Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe
|
That's an old article (Nov. 19, 2014). The senate did not pass the bill . . . so you can loosen your bunched up panties. Nor was the bill as portrayed by Salon--whoda thunk? It did attempt to "democratize" and make more "transparent" the actions of the SAB.
As it stands, the President nominates the EPA administrator who is then confirmed by the Senate. The administrator then appoints the members of the SAB. The process obviously creates a politically influenced chain of appointments which can in turn result in politically influenced regulations . . . whoda thunk? We seem to revere regulatory agencies with fine sounding names such as The Environmental Protection Agency. And we seem to believe that without them we could not have good stuff such as clean air.
Actually, we could have all that the EPA supposedly does for us WITHOUT the EPA. All that would be necessary is for the federal Congress itself to do what it appoints the EPA to do. And, even more importantly, for the state legislatures to do, or be allowed to do, what is necessary for the environment in their domains. But the members of the federal Congress would then be held personally responsible for their decisions, and would risk the wrath of voters for unpopular decisions, and the state legislators would be beholden only to their own constituents for their own territory and would not be forced to comply with majority demands from other states which could negatively impact them. That's too old and free a concept to suit our modern times of forcing a one size fits all regulatory scheme, and would allow the states too much power . . . or what was once called "sovereignty."
I know that it is now considered of little consequence that the Constitution does not allow the congress to delegate its legislative power to anyone or anything else. But that was intended to be so for very substantial reasons. Most importantly, to place the power more directly in the hands of the people rather than in unelected and, for all intents and purposes, unaccountable bureaucratic agencies.
I know that when such agencies create regulations that, rightly or wrongly, appeal to you, that's all well and good. Who cares about Constitution, rule of law, when you get what you think you want. The problem, as demonstrated by your disgust of what you are made to think is a "shameless" shaping of an agency, is that such political tinkering might create an agency which won't allow the people (or you) to get what they think they want in the future. It's that age-old problem of unintended consequences.
And it is that very problem, among others, which inspired the structure of the Constitution. If the people vote for bad legislation, for laws which confound and are destructive to what they intend or want, it is their fault either directly or for choosing unfaithful representatives.
But with our Constitution busting administrative state, the fourth branch of government run by hundreds of unelected regulatory agencies, the people have little to say about it . . . and must suffer the consequences of a fourth party decision.
The real problem is not the tinkering with regulatory agencies, but that they exist.