Shut down the EPA?

[AggregateDemand]

EPA is two different things 1) an agency that protects the environment 2) an independent agency beyond the reach of the electorate.

It was created by a Californian to protect California from the country bumpkins and titans of dirty industry. California CARB is quite powerful at present.

EPA doesn't need to be an independent agency.

[AggregateDemand]

The debate about the EPA is not about EP, but about the nature of the agency.

Why should the EPA be an independent agency, largely beyond Congressional review? People need more clandestine government activity in their lives?

[AggregateDemand]

All Federal rules go through notice and comment rulemaking and are subject to the APA.  How in god's name is that "clandestine?"  Come on.

Commenting and research are procedural, not substantial. Judicial review is the business-end of APA, but it still circumvents Congress and the Executive Branch, which puts it beyond the reach of voters. The needless disregard for proper checks-and-balances incites action from Congress, which merely delays a slow process. Furthermore, judicial review can have unintended consequences, like LEAF suing hydraulic fracturing into EPA jurisdiction, after the EPA declined to regulate fracturing in the mid-90s.

CAFE 2025, for instance, is not a final rule yet because Congress negotiated the power of review in 2017 (IIRC). We have auto manufacturers spending billions to satisfy regulations that aren't even law.

What is the meaning of this mess?

[AggregateDemand]

The rulemaking is all pursuant to statute that Congress passed and Congress can repeal. 

And, again, what do you mean by clandestine?  The proposed rules are published in the Federal Register.  It's not the least bit clandestine. 

I just referenced the LEAF case, where an outside third-party organization was successfully able to sue hydraulic fracturing into EPA jurisdiction, by exploiting personnel changes to the judiciary.

Perhaps this is not particularly unusual in the grand scheme, but what is the purpose of the extraneous independent agency? It certainly isn't adding protection for the citizens, nor is it simplifying the legislative/executive process.

[AggregateDemand]

I'm not familiar with that particular case.  But, you can't change jurisdiction with a lawsuit.  It's possible that the EPA misinterpreted the law and was forced to regulate when the judiciary clarified the law.

The purpose of the EPA is to protect the environment from pollution.  It certainly does that.  Clean air and water and land are all critically important to every America citizen because we all breath, drink and live on the land. 

But, whatever, you're not making any sense as usual.  I can never understand what you're trying to say.

When an existing law has been administered for over 20 years, and new personnel, including a new chief justice, on the 11th Circuit reinterpret the law to exert federal primacy over a state institution, jurisdiction has changed.

What benefit to we receive from having an independent agency in charge of environmental protection, considering judicial review basically makes the EPA a puppet of the courts? Why are you opposed to having EPA oversight by elected officials?

[AggregateDemand]

They act according to statute passed by Congress. Congress can modify or repeal those statutes if they want. Your ire is misplaced.

Then what's the point of the independent agency, rather than one that is under the control of Congress or the Executive Branch?

[AggregateDemand]

The EPA is under the Executive Branch. It's not organized under any of the Cabinet branches, which may be what you're thinking of. But it's definitely under the Executive Branch.

I'm not referencing the technicalities of the government hierarchy, but the system of checks and balances. APA makes judicial review more powerful than Executive appointment and Senate confirmation. Independent agencies are more beholden to the judiciary than they are to the executive branch, but in their essence, independent agencies are designed to be independent.

What do we gain by making the EPA an independent agency?

[AggregateDemand]

We gain a better ability to ensure that someone of your type would have a harder time gutting the agency.

Nixon created the EPA; therefore, we already know the EPA is an independent agency to satisfy the paranoid delusions of the people who created it and support it.

I'm asking for a legitimate reason.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.