Quote:Well there's alot of subtlety that's lost via this form of discussion. The tone seems overtly antagonistic at times when I read your posts.
1. The execution, or what they did, based on the policy was not reasonable. It was over reach. What I'm pointing out is that the policy was reasonable. The specific situation, based on the facts, was not. However, it is reasonable to have a policy that ensures tributary waterways are not compromised in order to ensure the public good I'd protected. That is reasonable, is it not?
2 the issue between the individual and the epa has been resolved. Additionally, the policy is also being scrutinized in federal court as well. The injustice that we all agree on is being corrected via the judicial system. That's a pretty good thing.
3 so you want a scape goat? That's also what the courts are for. I'm assuming that the individual is suing for damages? Also, if you've ever held a job I'm sure that some employee of the epa is getting a talking to. Whether that becomes public is another matter.
4 well, to me the absolute bitterness you sometimes espouse when discussing certain agencies in the government makes me question how much you care for our current system. I'll leave it there, for now
This isn't a one off. This is a systemic problem, specifically with this administration, of using the executive departments as an end around bypassing congress and trying to govern against the will of the people.
In this case there was a specific section in the above and entitled statute that specifically allowed an exemption for "Stock Ponds," The state agency issued a permitt for a STOCK POND, any reasonable person can see that this was a STOCK POND and yet a federal agency, with no compelling interest in public safety as evidenced by the eventual terms of the settlement, proceed to try and ruin this guys life?
If you are so hot on the constitution, then you should also be hot on the concept of enumerated power, original-ism, and legislative intent. The concept of federalism expressed by the founders is a system of checks and balances on federal power rendering all non-essential powers to the states, not a game of red rover red rover with the federal court system to see if you can find a judge who watched the DAIRY IS SCARY meme on youtube.
The concept of the EPA is predicated on the idea that companies shouldn't cause inordinate environmental impact and that we should have clean drinking water. The idea that we have farmers being put through hell like this while entire communities are left without clean drinking water (when the source of said water was relocated to a spot of known contamination) is a fundamental bastardization of constitutional government.
There are thousands of Americans who bought property free and clear only to have someone show up at their front door telling them about the exciting new regulations passed by unelected bureaucrats and the hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and penalties the home owner now owes if they want to keep their land. The president couldn't get Cap and Trade passed through the congress his party controlled, so now we have regulatory standards imposed by the EPA with punitive consequences for states that aren't likely to support the party of the current administration.
The concept of limited government is an acknowledgement that government agencies have a tendency to overstep their bounds. That's why any time we empower an agency with the full weight of the federal government that their role should be simple, unambiguous, and necessary. When you allow a state bureaucracy to become over inflated then the first thing to be crushed are the freedoms and rights of the people. Pointing this out and demanding action about it is an EMBRACE of the constitution, not a rejection of it!
