If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   Idaho bill would nullify all EPA regulations in the state. SupremacyClauseSaysWhat?   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 141
    More: Stupid, EPA, the Gem State, EPA regulations, Congressional Oversight, no-force, Tenth Amendment  
•       •       •

1464 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Feb 2014 at 4:26 PM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



141 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-21 09:41:30 PM  

Gawdzila: Summercat: bigsteve3OOO: Like the EPA?  Thank the republican party.  They made it.  Democrats opposed it.  You cant spell conservation without conservative.

Odd, conversation has always been a progressive movement. Maybe the parties re-aligned sometime thereafter?

No, he is just being disingenuous and a liar.

All Nixon did was create the EPA by reorganizing various other governmental agencies.  It was approved by both the House and Senate, which were both strong Democratic majorities, so there couldn't possibly have been serious Democratic objection.

The act that the EPA functions on, the National Environmental Policy Act, was drafted by a Democratic Senator and passed by a Democratic congress.  It is the thing that actually gives governmental agencies the power to enforce the regulations imposed by NEPA.  Nixon may have brought together a police force, but the Democrats were the ones who made the laws for them to enforce.


Oh, I know.

I was engaging him because I was bored at work waiting for my friend to get off her work so she can pick me up for Board Game and RPG night.

Still waiting on her; poor gal  has to drive through Los Angeles to pick my sorry ass up ;_;

(Anyone in Southern California selling a car that runs well enough for ~2 grand?)
 
2014-02-21 09:46:11 PM  

Summercat: bigsteve3OOO: Summercat: bigsteve3OOO: Like the EPA?  Thank the republican party.  They made it.  Democrats opposed it.  You cant spell conservation without conservative.

Odd, conversation has always been a progressive movement. Maybe the parties re-aligned sometime thereafter?

Or are you insinuating that it's the Democrats today who are complaining about the "Job killing regulations" of the EPA?

I am merely stating the fact that the EPA like most good government programs came from the R party not the democrat.   linky to the wiki

I think we're well aware of the political parties that Progressives, Conservatives, and Regressives were part of prior the Southern Strategy of the late 60s/early 70s, and I think we all equally understand that they effectively swapped places - the Solid South now votes Republican, and the former Republican strongholds of the Northeast and Midwest now vote Democratic.

(To everyone else: Yes I know. I'm bored at work.)


Wait.  Different approach.

Steve, so you're saying that EPA is a good program?

So why is the Republican party trying to kill it?  Why would the Republican party try to kill a good program?
 
2014-02-21 10:03:10 PM  

Gawdzila: Noam Chimpsky: Tenthamendmentsayswhat? It says states can write their own laws unless the Constitution specifically gives that power to the fedtards.

Exactly.  And the Feds have the power to enforce Federal laws.  Even in Idaho.
States cannot nullify Federal powers and it's stupid to think that they should be able to pass a law that says they can.


The feds don't have the power to do anything they please. If it's not spelled out as a power g. en to them in the Constitution, then the states can assert the power for themselves. Simply create an amendment to the Constitution giving the feds total environmental oversight. You actually might succeed with that, but there would likely be some limitations set.

All it will take is one conservative president who will force the matter before funding things like the epa and a hundred other things. Even popular federal systems.
 
2014-02-21 10:11:58 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: Gawdzila: Noam Chimpsky: Tenthamendmentsayswhat? It says states can write their own laws unless the Constitution specifically gives that power to the fedtards.

Exactly.  And the Feds have the power to enforce Federal laws.  Even in Idaho.
States cannot nullify Federal powers and it's stupid to think that they should be able to pass a law that says they can.

The feds don't have the power to do anything they please. If it's not spelled out as a power g. en to them in the Constitution, then the states can assert the power for themselves. Simply create an amendment to the Constitution giving the feds total environmental oversight. You actually might succeed with that, but there would likely be some limitations set.

All it will take is one conservative president who will force the matter before funding things like the epa and a hundred other things. Even popular federal systems.


"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const., Art. Vi, cl. 2.

Area Man needs to STFU.
 
2014-02-21 10:12:06 PM  

buckler: I swear to farking God, the GOP won't be happy until they've transformed Earth into Giedi Prime.


or Ceti Alpha V.
 
2014-02-21 10:41:04 PM  

BMulligan: Noam Chimpsky: Gawdzila: Noam Chimpsky: Tenthamendmentsayswhat? It says states can write their own laws unless the Constitution specifically gives that power to the fedtards.

Exactly.  And the Feds have the power to enforce Federal laws.  Even in Idaho.
States cannot nullify Federal powers and it's stupid to think that they should be able to pass a law that says they can.

The feds don't have the power to do anything they please. If it's not spelled out as a power g. en to them in the Constitution, then the states can assert the power for themselves. Simply create an amendment to the Constitution giving the feds total environmental oversight. You actually might succeed with that, but there would likely be some limitations set.

All it will take is one conservative president who will force the matter before funding things like the epa and a hundred other things. Even popular federal systems.

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const., Art. Vi, cl. 2.

Area Man needs to STFU.


The laws of the United States need to be legal first. You seem to be missing that part. Sort of the begging the question fallacy you are using there. A treaty that Obama signs also isn't the law of the land. More constitutionally mandated action is required.
 
2014-02-21 10:45:34 PM  

BMulligan: Noam Chimpsky: Gawdzila: Noam Chimpsky: Tenthamendmentsayswhat? It says states can write their own laws unless the Constitution specifically gives that power to the fedtards.

Exactly.  And the Feds have the power to enforce Federal laws.  Even in Idaho.
States cannot nullify Federal powers and it's stupid to think that they should be able to pass a law that says they can.

The feds don't have the power to do anything they please. If it's not spelled out as a power g. en to them in the Constitution, then the states can assert the power for themselves. Simply create an amendment to the Constitution giving the feds total environmental oversight. You actually might succeed with that, but there would likely be some limitations set.

All it will take is one conservative president who will force the matter before funding things like the epa and a hundred other things. Even popular federal systems.

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const., Art. Vi, cl. 2.

Area Man needs to STFU.


"In pursuance thereof" is the thing you aren't grasping
 
2014-02-21 11:18:58 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: BMulligan: Noam Chimpsky: Gawdzila: Noam Chimpsky: Tenthamendmentsayswhat? It says states can write their own laws unless the Constitution specifically gives that power to the fedtards.

Exactly.  And the Feds have the power to enforce Federal laws.  Even in Idaho.
States cannot nullify Federal powers and it's stupid to think that they should be able to pass a law that says they can.

The feds don't have the power to do anything they please. If it's not spelled out as a power g. en to them in the Constitution, then the states can assert the power for themselves. Simply create an amendment to the Constitution giving the feds total environmental oversight. You actually might succeed with that, but there would likely be some limitations set.

All it will take is one conservative president who will force the matter before funding things like the epa and a hundred other things. Even popular federal systems.

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const., Art. Vi, cl. 2.

Area Man needs to STFU.

"In pursuance thereof" is the thing you aren't grasping


Oh, I'm grasping it just fine. You, on the other hand, have no idea what you're talking about. The Commerce Clause empowers Congress to regulate the use and abuse of the environment to the extent that environmental degradation impedes interstate commerce, of course, but there's also the federal government's well established authority over navigable waterways which gives the feds plenty of authority to regulate goundwater and wastewater which commingles with those waters. There's also the little matter of the two thirds of Idaho which literally belongs to the federal government in the form of BLM holdings, Bureau of Reclamation holdings, national forests, and national monuments. The federal government has statutory and common law authority to preserve the integrity of those public lands.

But I tell you what - how about the feds stop enforcing EPA regulations in Idaho, and in return Idaho and her residents can forego their federally subsidized water, their federally subsidized grazing land, their federally subsidized timber land, their federally subsidized mines, and their federal farm price supports. Deal?
 
2014-02-21 11:20:14 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: BMulligan: Noam Chimpsky: Gawdzila: Noam Chimpsky: Tenthamendmentsayswhat? It says states can write their own laws unless the Constitution specifically gives that power to the fedtards.

Exactly.  And the Feds have the power to enforce Federal laws.  Even in Idaho.
States cannot nullify Federal powers and it's stupid to think that they should be able to pass a law that says they can.

The feds don't have the power to do anything they please. If it's not spelled out as a power g. en to them in the Constitution, then the states can assert the power for themselves. Simply create an amendment to the Constitution giving the feds total environmental oversight. You actually might succeed with that, but there would likely be some limitations set.

All it will take is one conservative president who will force the matter before funding things like the epa and a hundred other things. Even popular federal systems.

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const., Art. Vi, cl. 2.

Area Man needs to STFU.

"In pursuance thereof" is the thing you aren't grasping


"One Supreme Court," is the thing you aren't grasping.

Article III begins with statement:

a) "States shall interpret the Constitution as they see fit, willy nilly and without regard to any effort to advance national policy."

b) "All liberal activist judges shall be dragged off to Gitmo for lifelong interrogation at maximum enhancement."

c) "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court,"

d) "A bag of walnuts."
 
2014-02-21 11:28:41 PM  

Baz744: Noam Chimpsky: BMulligan: Noam Chimpsky: Gawdzila: Noam Chimpsky: Tenthamendmentsayswhat? It says states can write their own laws unless the Constitution specifically gives that power to the fedtards.

Exactly.  And the Feds have the power to enforce Federal laws.  Even in Idaho.
States cannot nullify Federal powers and it's stupid to think that they should be able to pass a law that says they can.

The feds don't have the power to do anything they please. If it's not spelled out as a power g. en to them in the Constitution, then the states can assert the power for themselves. Simply create an amendment to the Constitution giving the feds total environmental oversight. You actually might succeed with that, but there would likely be some limitations set.

All it will take is one conservative president who will force the matter before funding things like the epa and a hundred other things. Even popular federal systems.

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const., Art. Vi, cl. 2.

Area Man needs to STFU.

"In pursuance thereof" is the thing you aren't grasping

"One Supreme Court," is the thing you aren't grasping.

Article III begins with statement:

a) "States shall interpret the Constitution as they see fit, willy nilly and without regard to any effort to advance national policy."

b) "All liberal activist judges shall be dragged off to Gitmo for lifelong interrogation at maximum enhancement."

c) "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court,"

d) "A bag of walnuts."


The supreme court can strike down federal laws as being unconstitutional.
 
2014-02-22 12:18:24 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: Summercat: bigsteve3OOO: Summercat: bigsteve3OOO: Like the EPA?  Thank the republican party.  They made it.  Democrats opposed it.  You cant spell conservation without conservative.

Odd, conversation has always been a progressive movement. Maybe the parties re-aligned sometime thereafter?

Or are you insinuating that it's the Democrats today who are complaining about the "Job killing regulations" of the EPA?

I am merely stating the fact that the EPA like most good government programs came from the R party not the democrat.   linky to the wiki

I think we're well aware of the political parties that Progressives, Conservatives, and Regressives were part of prior the Southern Strategy of the late 60s/early 70s, and I think we all equally understand that they effectively swapped places - the Solid South now votes Republican, and the former Republican strongholds of the Northeast and Midwest now vote Democratic.

(To everyone else: Yes I know. I'm bored at work.)

Wait.  Different approach.

Steve, so you're saying that EPA is a good program?

So why is the Republican party trying to kill it?  Why would the Republican party try to kill a good program?


Because the r party is as bad as the democrat.  I just like pointing out how stupid both party followers are.  Two sides; same coin etc.
 
2014-02-22 12:19:17 AM  
Doesn't the federal government own most of Idaho?
 
2014-02-22 12:22:03 AM  

cirby: They may not claim to nullify Federal marijuana laws - but the practical effect is that they have.


The difference being that nullification claims to force the federal government out. Here, the federal government has voluntarily refrained from enforcing marijuana laws. The distinction is of massive consequence.


Of course, those state laws won't even slow down any Federal agent who decides to ruin the life of some otherwise-innocent pot smoker or seller who annoyed a politician.

Those "innocent" pot smokers and sellers also know very well that marijuana remains a crime under federal law.

I'm in favor of marijuana legalization. But it's not a constitutional right. Nor is it a state's right to nullify a federal law.
 
2014-02-22 12:24:46 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: The supreme court can strike down federal laws as being unconstitutional.


You're right. And their authority to strike them down or not is what? Say it with me now...

SUPREME.

So once the Supreme Court has upheld a federal law as properly falling within the scope of a federal power, and not violative of an individual right, the decision is final.
 
2014-02-22 12:24:50 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Secede, you f*cking cowards


I doubt Canadia wants them
 
2014-02-22 12:36:28 AM  

Orange-Pippin: Deadite: Lets not forget one of the main reasons Nixon created the EPA in the first place

Ahh the Cuyahoga River. My uncle was there when it happened

[blog.cleveland.com image 453x353]

[www.clf.org image 850x647]


Which time? The Cuyahoga actually caught fire several times.
 
2014-02-22 12:42:26 AM  

cirby: How many of the people championing the Supremacy Clause (which is correct in this case) also think it's okay for Colorado and the other states to effectively legalize marijuana?

/Still against Federal law, for some reason or other


The difference is that the feds can come in at any time and enforce their marijuana laws. It's just that the state doesn't have to help them do it.  With the EPA they, in I da ho, are saying that the feds wouldn't even have the right to enforce federal EPA laws in their state should the fed choose to do so.
 
2014-02-22 12:53:56 AM  

Baz744: Noam Chimpsky: The supreme court can strike down federal laws as being unconstitutional.

You're right. And their authority to strike them down or not is what? Say it with me now...

SUPREME.

So once the Supreme Court has upheld a federal law as properly falling within the scope of a federal power, and not violative of an individual right, the decision is final.


Are you claiming Dred Scott is still the rule of the land cos "say it with me"?
 
2014-02-22 01:13:31 AM  

FlashHarry: fine. then cut all federal aid to the state.


came for this

at some point the federal gov't is going to just have to sit back and let one of these states wallow in misery and let the people realize when you vote for morons, you get what you deserve.
 
2014-02-22 01:14:51 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: Baz744: Noam Chimpsky: The supreme court can strike down federal laws as being unconstitutional.

You're right. And their authority to strike them down or not is what? Say it with me now...

SUPREME.

So once the Supreme Court has upheld a federal law as properly falling within the scope of a federal power, and not violative of an individual right, the decision is final.

Are you claiming Dred Scott is still the rule of the land cos "say it with me"?


No, Dred Scott is not the rule of the land because the Congress passed a law and then...wait for it..the Supreme Court upheld it as Constitutional.

Who had the final decision then?

Oh right. The Supreme Farking Court.
 
2014-02-22 01:15:57 AM  

bigsteve3OOO: Satanic_Hamster: Summercat: bigsteve3OOO: Summercat: bigsteve3OOO: Like the EPA?  Thank the republican party.  They made it.  Democrats opposed it.  You cant spell conservation without conservative.

Odd, conversation has always been a progressive movement. Maybe the parties re-aligned sometime thereafter?

Or are you insinuating that it's the Democrats today who are complaining about the "Job killing regulations" of the EPA?

I am merely stating the fact that the EPA like most good government programs came from the R party not the democrat.   linky to the wiki

I think we're well aware of the political parties that Progressives, Conservatives, and Regressives were part of prior the Southern Strategy of the late 60s/early 70s, and I think we all equally understand that they effectively swapped places - the Solid South now votes Republican, and the former Republican strongholds of the Northeast and Midwest now vote Democratic.

(To everyone else: Yes I know. I'm bored at work.)

Wait.  Different approach.

Steve, so you're saying that EPA is a good program?

So why is the Republican party trying to kill it?  Why would the Republican party try to kill a good program?

Because the r party is as bad as the democrat.  I just like pointing out how stupid both party followers are.  Two sides; same coin etc.


If the Republican party is so bad why do you keep defending them?
 
2014-02-22 01:18:14 AM  

bigsteve3OOO: Like the EPA?  Thank the republican party.  They made it.  Democrats opposed it.  You cant spell conservation without conservative.


They freed the slaves too, from what I hear. So, who are these guys I see all the time with the red, white and blue elephant logo?
 
2014-02-22 02:01:47 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Noam Chimpsky: Baz744: Noam Chimpsky: The supreme court can strike down federal laws as being unconstitutional.

You're right. And their authority to strike them down or not is what? Say it with me now...

SUPREME.

So once the Supreme Court has upheld a federal law as properly falling within the scope of a federal power, and not violative of an individual right, the decision is final.

Are you claiming Dred Scott is still the rule of the land cos "say it with me"?

No, Dred Scott is not the rule of the land because the Congress passed a law and then...wait for it..the Supreme Court upheld it as Constitutional.

Who had the final decision then?

Oh right. The Supreme Farking Court.


What the hell you talkin bout? Anyhow, some of you might expect the scotards to tell a state that they can't pass strict environmental laws for their state if the federal epa isn't protective enough. You could theoretically get an environmentally unfriendly regime taking over and why would you want to deny the states their Constitutional right to control and protect their environment?
 
2014-02-22 04:26:55 AM  
Let me guess:

1. Good. EPA regulations stifle business opportunities
2. Companies are already voluntarily meeting standards without a watchdog breathing down their necks
3. Muh freedoms

What do I win?
 
2014-02-22 05:06:33 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: The feds don't have the power to do anything they please. If it's not spelled out as a power g. en to them in the Constitution, then the states can assert the power for themselves.


You'd be correct if we were still living under the Articles of Confederation, but it isn't 1788 anymore.
The Necessary and Proper Clause expressly confers incidental powers upon Congress, specifically so that they can enforce laws that they enact.
 
2014-02-22 09:10:23 AM  

buckler: I swear to farking God, the GOP won't be happy until they've transformed Earth into Giedi Prime.


One of the biggest GOP shills, Rush Limbaugh, does kinda remind me of the Baron...
 
2014-02-22 11:03:08 AM  

GitOffaMyLawn: Wook: For anyone familiar with EPA regs, this actually isn't a bad idea.

As a person familiar with both Federal and one state's environmental regulations, I can safely say that this is a spectacularly bad idea.

Keeping something [relatively] clean in the first place is much less costly (damaging, injurious) than trying to remediate the damage after the fact.

/ was fortunate enough to work for a good corporate citizen when it came to the environment
// the consequences of an environmental screw-up would have been very unpleasant


EPA:

Mission Statement is great
Application of initial regulations, great
Continually changing the regulations, extremely bad
Effect of long term regulatory impact on Industry, handicapping
Current politicking of EPA has created a mess, both within it and outside of it

This is just my personal experience of working 20 years in industry.  I think they should seriously reform it.  Fire 90% of the people and make the positions immune from political appointments.

And before you city dwelling lib yuppies get pissed off at me, I am an avid outdoor enthusiast with a strong bond to the environment.
 
2014-02-22 11:16:24 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: Anyhow, some of you might expect the scotards to tell a state that they can't pass strict environmental laws for their state if the federal epa isn't protective enough


Nope, because stricter environmental regulation doesn't violate the Supremacy of the less-strict EPA. Just like stricter gun legislation in New York doesn't violate the supremacy of ATF regulation.

The whole point of supremacy is that you cannot have LESS strict laws than those at the federal level. It's the reason that places like New York can have a higher minimum wage than the federal law requires.
 
2014-02-22 11:21:58 AM  
"They're saying if you pick up sand with a suction dredge, run it through and dump it back in the water, that's pollution. It's pretty much shutting (the dredgers) down. That's the main thing driving this, but the bill pertains to any regulations not approved by the people."

I'm not familiar with this technique, so I'm speaking only from my LEFTIST RAGE against hard working murricans earning an honest buck.

Doesn't this sound incredibly invasive?   Lets suck up an entire riverbank, filter out a couple ounces of gold (along with everything else!!!), and then dump it back into the river, clouding up the water, destroying wildlife habitat and any sport fishing for miles downstream.   Then, the natural mechanisms that purify natural waterways will die off, and the river becomes a stagnant sewer.

I'd really like a scientist to weigh in on this.
 
2014-02-22 11:32:37 AM  

Gawdzila: Noam Chimpsky: The feds don't have the power to do anything they please. If it's not spelled out as a power g. en to them in the Constitution, then the states can assert the power for themselves.

You'd be correct if we were still living under the Articles of Confederation, but it isn't 1788 anymore.
The Necessary and Proper Clause expressly confers incidental powers upon Congress, specifically so that they can enforce laws that they enact.


The tenth amendment is still there. I just checked.
 
2014-02-22 11:37:43 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Noam Chimpsky: Anyhow, some of you might expect the scotards to tell a state that they can't pass strict environmental laws for their state if the federal epa isn't protective enough

Nope, because stricter environmental regulation doesn't violate the Supremacy of the less-strict EPA. Just like stricter gun legislation in New York doesn't violate the supremacy of ATF regulation.

The whole point of supremacy is that you cannot have LESS strict laws than those at the federal level. It's the reason that places like New York can have a higher minimum wage than the federal law requires.


The Constitution doesn't say anything about strictness. It's impossible to quantify or qualify.
 
2014-02-22 12:02:23 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: cameroncrazy1984: Noam Chimpsky: Anyhow, some of you might expect the scotards to tell a state that they can't pass strict environmental laws for their state if the federal epa isn't protective enough

Nope, because stricter environmental regulation doesn't violate the Supremacy of the less-strict EPA. Just like stricter gun legislation in New York doesn't violate the supremacy of ATF regulation.

The whole point of supremacy is that you cannot have LESS strict laws than those at the federal level. It's the reason that places like New York can have a higher minimum wage than the federal law requires.

The Constitution doesn't say anything about strictness. It's impossible to quantify or qualify.


No, it isn't. It's a valid legal principle.
 
2014-02-22 12:03:08 PM  
That's also not to mention that saying ALL EPA regulation is invalid is an obvious violation of the Supremacy clause, regardless of whether you have difficulty quantifying "strictness"
 
2014-02-22 12:05:57 PM  
Also, you are saying the state is allowed to be more restrictive of freedom but not less restrictive of freedoms. Apparently not when it comes to marijuana in co and wa. I don't think scotus would want to make such a ruling, at least not in so many words.
 
2014-02-22 12:39:06 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: That's also not to mention that saying ALL EPA regulation is invalid is an obvious violation of the Supremacy clause, regardless of whether you have difficulty quantifying "strictness"


The problem is that the feds don't have the authority to enforce their epa regulations in a state that wants their own. I can think of instances where they should have it, but if they have unlimited powers the hoaxers can enslave you. The decline hiders, for instance. You'd want enough idiots that have been taken in by the.hoax to pass an amendment. On the other hand, regulating dumping in rivers that will affect states down stream is something I would hope has enough support. You'd want the feds to oversee that. So a limited epa would make it to amendment.
 
2014-02-22 12:50:27 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: The problem is that the feds don't have the authority to enforce their epa regulations in a state that wants their own.


Yes they do. It's called the supremacy clause. If a state doesn't want the federal government to be supreme then they can form their own country. They can't have it both ways.

I really don't see why this is so hard for you to get.
 
2014-02-22 12:57:42 PM  
Guess there's no response to that. About what I figured.
 
2014-02-22 01:04:05 PM  

Death Eats a Cracker: apoptotic: Another stunning example of why when my American friends ask me why I don't make more of a fuss about not being allowed to enter the US anymore, I simply reply "I grew up in Idaho".

Ok you can't just throw something like that out there and not explain further. Why exactly are you not allowed to enter the US?


Just due to a combination of my own stupidity and medical misfortune. I have an old DUI conviction in Canada but can't get a travel waiver because I 1) I have panic attacks and 2) when I had a near-fatal allergic reaction to a prescription medication, the 911 operator keyed it in as a possible overdose. So on paper I'm an unstable felon with a drug problem.
 
2014-02-22 01:14:15 PM  

apoptotic: Just due to a combination of my own stupidity and medical misfortune. I have an old DUI conviction in Canada but can't get a travel waiver because I 1) I have panic attacks and 2) when I had a near-fatal allergic reaction to a prescription medication, the 911 operator keyed it in as a possible overdose. So on paper I'm an unstable felon with a drug problem.


That answer was no where nearly as cool as the one I envisioned.
 
2014-02-22 11:52:16 PM  
Does this mean that Idaho will support those states that want to nullify the DEA on pot?
 
2014-02-23 01:17:36 AM  

SilentStrider: Because being able to breathe and drink without poisoning yourself is overrated.


I mean, this. Do we really even need to say this?
 
Displayed 41 of 141 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report