely within a single state because...wait for it...those ponds were used by migratory birds. Since the birds flew across state lines, the EPA claimed that allowed it to regulate the pond under.. the Interstate Commerce clause!
Another absurd claim made by the EPA to try to control lakes entirely within a single state (thus hardly "navigable waters" was that since lakes, rivers, and streams were often used by residents of other states for recreation, this brought them under EPA regulation because of the Interstate Commerce clause.
Still another claim the EPA tried was that since fish caught in a lake lying entirely within one state could conceivably be sold in another state, this constituted Interstate Commerce, which meant the lake and every molecule and creature in it could be regulated by the federal gruberment--the EPA.
And of course the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers--two of the many power-mad federal agencies--were only too happy to use the new rule to sue farmers and ranchers for millions.
Okay, now you're certain I'm just spoofing ya, cuz no sane government could possibly do anything remotely like that without the media screaming bloody murder, and the citizens rising up and killing every federal official or judge who had any part of it. And since you didn't hear about it, it couldn't possibly have...
Oh really?
In 2012 the Corps of Engineers fined a California farmer $2.8 million for planting over the kinds of puddles left after seasonal rains, by calling them "vernal pools"--ponds that appear for a few weeks in the spring. The farmer eventually settled for $1 million after trying to fight the fine in court.
You'd think the Supreme Court ruling in Rapanos would have settled the matter. And back when presidents felt themselves constrained by rulings from the Supreme Court, that would have been true. But Barry Soetoro was not such a president. Barry was an emperor who would do as he pleased. And he simply ordered the EPA to keep regulating meadows and ponds,
And sure enough, in 2015, with Obama's green light, the EPA finalized the “waters of the U.S.” (WOTUS) "rule," in which the agency once again claimed seasonal and insignificant bodies of water were--absurdly--“navigable waters,” and thus that it had the authority to regulate such under the Clean Water Act.
Barry: "Constitution? Congress writes laws? Hey, why bother with that when I can just pick up the phone and order stuff I want done. Maybe sign an executive order or two or ten"
So in February of last year President Trump--mindful of the Supreme Court's ruling on exactly this topic--issued an executive order of his own, ordering the EPA to restrict its regulation of waters to "navigable waters" “consistent with the opinion of Justice Antonin Scalia in Rapanos v. United States.”
In other words, Trump sought to undo the lawless power grab by Obama.
And as predictably as the sun rising, last week a federal judge in South Carolina ruled that the Trump administration couldn't do that. In other words, Obama's order to the EPA--in total defiance of the Supreme Court ruling on the clear and ordinary meaning of "navigable waters"--would be allowed to stand, while president Trump's order seeking to bring the EPA into compliance with the Supreme Court would be blocked.
It's insane. Just like DACA, where Obama ignored a valid U.S. law to allow illegal aliens brought into the country as children to stay here. A judge admitted Obama's order was unconstitutional, but still blocked a Trump order that sought to end the unconstitutional, illegal program ordered by Obama.
Insane.
Still think there's no such thing as the Deep State?
posted by SF at
2:39 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home