Just saw this, and I'm reviewing the article. I will note that I have made arguments before several administrative bodies that their state versions of the CAA were unenforceable because they did not conform to the boundaries and procedures drawn up by the Feds.

In short, in some instances the state is not necessarily able to make "stricter" laws. Admittedly, the common wisdom is that the CAA is the "minimum" and that states can be stricter if they like. But, in some places, this is not the case.

Example: Per ton fees for certain pollutants. The CAA states clearly that the degree to which the state can exceed its prescribed fees under certain CAA sections, if any, shall be based on the consumer price index (i.e. modified for inflation only). I used this to challenge about $400K of fees over an 8-yr period in New YOrk. Interestingly, a firm in Chicago picked up on it and asked to share it with industry leaders.

So, I'll post more after I've had time to review the article. ;)

<font color="#ff00cc">And it is all due to the dictator G W Bush all the rest of government has nothing at all to do with it. :rolleyes: </font>

Sorry, MagiK, but Regulatory Law comes from agencies - i.e. the EXECUTIVE branch. Everyone at the USEPA is totally answerable to Bush, and he has the thumbs-up/thumbs-down power on everthing there. He says jump, they ask how high and when they can come down.

Without legislature involvement, this is one instance where you can't diffuse the blame (if there is any to be had) from the president. He is as answerable as a corporate CEO when it comes to agency action.

<font color="#ff00cc">Never said he was innocent [img]smile.gif[/img] ....*looks back at post* nope word innocent is not there. However, if these Executive branch descisions are unconstitutional or in some other way counter productive to the national good, the Legislative and Judicial branches may indeed intervene. If they do not, they are expressing their tacit aproval. It is like in the Tony Blair thread. G.W. B. is not working in a vacuum up there.</font>

LOL, I suspect poor George's days are quite filled up without him going into every regulatory matter. It's funny, Dramnek, that you are all for states' rights in this regard, but if a Democratic administration were to overrule the states, it would be a different matter. I know, I know, apples and oranges, possibly.

Erm. . .

Well, you are right that if it's contrary to the constitution or the CAA statute, the court may certainly overturn an administrative decision. I'll note that at the legislature would have to re-write the CAA to intervene- a difficult proposition. Either remedy would not likely reach fruition until the end of Bush's 1st term at the earliest.

But, the courts won't intervene. The CAA gives broad mandate to USEPA, and this likely does not go too far. But, you're stepping to the side on the argument and missing the point. USEPA *IS* answerable to Bush, and he put his crony Cristie Whitman in charge of it. So, for all intents and purposes, USEPA decision = Bush decision.

The point is not whether or not it's illegal. The point is who is responsible for limiting what CA can do with its air. And, it is certainly Bush that has final final ultimate say. Again, whether or not it's bad is NOT what I am arguing. I am simply pointing out that in this situation the Bush *Administration* is responsible for the decision to limit the CAA in CA. And, I think their literature on it proves this out, if you check press releases.

You shouldn't play this out too far, MagiK, as you'll find yourself in a dilemma. You see, you support states rights and you support Bush. Here, Bush has limited states rights - possibly legally and with the most angelic of intent, but in the end he has still limited states rights. Nevertheless, your only way "out" in this situation is to challenge the placing of this decision on Bush's shoulders. Well, you've done that and failed: I'm telling you that's not going to work, as Bush is the boss of the EPA. Thus, you find yourself on the horns of a dilemma, where one thing you support does not jive with another. Such is life sometimes.

Well, Attalus, politics makes us all hypocrits. Check out MagiK's efforts to resolve his two competing notions. He's for Bush, but Bush here has clearly done something he has heretofore stated he was against. Life can't all be peaches n' cream.

<font color="#ff00cc">Point of order yer honor :D umm can you clairify for me. Are any of the people appointed by any administration classified as anything other than "cronies"? Why the perjorative term, rather than a more neutral title?

Edit: Yep I was and am still for Bush, doesn't mean I have to like every single thing he does....my world isn't that black and white/cut and dried. Much as I would like it to be. GWB is still far preferable and palatable to me than AG.</font>

[ 12-02-2002, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Croni-ism is rampant in politics - no offense was intended by the word. He appointed her, it's that simple.

I'll assume that by your lack of on-point response, you demur. :D

True, TL. My point was that any administration will tromp on states' rights if it feels it is important enough, no matter how slim the pretext. Most of the federal government's intervention in the civil rights struggle was based on the constitutional statement that the states could not interfere with interstate commerce.

I personally don't believe a word of this article, nor any argument in its favor, because it isn't based on a quote from the Reverand Jesse Jackson. ;)

Having Jesse in the post about Bush's "contempt for the elderly and veterans" brought a degree of believability to the article despite its purposely misleading title. [img]graemlins/angel.gif[/img]

Without Jesse's charisma to save it, this thread does suffer from having a sensational title that has little relation to the story within. Kind of like something from the National Enquirer. The story inside may be interesting and may even be true, but the title it's given is meant to get a reaction and not to convey the actual contents. [img]graemlins/deal.gif[/img]

[ 12-02-2002, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

<font color="#ff00cc">Sorry my "on point" comment was left out in my haste :D I edited it and put it in...do you see? (another reason why I intersperse my replies to multi-pronged issues, so I don't forget things. [img]smile.gif[/img] )

I haven't had the chance to really do an indepth reading on the issue, need to look at it some more before I decide if Im for or against it...USUALLY I am against a lot of the more draconian EPA mandates due to the havoc they cause for small independant non-corporate people/farmers/land owners

Oh and I never thought you would call me "demure" ;) oops...you said demur.</font>

<font color="#ff00cc">OOoops, just noted this was from SFGate. I put it a couple of steps down from the National Enquirer [img]smile.gif[/img] Anything in that publication is HEAVILY slanted and likely to be misleading. Ill check in the Washington post which while left leaning, makes some pretext at being accurate.</font>

[ 12-02-2002, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

LOL@Magik!

Even at that, the sites' title for this article was "New pollution rules overpower California, U.S. laws jeopardize state's air standards".

I don't hear the ring of "Bush Stamps On States Rights" anywhere in it. ;) [img]smile.gif[/img]

<font color="#ff00cc">Well knowing how much Drammie loves our president he probably didn't see any harm including his name, after all he won't be held accountable for his comments. </font>

Well, on that note it's a good thing quite often that we're not accountable for our comments on these boards. ;) Side note: to be sued for slander/lible against a public/famous figure, you have to have intended malice and actually harmed them. This is a pretty high hurdle, and why we can hypothesize about Bush's business relations without fear of reproach whereas if we do it to each other we'd get our asses sued off. ;)

Attalus, yep, in case you didn't know the "commerce clause" is the hole in the constitution you can drive a truck through. So long as the Congress can dream up a way an issue *might* foreseeably affect interstate commerce, it can basically legislate on that issue. This leads to a near-police-power ("police power" means governing of general health and welfare, and is considered reserved for the states) by the Fed. This has been the justification for legislation and regulation regarding such things as flies in Hawaii that live nowhere else in the US.

<font color="#ff00cc">Hey! Welcome back from court [img]smile.gif[/img] How'd it go?

I think you took my comment about drammie in the wrong direction...I was gonna bring up Ad. Hom attacks and Straw men..but thought that it would have been mean so I droped it from my post [img]smile.gif[/img] . </font>

Well, more than a straw man it was really me just espousing useless knowledge. But, point taken anyway. ;)

Court went fine - I vacated an order that would cost the client $3K that was entered today without any notice. On that note, back to the grind.

ok, ive read it a few times and im tired of not knowing what it means (the problems of not being a native english speakers). what does straw men/man means? i have a guess but i want to confirm it. thanks for your time and please dont charge me for the information. :D

ok, ive read it a few times and im tired of not knowing what it means (the problems of not being a native english speakers). what does straw men/man means? i have a guess but i want to confirm it. thanks for your time and please dont charge me for the information. :D </font>[/QUOTE]It is one of the Fallacies of Debate/Logic. Without getting technical, it is basically an arguement that the presenter sets up specifically for the purpose of tearing it apart. Hence the image of "beating up a straw man". I can't remember exactly why it invalidates an arguement though.

From dictionary.com and all for FREE!! [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

straw man
n.
A person who is set up as cover or a front for a questionable enterprise.
An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.
A bundle of straw made into the likeness of a man and often used as a scarecrow.
[note: the second is the one MagiK referenced]

ad hom·i·nem ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hm-nm, -nm)
adj.
Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.

[Latin : ad, to + hominem, accusative of hom, man.]

ad homi·nem adv.
Usage Note: As the principal meaning of the preposition ad suggests, the homo of ad hominem was originally the person to whom an argument was addressed, not its subject. The phrase denoted an argument designed to appeal to the listener's emotions rather than to reason, as in the sentence The Republicans' evocation of pity for the small farmer struggling to maintain his property is a purely ad hominem argument for reducing inheritance taxes. This usage appears to be waning; only 37 percent of the Usage Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case: Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak. Ninety percent of the Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument, as in It isn't in the best interests of the nation for the press to attack him in this personal, ad hominem way. This use is acceptable to 65 percent of the Panel. ·Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting personal attacks, as in “Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich insists that he and Panetta can work together” (Washington Post). This usage may raise some eyebrows, though it appears to be gaining ground in journalistic style. ·A modern coinage patterned on ad hominem is ad feminam, as in “Its treatment of Nabokov and its ad feminam attack on his wife Vera often border on character assassination” (Simon Karlinsky). Though some would argue that this neologism is unnecessary because the Latin word homo refers to humans generically, rather than to the male sex, in some contexts ad feminam has a more specific meaning than ad hominem, being used to describe attacks on women as women or because they are women, as in “Their recourse... to ad feminam attacks evidences the chilly climate for women's leadership on campus” (Donna M. Riley).

[note: MagiK likely used this incorrectly as applied to my post]

HTH [img]graemlins/thewave.gif[/img]

<font color="#ff00cc">Actually MagiK usedit exactly the way he intended to use it. You just took the direction that my post was ment to go, wrongly [img]smile.gif[/img] All explained in a PM since it was kind of rude to start with. </font>

<font color="#ff00cc">Well I tired to send PM to you TL but ..got an error message aboutnot connecting to the smtp server..so check you PM's it may have got there but not gone out via email. </font>