Going rogue

[eagle1462010]

Going rogue: Idaho wants to nullify all EPA regulations | The Daily Caller

“The legislature declares that the regulation authority of the United States environmental protection agency is not authorized by the Constitution of the United States and violates its true meaning and intent as given by the founders and ratifiers, and is hereby declared to be invalid in the state of Idaho,shall not be recognized by this state, is specifically rejected by this state and shall be considered null and void and of no force and effect in this state,” according to the nullification bill introduced by Shepherd.

I hope this passes forcing a show down at the Supreme Court to question the power of the EPA..............

Take them on, Idaho...................Bravo Zulu!

 

[paperview]

Oh brother.

Here we go with this nullification idiocy again.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh brother.

Here we go with this nullification idiocy again.

Here we go with ppv's attempt to nullify an argument with name calling again.

 

[eagle1462010]

Your side gets to bypass Congress by using the courts all the time now..........Regulations via legal matters like the EPA...................

I actually hope this passes for the very purpose of Idaho taking on the EPA in the courts, FORCING a Supreme decision on the limits of POWER of the EPA.................

But I believe in State's rights, and your side trumps those rights via Federal interventions.

 

[paperview]

Oh brother.

Here we go with this nullification idiocy again.

Here we go with ppv's attempt to nullify an argument with name calling again.

Oh dearie. I called a failed political theory a name.

Will it ever get over it?

 

[eagle1462010]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/341449-obama-orders-new-efficiency-for-big-trucks.html

Just started a spin off thread and exactly why I hope Idaho goes the full monty on this one...........

Via executive order, Obama has ordered new regulations down to the EPA without any Congressional Action on it................He couldn't pass CRAP and Trade so now he does it through Exec orders.....................

Which is exactly why the power's of the EPA should be challenged as should this new Exec order.

 

[occupied]

Worked for WV, look at all the low paying jobs and toxic spills they have there. Trading the environment for jobs is retarded, both run out before long.

 

[eagle1462010]

Worked for WV, look at all the low paying jobs and toxic spills they have there. Trading the environment for jobs is retarded, both run out before long.

As you completely look past the main point..................

Since when should a POTUS be able to create a new law without going through Congress........................Exec orders are not designed to allow that.................

But since when has he cared whether he's in violation of the constitution anyway.........

 

[NightFox]

Oh brother.

Here we go with this nullification idiocy again.

Here we go with ppv's attempt to nullify an argument with name calling again.

Not to nit pick but I believe what that poster was attempting was to substitute snarkiness for an argument, which seems to be a popular course of action when reason and evidence become too inconvenient.

Anyhow, it's encouraging to see that SOME State Legislators have not forgotten original intent in so far as the ultimate arbiters of the constitutionality of federal law were supposed to be the States, after all it was the States that created and delegated authority to the Federal Government in the first place and it's the States that are the best vehicles for reigning in abuse of federal authority and protecting their citizens from it.

We need much, much more of this if the health of the Republic is to be maintained.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which … concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." -- James Madison, Federalist Number 45

 

[paperview]

I'll save you some time, consti-toot-shunalists.

Nullification has NEVER been legally upheld.

It is settled law, almost as old as Marbury v Madison, and upheld every time since then. Nullification theory essentially makes a mockery of the US Constitution.


If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery; and the nation is deprived of the means of enforcing its laws by the instrumentality of its own tribunals. – United States v. Peters, 9 US 115 (1809)

 

[eagle1462010]

I'll save you some time, consti-toot-shunalists.

Nullification has NEVER been legally upheld.

It is settled law, almost as old as Marbury v Madison, and upheld every time since then. Nullification theory essentially makes a mockery of the US Constitution.


If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery; and the nation is deprived of the means of enforcing its laws by the instrumentality of its own tribunals. – United States v. Peters, 9 US 115 (1809)

I understand the real purpose of proposing this type of legislation......Do you?

It is to Force a court battle..........which is needed..........If it passes, then the Gov't had better start stock piling case history for an eventual battle in SCOTUS..........

That is the intent of pushing such a State Law.

 

[eagle1462010]

solemn mockery

Funny you should say that as Obama pushed an Exec Order that changes EPA laws without consent of Congress.................

At what point does a POTUS have the right to create a new law.........without due process..........

 

[TemplarKormac]

Hey paperview!

Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842) Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) and New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) say that that the states cannot be compelled to use state law enforcement resources to enforce federal law. Meaning what the EPA is doing is unconstitutional. Meaning, that Idaho has every right to nullify EPA regulations, given that they carry with them the weight of Federal Law. In essence, the state is being forced to use its resources to enforce Federal law.

 

[NightFox]

I'll save you some time, consti-toot-shunalists.

Nullification has NEVER been legally upheld.

It is settled law, almost as old as Marbury v Madison, and upheld every time since then. Nullification theory essentially makes a mockery of the US Constitution.


If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery; and the nation is deprived of the means of enforcing its laws by the instrumentality of its own tribunals. – United States v. Peters, 9 US 115 (1809)

You're pointing to examples of a FEDERAL court delegating upon itself authority which wasn't explicitly delegated to it by the U.S. Constitution (and therefore does not exist in a constitutional sense) which in and of itself violates both the spirit and intent of the formation of the Republic in the first place.

As Madison pointed out it is the role of the States to safeguard the life, liberty, property of their citizens and to be the nexus of determining the means and methods of their internal order. There is no question that from an original intent perspective that State nullification is both right and constitutional, without it there is absolutely no point to a Republic since the central authority can simply decide to delegate whatever authority unto itself that it deems appropriate, thus the state governments become nothing more than appendages of the federal apparatus. Is this what we the really want? Isn't it much more conducive to the life, liberty and prosperity of the citizenry to have the ultimate arbiter of legal protections be the government closest to them?

Ultimately it will be the States in combination with the People that will decide if nullification is appropriate since:

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The question is, will We the People be able to manage to emerge from our propaganda induced stupor and recognize what the foundations of our Republic really are and why it's beneficial to each and every citizen that they be maintained, or will we continue zombie like and just accept the will of nine unelected black robed dictators as the ultimate deciders?

 

[paperview]

And now you and the loony inmates are going to taking issue with Marbury v Madison.

More Oh Brother.

 

[The Rabbi]

Worked for WV, look at all the low paying jobs and toxic spills they have there. Trading the environment for jobs is retarded, both run out before long.

WV gets more federal money than any other state, has for the last 40 years, and still ranks in the bottom 5 of states. That's what gov't dependence will do for you.

 

[Jarhead]

The left attempted to nullify a governors election because they didn't like one of his initiatives.....one that was approved via legislation AND approved by the majority of the electorate of that state.

Were you OK with that ppv?

 

[whitehall]

The IRS spies on us, the FCC monitors the information we watch and the EPA protects bait fish at the expense of humans. I guess it's the brave new world democrats had in mind all along.

 

[bendog]

Update on Oregon, Idaho and California Suction Dredge Permits - ICMJ's Prospecting and Mining Journal

Actually, permitting does make some sense. The question would be whether the permitting process makes it impossible for a single small operator to suction through a small amount of a stream with say a 4inch pipe and 15 hp motor and just dump it back in without damaging fisharies.

 

[bendog]

The IRS spies on us, the FCC monitors the information we watch and the EPA protects bait fish at the expense of humans. I guess it's the brave new world democrats had in mind all along.

Yes, your right to property should allow you to destroy spawning for trout on your own land. absolutely. Why, that's a long held conservative view.