![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
#2 |
40th Level Warrior
![]() Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
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. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
And it is all due to the dictator G W Bush all the rest of government has nothing at all to do with it.
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
40th Level Warrior
![]() Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
#6 |
Symbol of Bane
![]() Join Date: November 26, 2001
Location: Texas
Age: 76
Posts: 8,167
|
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.
__________________
Even Heroes sometimes fail... ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
40th Level Warrior
![]() Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |
40th Level Warrior
![]() Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Point of order yer honor
![]() 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. [ 12-02-2002, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ] |
![]() |
#10 |
40th Level Warrior
![]() Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
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. ![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bush violates protestors' rights! | Ronn_Bman | General Discussion | 30 | 08-02-2004 09:56 PM |
and so starts the battles of states | Stormymystic | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 8 | 09-14-2003 12:02 AM |
The United States Vs. The World | Sir Taliesin | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 32 | 02-09-2003 02:10 AM |
RIGHTS!,...Human Rights...Inalienable Rights.... | MagiK | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 11 | 01-31-2002 05:06 PM |
From Canada to the United States | KDogRex | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 16 | 09-13-2001 12:18 PM |