A bit of history:
When the Clean Water Act was originally debated in Congress in 1972, the idea of federal water regulation was novel. Regulating and protecting the water supply had always been a local responsibility, and there was no clear federal authority in the Constitution to encroach on this area. So Congress turned to the same overworked clause recently employed to try to justify a national health care mandate—the Commerce Clause. Thus the Clean Water Act applied its regulatory requirements to “navigable waters” of the United States, waters on which interstate commerce is conducted.
We all know how that turned out--it took two SCOTUS decisions to stuff EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers back into their little doghouses. Seems that EPA/ACE decided that "navigable waters" included any (yes, ANY) patch of water over which or in which ducks and geese might fly.
I'm not making that up. (You can ask the City of Brookfield's Public Works department about the "navigable" spring flooding of Calhoun Road just north of the tracks.)
That's all prelude.
The Oberstar Bill strikes back at the court and swings the pendulum wildly in the other direction, deleting the word “navigable” from the law and expanding the Clean Water Act to all the waters in the United States, whether or not there is any connection to interstate commerce.
In theory, the Oberstar act will include your kitchen sink, by the way.
And all this time you thought Obama was a Statist. He's a junior-league piker in comparison.
11 comments:
Here's a counter to your link. Enjoy!
www.cleanwateraction.org/mediakit/overview-clean-water-restoration-act-2009
The article merely states that the Federal Leviathan is not big enough. There's a reason for that: it's called the 10th Amendment.
The Commerce Clause game is up, anony.
Further, the author of your cite should clean it up: Oberstar is a MINNESOTA Statist, not a Wisconsin Statist.
Ditto to what Dad29 said.
The article sent by anonymous is basicly a justication for further trampling on the Constitution.
The Supreme Court in 2001 essentially gutted the Clean Water Act in a controversial decision. The current bill, which is NARROWLY tailored, restores the law's integrity to stop pollution, a compelling interest. Watersheds and drainage basin cover several states. So it's conceivable for pollution of a river, stream, tributary, etc. from one state may affect over state.
Anony is wrong on all counts...
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv32n4/v32n4-5.pdf
And you're surprised?
Anony posts at the level of a HS freshman.
Leave it to Dad29 to criticize but not post specific counters to my assertion. I thought "good" Christians were to be kind and humble to their fellow human beings. Guess not.
Cato.org.....yawn!
So, a guy from Case Western Reserve University School of Law is a yawn, but we should take an advocacy group media kit is to be taken as gospel?
That's what Anony's got? Really?
And s/he votes?
Yikes.
me write english good not...
Should read... but we should take an advocacy group media kit as gospel?
and its only Tuesday.
NeoMom--Clean Water Action is an organization, just like CATO, which has been around for nearly 4 decades. They are experts, just like the guy from Case Western.
Cato.org has an agenda, just like Clean Water Action. It is up to the readers to take information from BOTH sources and figure out the "truth". That's called being objective. Try it sometime!
Cite alternate sites other than those on the right for a balance, and the "yawn" goes away. Preaching to the choir.
Cato is Libertarian. Closest to objective there is as far as think tanks. In fact, until 2009, most Libertarians voted Dem. I'll still take the Law Prof and his analysis of the CWA and the proposed changes over your advocacy group. You need to look outside your own echo chamber champ.
Post a Comment