EPA my arse!

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Ok so what environmental protection steps have “your” people taken during this first year
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't have "people"...I hate everyone



do you need a bunch of "protection steps" during this year or that year to confirm that something is always being done by your government....do you need constant legislation, edicts and proclamations from your government to let you know that they are "DOING SOMETHING"

great story on our local news this morning....guess someone was wondering why the RI State fleet of green cars....rows and rows of them are sitting in the State lot and NEVER driven......guess they are super green if they never move

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

There are many issues that transcend state borders, fish migrations for instance are coastwide, not local for many species. Rhode Island or Massachusetts can not make or enforce rules on MD to limit impacts to Striped Bass, even if it impacts recreational and commercial fishermen in their state.

All issues eventually center around people, whether it is individual to individual, state to state, or federal government vis a vis all the people. Self governing people reasonably come to mutually satisfying agreements. Federal "people" forcing people of one state to please the people of another state weakens, even partially destroys, the element of self governance so essential to our republic.

Representatives from MA and RI can reasonably come to a mutual agreement on the impacts of their rules on Striped Bass. By discussing and negotiating, they may even discover impacts that neither, on their own, would have realized. That is, essentially, a democratic solution, rather than the dictatorial decree of some distant unelected central power. But, as do all modern authoritarian, socialistic countries which have instituted the vote and elections, we use the label "democracy," or "our democracy," as a cover for dictatorial regulations such as our federal agencies create.


Similarly, air pollution or water pollution is often not a local issue, see the Mercury issues from the Midwest traveling east or downstream impacts on rivers. The CT River starts in northernmost New England, with a watershed that ticks into Canada. Connecticut cannot make rules on Vermont or New Hampshire.

Issues of water ways downstream rights have long been understood in English Common Law and in the laws of nations derived from the British Empire to comport with Riparian Water Rights. Pollution of water ways that continue into other jurisdictions can be sued in the Courts.

Some issues are federal and need federal agencies to deal with it. That damn liberal commie hippy Nixon even knew that much....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nixon was to a great degree a Progressive in terms of federal power. Progressive notion of an all powerful central government is well served by unelected regulatory federal agencies with plenary power.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Progressive notion of an all powerful central government is well served by unelected regulatory federal agencies with plenary power.

Luckily for you, the appointments are made by elected officials who are accountable/vulnerable to the electorate. Progressives have no interest in an all powerful central government, that is Trump's fantasy. He just wants to be sure that power lies with him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Luckily for you, the appointments are made by elected officials who are accountable/vulnerable to the electorate.

Can you name any of the appointed regulators? Do you know when they were appointed? Do you know who appointed them? Do you know who to hold accountable for their appointment? Do you know, or are aware of, the thousands of regulations the appointees make every year. Do you know how many federal regulatory agencies there are and what are all the different things they regulate? Most of us can't answer any of those questions.

Most of the hundreds of agencies were created some time in the past, and most of the present Congress people cannot personally be held accountable for their creation.

For the most part, to the public at large the regulators are anonymous. Within their agencies, they have legislative, executive, and judicial power--the three powers combined into one--can't get more all-powerful or unlimited than that.

Progressives have no interest in an all powerful central government, that is Trump's fantasy. He just wants to be sure that power lies with him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Progressive founders, in their own recorded words, do not use the phrase "all powerful" in respect to their concept of government's power. Instead, they used words such as "limited," stating that government should not be limited. I suppose there is some kind of difference between government not being limited and government being "all powerful."

And Trump is using a piece of that power to act progressively against what the Constitution would not have allowed. Most Presidents, if not all, after Coolidge, have acted in various degrees, progressively. Trump is no different than the others in wanting their portion of progressive power.

It would be fun and informative to have a discussion on Progressive politics, its history, its presence in todays "liberalism." What is your definition or conception of Progressive political theory?