Quote:Does anyone actually believe that States shouldn't be the primary arbiters of environmental protection?
I'll raise my hand on that one.
Pollution can and does flow across state lines. That's why we need a national plan, not individual state plans.
Quote:The trouble with that is, pollution doesn't recognize state boundaries. So we could see Georgia deciding that pollution isn't really that important, and they wind up polluting the state of Florida.
So what keeps Mexico's pollution out of the untied States?
If that's the argument national standards are pointless and we can only accept a global standard.
In the above case how did that affect pollution across state lines.
In these discussions about limited defined roles of government it typically rolls back to fact vs. Theory.
The fact is that right now across all spectrum's of bureaucracy the federal executive agencies are out of control and testing the limits of how far they can operate outside the law in service of the administration. We've seen that at the IRS , EPA HHS treasury Doe etc. That's not acceptable in a constitutional republic.
And with all that power flint still happenned.
Quote:In the above case how did that affect pollution across state lines.
In these discussions about limited defined roles of government it typically rolls back to fact vs. Theory.
The fact is that right now across all spectrum's of bureaucracy the federal executive agencies are out of control and testing the limits of how far they can operate outside the law in service of the administration. We've seen that at the IRS , EPA HHS treasury Doe etc. That's not acceptable in a constitutional republic.
And with all that power flint still happenned.
But it's a very long way from saying the government is abusing their power to saying the government should be abolished. Or even an agency of the government.
Quote:So what keeps Mexico's pollution out of the untied States?
If that's the argument national standards are pointless and we can only accept a global standard.
Nations have to negotiate these things. If we had 50 states negotiating pollution regulations with each other, why don't we just use the national government to do it? That's why we don't have 50 nation-states. It's too complicated. It's a lot simpler to just have each state send representatives to a central location and decide these things all at once.
Quote:But it's a very long way from saying the government is abusing their power to saying the government should be abolished. Or even an agency of the government.
You don't have to eliminate environmental protection, you just have to eliminate the current bureaucracy. You saw how hard it was just to fire a convicted child molester. The VA
killed people, and not a single person was jailed; very few were even fired. In the current federal bureaucracy, abolishing the EPA is the only way to get rid of the corruption. Afterwards, a new agency can be created if necessary.
Quote:The trouble with that is, pollution doesn't recognize state boundaries. So we could see Georgia deciding that pollution isn't really that important, and they wind up polluting the state of Florida.
the fix their is the interconnecting states working out an agreement to avoid things like that happening in the first place, or fining the party breaking the rules. If that doesn't work their are many economic solutions we could take. Things like if you are going to pollute here we will no longer force our state drivers to pay tickets they got in Georgia.
The idea is the two states can talk without getting the Federal Government involved
Quote:But it's a very long way from saying the government is abusing their power to saying the government should be abolished. Or even an agency of the government.
My argument has been all along to abolish the federal EPA and force states to have their own, I'll even meet in the middle and say lets have regional EPAs instead of a federal one with as much power as it currently has. Its not that I don't want to protect the environment but their are better ways than giving one large federal body extreme powers.
Quote:So what keeps Mexico's pollution out of the untied States?
If that's the argument national standards are pointless and we can only accept a global standard.
Global standards don't apply to the grand old US. National standards are fine, I just want local authorities enforcing them. Those national standards need to have state addendum's to them in some cases.
Quote:I'll raise my hand on that one.
Pollution can and does flow across state lines. That's why we need a national plan, not individual state plans.
Their would be a national plan which would serve as a guideline and the states would have their detailed plans. Does the Federal Government know more about Florida wet lands than we do?
Quote:Nations have to negotiate these things. If we had 50 states negotiating pollution regulations with each other, why don't we just use the national government to do it? That's why we don't have 50 nation-states. It's too complicated. It's a lot simpler to just have each state send representatives to a central location and decide these things all at once.
I suppose that makes sense if each state is surrounded by 49 other states. More than likely you only have a few states on your border, and you work with them anyway because they are close! Its not like Florida and California would be talking to each other about Los Angeles smog. Why not use the national gov? BECAUSE IT IS TOO FREAKING BIG. Let states have some power.
Quote:You don't have to eliminate environmental protection, you just have to eliminate the current bureaucracy. You saw how hard it was just to fire a convicted child molester. The VA killed people, and not a single person was jailed; very few were even fired. In the current federal bureaucracy, abolishing the EPA is the only way to get rid of the corruption. Afterwards, a new agency can be created if necessary.
we see what happens with these big government organizations over and over again. Why not tone down the size and scope of such an organization and shrink it down to the state level. Or regional level.
Quote:Nations have to negotiate these things. If we had 50 states negotiating pollution regulations with each other, why don't we just use the national government to do it? That's why we don't have 50 nation-states. It's too complicated. It's a lot simpler to just have each state send representatives to a central location and decide these things all at once.
Listen to what u just said. That's not the system. These agencies are actively trying to usurp a legislature they know would not adopt their policies.
Quote:Nations have to negotiate these things. If we had 50 states negotiating pollution regulations with each other, why don't we just use the national government to do it? That's why we don't have 50 nation-states. It's too complicated. It's a lot simpler to just have each state send representatives to a central location and decide these things all at once.
That's actually the way that the country was designed and why we the voters should not be electing Senators.
Quote:The trouble with that is, pollution doesn't recognize state boundaries. So we could see Georgia deciding that pollution isn't really that important, and they wind up polluting the state of Florida.
The solution is pretty obvious. Declare war on Georgia.
Quote:That's actually the way that the country was designed and why we the voters should not be electing Senators.
Ironically, in my country senator aren't elected by the voters and there's a significant portion of the population who feel they should.
Quote:The solution is pretty obvious. Declare war on Georgia.
Nothing of value would be lost.
Quote:The solution is pretty obvious. Declare war on Georgia.
Easy Mr Putin, you should deal with the Ukraine first.
Quote:Ironically, in my country senator aren't elected by the voters and there's a significant portion of the population who feel they should.
Originally in this country, the voters elected members to the House of Representatives (hence why each state has a different numbers of members). The states elected the members of the Senate through the State Legislature (hence each state has an equal number).
The House was meant to represent "the people". The Senate was meant to represent "the states".
Quote:Originally in this country, the voters elected members to the House of Representatives (hence why each state has a different numbers of members). The states elected the members of the Senate through the State Legislature (hence each state has an equal number).
The House was meant to represent "the people". The Senate was meant to represent "the states".
Bicameral representation is pointless if both houses are representing the same constituency.
Quote:Bicameral representation is pointless if both houses are representing the same constituency.
Agreed. Though I disagree that state's rights should superceded everything. The whole point of the Senate was to represent the States on a federal level.
Quote:Bicameral representation is pointless if both houses are representing the same constituency.
I disagree. In the house of reps, you have proportional representation according to population. In the Senate, you have each state represented equally. Plus, Senators have 6 year terms, which makes them less likely to blow with the political wind. So there is a big difference between the two houses of congress.
I really don't understand how having the legislature elect the Senators would have much benefit. All it would do is turn the election of the legislators into a proxy for the election of Senators. And it would make the gerrymandering that goes on at the state level a huge factor in the election of the US Senators. Every state would wind up with 2 US Senators from the same party. It would all depend on who controls the state legislature. And, it would bring a lot of political horse-trading into the equation. I just don't see the benefit. In short, if the legislature elects the US Senators, I see a huge potential for corruption. Why not keep it the way it is?
In theory senators would represent the interest of state governments and be much less likely to approve legislation that would burden state budgets.
Quote:In theory senators would represent the interest of state governments and be much less likely to approve legislation that would burden state budgets.
It just seems like having one group of politicians elect another group of politicians could be a very corrupt process.