Shut down the EPA?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It's tempting, but not without figuring out a better system.

Anyone who has ideas of eliminating 40-100+ year old institutions like EPA, the Fed, Social Security, Medicare, etc., has to turn in their "conservative" card and call themselves a radical.

These institutions are generally designed in such a way that they continue to expand their reach at the expense of other institutions.  Agencies find new things to regulate and new methods of regulating and shuttering shops, entitlement programs make up a larger and larger portion of the economy, etc. It is not necessarily conservative to support this trajectory just because it is the status quo.

[🐒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.

[🐒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."

The EPA is not abusing its power unless you don't believe in what science defines as pollution.

What is the scientifically derived definition of pollution and how does it give power to 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?

[🐒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.