The Environmental Protection Agency’s End-Run Around Democracy

epa-200x200The intent of the Clean Air Act needs to be manipulated beyond logic to believe the EPA has any authority to regulate CO2

By Marlo Lewis

In a recent issue of the Daily Caller, reporter Jonathan Strong asserts that EPA’s global warming regulations are “no end-run around Congress,” because “This time Congress is being held hostage by its own laws.” That’s exactly what EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and just about every environmental advocacy group in America says. They are mistaken.Interestingly, much of Strong’s argument leads to conclusion that EPA is engaged in an end-run. His column leaves little doubt that the Clean Air Act (CAA) is a stunningly inappropriate framework for regulating greenhouse gases. That should make him wary of environmentalist claims that EPA is just carrying out the will of Congress.

Strong notes that President Obama and others depicted CAA regulation of greenhouse gases as “heinously bad” when they wanted to spook Republicans into supporting cap-and-trade legislation as a lesser evil. But why would Congress authorize something heinously bad? Granted, Congress does many foolish things, but it has never, ever voted to put EPA in charge of making climate policy.

Read the rest at Pajamas Media.

12 Responses to The Environmental Protection Agency’s End-Run Around Democracy

  1. Hal Groar February 26, 2011 at 10:17 pm #

    Very interesting article Dan, more needs to be done about the EPA, I don’t like the idea of an agency making up rules and forcing you to follow them without someone voting on it and taking responsibility for it. It only affects every man. woman and child in the U.S.

  2. Brezentski February 27, 2011 at 7:10 pm #

    Unfortunately this is what happens when you have an administration that doesn’t believe in following the Constitution. Hopefully Congress will amend this nonsense.

    • Rob N. Hood May 24, 2011 at 3:28 pm #

      Let’s re-elect that great law-abider Bush, eh?! wow…

  3. paul wenum February 27, 2011 at 8:36 pm #

    And they are called the Environmental “Protection” Agency? What a contradiction. Their leader, Ms. Jackson will never understand. Paid shill by the administration. Me thinks the new elected officials should start thinking about making a change? We shall see, or should I say, we may? Depends on your elected representative does it?

  4. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 27, 2011 at 9:00 pm #

    This is what it has been about from the begining. They don’t care about saving the planet, or climate change. They never did. It was just a means to an end. The end of America as a superpower in the world. If you don’t believe that then you have not been paying attention. There is no way to “scrub” CO2 out of emissions. The only way to reduce emissions is to reduce productivity. It’s all about making America weaker. These nutcases are running the show now and we are all going to suffer because of it. They need to be stopped. And the only way we are going to stop them is by electing them out, and replacing them with people who believe in America’s greatness.

    • Rob N. Hood May 24, 2011 at 3:31 pm #

      So Obama, by your “logic,” is a Manchurian candidate, sort of, and is secretly trying to destroy America…??!! Wow… That is not only absurd but quite the opposite form reality. Obama is a corporatist, who leans to the Left, but is pretty much mainstream business as usual. You guys should be happy, but alas, you cannot see the forest for the trees.

  5. paul wenum February 28, 2011 at 8:22 pm #

    Totally agree!

  6. Jerk A. Knot March 1, 2011 at 10:34 am #

    I am back!!! This is one of the best examples of the executive branch abusing its power. Great posts everyone.

  7. paul wenum March 1, 2011 at 7:09 pm #

    Nice to see ya Sir Knot. How do we get the EPA out of every part of our natural born life? It will get so bad that I will have to wear “Depends” when hunting. You are right. Abuse of power by people with no elected authority.

  8. Hal Groar March 1, 2011 at 9:46 pm #

    Defund the EPA! Abolish the EPA! Rename the EPA…P E A!

  9. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD March 4, 2011 at 6:23 am #
    “The two scientists speaking at the press conference, Jeff Masters, director of meteorology at the Weather Underground, and Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center, claimed warmer temperatures allow the atmosphere to hold more moisture, which results in higher snowfall totals. Masters and Serreze clearly are weather experts, but are they right about global warming causing – in effect – more winter?

    Longtime AccuWeather forecaster Joe Bastardi doesn’t think so. Responding to a similar assertion by Al Gore, Bastardi said, “We’ve had the third snowiest weather in Northern Hemisphere history, but moisture in the snow pack is below normal. Which means it’s not [snowier] because there’s more moisture but because it’s been colder. He’s just not looking at the facts. With the global temperature collapsing, you can’t be saying, ‘Well, it’s getting colder because it’s getting warmer.’ That’s the opposite argument they were using when the temperature was going up.”

    Then there’s the pesky issue of “consensus.” Alarmists typically counter any fact-based global warming argument with the assertion that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has already ruled on the issue, and therefore “the science is settled” and “the debate is over.” “Mild winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms,” IPCC claimed in its 2001 Third Assessment. Now that real-world conditions show otherwise, alarmists are changing their tune. Well, which is it? Can the alarmists please pick a story line and then stick with it?”

  10. paul wenum March 6, 2011 at 2:20 am #

    Neil, read the same article two days ago. called CYA isn’t it? Never changes does it. Wish they would outline in detail “consensus.” Names, et al. Doubt we will ever see will we.

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.