Shut down the EPA?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It has no legislative or judicial capacity, only executive, and to my knowledge, it has not erred.  For example, we have all been the beneficiaries to the Clean Water Act, and its amendments and extensions. 

Doesn't it basically have legislative capacity though?  It makes decisions on what items can't be sold or manufactured.  Regulating commerce is a legislative function, not an executive.

Not really.  Whatever power the EPA has comes from statutes passed by Congress.

Those statutes give functionally legislative power to the EPA.  Congress is saying "Here, make some laws."

That's kind of a stretch.  The Supreme Court doesn't agree for one thing.  But, the bigger point is that we can't create all these minute regulations through Congress.  That's just a recipe for having the Federal government of 1910.  You probably think that would be a good idea, but your problem isn't with the EPA, but with the modern administrative state.

True, it pretty much is, but I don't see why the EPA can't make recommendations and then Congress can act on them. Plus a lot of the regulations are hardly minute. Requiring each state to meet a carbon emissions target, for just the most glaring example, is equivalent to directing both state and national energy policy.  How is that not the purview of our elected representatives?

Congress doesn't act anymore. And that's basically a legislative veto which is unconstitutional anyway.

The Executive proposing anything is unconstitutional if it requires a Congressional action in order for it to become law? That's an odd reading of INS v Chadha.   The fact that Congress might not act is something we have to be willing to put up with in a system of divided powers. 

[bedstuy]

Congress doesn't act anymore. And that's basically a legislative veto which is unconstitutional anyway.

The Executive proposing anything is unconstitutional if it requires a Congressional action in order for it to become law? That's an odd reading of INS v Chadha.   The fact that Congress might not act is something we have to be willing to put up with in a system of divided powers. 

You need to have legislation that goes through presentment.  So, whatever legislation we're talking about, it needs to give the EPA certain powers.  The legislation can't just force the EPA to refer regulatory questions back to Congress. 

So, you don't have a problem with the fact that we have an EPA.  You just want the legislation to be different in some amorphous way.  Is that correct?  The fact is that Congress passed legislation chiefly, the Clean Air act and Clean Water Act.  They can always change the authority that the EPA has.

[Rooney]

Yeah, the End Prosperity Association (EPA) is a government enforcement group that should be ended as quickly as possible. The EPA is akin to a Lucchese or Gambino strong man who enforces will through force, threats and terror. Be rid of it.

[traininthedistance]

Yeah, the End Prosperity Association (EPA) is a government enforcement group that should be ended as quickly as possible. The EPA is akin to a Lucchese or Gambino strong man who enforces will through force, threats and terror. Be rid of it.

Some people just wanna watch the world burn.  Good to know you're one of them.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Oh my word.  Insanity with this crap.  Even with this, I don't know, regulatory juggernaut of anti-freedom we can't agree that climate change is real or stop our cities' air from becoming a cesspool in gaseous form.  I don't there's a federal agency I would want to protect first.  There's little incentive for the EPA to do anything beyond their job, unless you think they are just ******* freedom with their jolly Commie green giant (which many Republicans might think these days, so whatever) I think you have to let this one be. 

[AggregateDemand]

Doesn't a proposal for a departure from the status quo require the burden of explaining why things would be better off otherwise?

Just because EPA is an independent executive agency doesn't mean that it doesn't operate independently of the ability of Congress to do anything about it. Congress always has the ability to pass statutes reining in EPA's purview, if it so chooses.

So your argument is: Congress has the power to rein-in the EPA whenever it wants; therefore, Congress should not actually rein-in the EPA?

[King]

Doesn't a proposal for a departure from the status quo require the burden of explaining why things would be better off otherwise?

Just because EPA is an independent executive agency doesn't mean that it doesn't operate independently of the ability of Congress to do anything about it. Congress always has the ability to pass statutes reining in EPA's purview, if it so chooses.

So your argument is: Congress has the power to rein-in the EPA whenever it wants; therefore, Congress should not actually rein-in the EPA?

...

Someone can be against Congress taking action on something while acknowledging they have the Constitutional authority to do so.

[AggregateDemand]

...

Someone can be against Congress taking action on something while acknowledging they have the Constitutional authority to do so.

We're contemplating only authority, not a particular policy.

If Congress already regulates the EPA, why not let Congress handle the specific legislation and let the executive branch execute the law? The tacit answer is: they don't actually believe in allowing Congress/Executor to regulate the EPA or the environment. They want to believe in the idea of a clandestine institution that fights pollution like Captain Planet.

Despite the paradoxical nature of their arguments, I'm willing to entertain the notion of an independent pollution agency, if someone can explain the benefits to the public compared to using the legislative and executive branches.

[bedstuy]

You keep using the word clandestine to describe the EPA.  What the hell are you talking about? 

And, just in general, what decisions should be taken away from the EPA?  Do we want Congress to decide the technical requirements for pollution control systems on smoke-stacks?  Do we want Congress to approve SIPs?  Do we want to fight over whether mercury is a pollutant and give industry a chance to screw with the Clean Air Act every single year?  What specifically is the problem here?   

I mean, I understand the general idea of wanting more democratic input into the administrative process.  But, when we're talking about some industrial process used at a concrete factory, I don't see the point or the feasibility.  Congress can't be passing a law on every piece of minutia.  Congress is currently incapable of micro-managing the Federal government.  Maybe you think that means we ought to return to the Federal government of the 19th century.  Please just say that so nobody is confused about how crazy you are.

[King]

If Congress already regulates the EPA, why not let Congress handle the specific legislation and let the executive branch execute the law? The tacit answer is: they don't actually believe in allowing Congress/Executor to regulate the EPA or the environment. They want to believe in the idea of a clandestine institution that fights pollution like Captain Planet.

...

They do. It's called the EPA.

Every regulatory decision written by the executive branch details in appendix how they are working within the law set by the Congress to make their decision. If the Congress rejects the decision, the EPA gives them a blueprint in these notes of the statute modifications that must be made to invalidate their decision. The courts system has ruled time and again that it is the legislative branch in the checks and balances system which bears the responsibility of making sure the regulations of the EPA or any executive branch are within the confines of the law.

You are demanding a system in regards to the EPA which already exists and is, technically, currently in use today.  The House of Representatives and Senate could meet today and pass legislation which overturns any EPA decision. Every day they chose not to do this not because the EPA is out of control, but because the beliefs of the Congress are not in consensus to reject any decision by the EPA. Therefore, by not rejecting the decision, the Congress de facto approves and backs any regulatory decision by the EPA.

As it stands today, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Harry Reid, Ted Cruz, Charlie Rangel, Justin Amash, any member of Congress record on the environment matches that of the EPA's record for the environment as the EPA is an extension of their authority and acts on their behalf at all times.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

The Berkeley Pit Superfund site is situated next to a watershed that feeds into my region's drinking water. No, I don't support shutting down the EPA.

It would be foolish to assert that the only people opposed to the EPA are tinfoil-wearing libertarian loons, industrialists and right-wing economists though. In the West, the EPA is the scourge of the common man that encroaches upon the manifest destiny to hunt and fish with reckless abandon. The EPA frequently fines relatively downscale rural folk who live nearby national forests. When the western extraction industry died, the west's proletariat received no economic aid to ease their transition into post-industrial life and was simultaneously burdened with stringent land use restrictions from the federal bureaucracy. It's no surprise that former miners and loggers throughout the mountain west have embraced the Republican Party.

Environmentalism does not garner the public support it deserves because economic insecurity is an omnipresent concern and the working class is disproportionately forced to absorb the cost of environmental regulation. Environmentalism will remain unpopular with large swathes of the electorate so long as it is synonymous with advancing a liberal political economy of taxing externalities that does not account for inequitable distributional effects.

[AggregateDemand]

You keep using the word clandestine to describe the EPA.  What the hell are you talking about? 

And, just in general, what decisions should be taken away from the EPA?  Do we want Congress to decide the technical requirements for pollution control systems on smoke-stacks?  Do we want Congress to approve SIPs?  Do we want to fight over whether mercury is a pollutant and give industry a chance to screw with the Clean Air Act every single year?  What specifically is the problem here?   

I mean, I understand the general idea of wanting more democratic input into the administrative process.  But, when we're talking about some industrial process used at a concrete factory, I don't see the point or the feasibility.  Congress can't be passing a law on every piece of minutia.  Congress is currently incapable of micro-managing the Federal government.  Maybe you think that means we ought to return to the Federal government of the 19th century.  Please just say that so nobody is confused about how crazy you are.

You'd have a point if I said: Please explain to me how an independent agency is capable of mimicking Congress and the Executive Branch, if you uphold statutory removal and eliminate congressional bypass.

I'm asking about the benefits of moving the EPA towards the unelected Judicial branch and away from the purview of the Legislative and Executive branches.

[bedstuy]

You keep using the word clandestine to describe the EPA.  What the hell are you talking about? 

And, just in general, what decisions should be taken away from the EPA?  Do we want Congress to decide the technical requirements for pollution control systems on smoke-stacks?  Do we want Congress to approve SIPs?  Do we want to fight over whether mercury is a pollutant and give industry a chance to screw with the Clean Air Act every single year?  What specifically is the problem here?   

I mean, I understand the general idea of wanting more democratic input into the administrative process.  But, when we're talking about some industrial process used at a concrete factory, I don't see the point or the feasibility.  Congress can't be passing a law on every piece of minutia.  Congress is currently incapable of micro-managing the Federal government.  Maybe you think that means we ought to return to the Federal government of the 19th century.  Please just say that so nobody is confused about how crazy you are.

You'd have a point if I said: Please explain to me how an independent agency is capable of mimicking Congress and the Executive Branch, if you uphold statutory removal and eliminate congressional bypass.

I'm asking about the benefits of moving the EPA towards the unelected Judicial branch and away from the purview of the Legislative and Executive branches.

The EPA is a part of the executive branch and they need to obey the law as interpreted by the judicial branch.   I don't get what you're trying to say.

[King]

...

[AggregateDemand]

...

They do. It's called the EPA.

Every regulatory decision written by the executive branch details in appendix how they are working within the law set by the Congress to make their decision. If the Congress rejects the decision, the EPA gives them a blueprint in these notes of the statute modifications that must be made to invalidate their decision. The courts system has ruled time and again that it is the legislative branch in the checks and balances system which bears the responsibility of making sure the regulations of the EPA or any executive branch are within the confines of the law.

You are demanding a system in regards to the EPA which already exists and is, technically, currently in use today.  The House of Representatives and Senate could meet today and pass legislation which overturns any EPA decision. Every day they chose not to do this not because the EPA is out of control, but because the beliefs of the Congress are not in consensus to reject any decision by the EPA. Therefore, by not rejecting the decision, the Congress de facto approves and backs any regulatory decision by the EPA.

As it stands today, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Harry Reid, Ted Cruz, Charlie Rangel, Justin Amash, any member of Congress record on the environment matches that of the EPA's record for the environment as the EPA is an extension of their authority and acts on their behalf at all times.

I understand congressional bypass. I'm interested in adjudication.  

Surely you understand the difference between agencies that must be instructed how to act by Congress/POTUS and agencies that can do whatever they please within the confines of blanket legislation until Congress/POTUS order them to stop or refuse approval.

The EPA loves to pretend that they do not have adjudication authority because the executive branch holds removal over the administrator's head, but that is not a de jure limitation of adjudication. It certainly didn't stop Lisa Jackson.

What do we gain from this pointless mess? The EPA can refuse to execute the orders of the Executive Branch and they have some powers to flout the authority of Congress? That really floats my boat as a voter.

[AggregateDemand]

The EPA is a part of the executive branch and they need to obey the law as interpreted by the judicial branch.   I don't get what you're trying to say.

Read this

http://cornelllawreview.org/files/2013/05/DatlaReveszfinal.pdf

[bedstuy]

The EPA is a part of the executive branch and they need to obey the law as interpreted by the judicial branch.   I don't get what you're trying to say.

Read this

http://cornelllawreview.org/files/2013/05/DatlaReveszfinal.pdf

I'm not going to read an academic article in hopes of understanding what you're talking about.

[King]

Surely you understand the difference between agencies that must be instructed how to act by Congress/POTUS and agencies that can do whatever they please within the confines of blanket legislation until Congress/POTUS order them to stop or refuse approval.

That's really an impossible distinction. A purely academic idea, as you are prone to do.

If every stretch of American land, water, and wildlife could be easily regulated by one omnibus bill for life and just carried out strictly, the EPA would have never been established from the beginning.  Technologies are always changing, land ownership is always in dispute, business interests are always changing, new species are discovered, human populations shift, animal populations migrate, etc., etc.

People who aren't fully into what the EPA does assume it's just spending all its time trying to keep oil in the ground and fighting big business. 90% of what they do is boring disputes over owns what field for a powerline to be constructed, what share of the groundwater belongs to the city and what share belongs to the state, is the wildlife on this acre of new highway construction native to that acre, abundant to that area, or migrant and expendable, etc., etc.  My father works with them and landfill/recycling program disputes are their most common case.

If the EPA wasn't given broad leeway to make decisions, Congress would have to pass a 1000 page reform bill every term and in the meantime courts would be bogged down with challenges for the law as it stood for the moment and business interests would suffer waiting on Congressional action. The EPA probably grants just as many exceptions to rules as they do overly strict interpretations. Stopping CO2 production which draws the ire of big energy is a major focus right now, sure, but there's plenty of environmental cases which have nothing to do with CO2 that the EPA expedites and gives fair and open mediation to all concerned parties much faster than the court system and Congressional hearings could deliver.

[AggregateDemand]

That's really an impossible distinction. A purely academic idea, as you are prone to do.

I'd like to think the difference between civil law and common law; positive rights and negative rights is more than purely academic distinction. Governments can mix the concepts until the governing principle is so convoluted that virtually no one can identify the dominant characteristic, but the distinctions are still more practical than academic.

The EPA seems to fit the convoluted description. It is a gutless wonder, in some ways, removed just enough from the checks and balances of electoral populism to make it a nuisance. From another perspective, it is an organization that does whatever it pleases within the legislative jurisdiction created for it by Congress. Periodically, Congress and the Office of the Executive beat it into submission using their diminished powers.

I understand that the EPA has legitimate functions, but that's all anyone has ever argued. It's role as an independent agency is not rooted in any governing principle. It's benefits of its independence are nearly impossible to ascertain. No one questions whether the red-blue political wrangling between Congress and the White House led to a compromise that diminished voter sovereignty.

[King]

That's not really true, though. EPA is not independent. The military and Federal Reserve are far more sovereign. The EPA head does not have Chairman for Life status that cross administrations like Fed and generals tend to receive. There is no secrecy in anything they do. Everything is published and out in the open. No redacted records. No discretionary budget. It is like any other cabinet department.

The reason the EPA seems to operate with autonomy is because its workload is so heavy and intricate that nobody from the outside who has authority over them ever has the time or energy to intervene.  It's not an autonomous agency out of control. It's a low level employee with terrible supervisors that takes it upon itself to assume responsibility of its bosses because somebody has to make decisions.