epa (uncle) in charge in wyoming...

where are the personal property rights... think you own your own land??? we are just all renters here... 

 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/14/wyoming-welder-faces-fine-for...

wstnodak's picture
wstnodak
Offline
Joined: 11/3/02

No need to apologize gabe.  That is all old news.  But I really did find it ironic that the cat gave me shit about wearing camo when he runs a so called "hunting" operation and neither he or his "hunters" has to wear camo.  Get it?

If god didn't want us to eat animals....he wouldn't have made them out of food.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

wstnodak Said:
No need to apologize gabe.  That is all old news.  But I really did find it ironic that the cat gave me shit about wearing camo when he runs a so called "hunting" operation and neither he or his "hunters" has to wear camo.  Get it?

It falls into place that you would actually believe what he "gave you shit" about was actually the wearing of camo instead of the larger picture james.

wstnodak Said:

This is for the kids growing up in this state you don't have means to PAY to hunt!!!!!!!!!!

But I guess if it was up to you every section would have a fence around it and people would pay massive amounts of money to essentially slaughter a pig

Get over yourself and think about someone else for once you arrogant prick.

It must have struck a nerve though for being "old news".

Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

Jimmy, you crack me up. You have such a quick temper.

"the handful of people pulling the levers know what it is you desire"

Now what in the hell is that supposed to mean there Dwight? 

You desire access. There is a small handful of persons who seek to rush as much private property into public assests as soon as they can. But, they need your help. This land shall be set aside for the sportsmen. (wink wink) That is where you come in.
After you help them erase the barriers, such as North Dakotas Anti-corporate Farming Law, then they will help you with access. (wink wink)

Dear Ron Gilmore. Before you go nuts with your reasons why the Anti-corporate Farming Law needs to be torn apart, you need to be reminded that I feel the same as Joel Heitkamp when you used to call in. Joel said, "Ron, I recognize the voice and I'm going to hang up now because I'm more interested in what others have to say."

Too funny.

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/28/07

Fritz the Cat Said:

eyexer Said:
 the land is pretty much off limits now anyway so I don't see any change in the forseeable future.  Doesn't have anything to do with riches.  Not sure what drum your trying to beat with that but it doesn't make a tune.

Eye, which is more important? A piece of private ground that you can buy sell trade derive some income raise a family etc. etc. Where you control the means of production forty weeks a year.

Or is it better to rush as much of that private ground into public ground so that you have a place to recreate 12 weeks a year?

Keep in mind that many stakeholders also have a say in what or how you recreate.

Public lands are much like public roads. The last bastion of socialism.

Socialism “is an economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.”

it'snot for me to say what property owners do with their property.  none of my business unless it infringes on my property in some way. 

 

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

I think we all get the picture.  The EPA must be attacked so they don't keep trying to control what they actually should.  I think it was Swift who posted a page from the North Dakota Farm Bureau and gst said it was just a "wish list".  It was asking for the removal of regulations, and I don't remember the exact words gst, but it was radical enough that you tried to write it off as just a "wish list" and not real.  Remember now.

Anyway, is the picture becoming clear for those of you riding the fence?  Go read ten years of my political opinions and then tell me if you think I am liberal or conservative.  Then ask yourself why these people are against conservation.  I think it's as some have said they want to control the hunting.  They say that other interests will attack hunting on public land.  I'm sure they will, but right now we are in trouble on private land.  We have a socialist ag program, and the people getting the money have no appreciation for those paying the money.  They are going to shaft you further if you have a bow, rifle, or shotgun in your hands.  Clear? 

We have people trying to advance old Europe from which we risked life and limb to escape.

WormWiggler's picture
WormWiggler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 8/29/09

Stop the Insanity

johnr Said:

gst Said:
It's all good, try reading this and let us know what you think.

http://www.naturalnews.com/036700_Tenth_Amendment_EPA_rainwater.html#

(NaturalNews) The Tenth Amendment has been described by some constitutional scholars and experts as the Bill of Rights' catch-all amendment, in that it was written into the nation's founding document as a way to remind future federal lawmakers and officials that unless the Constitution explicitly allows it or bans it, states - as sovereign entities - are free to do as they please.

It was Thomas Jefferson who said, in 1798, "Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government . . . whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

In other words, the federal government's powers are few and defined; state, by comparison, was supposed to be numerous and plentiful.

But that was then. It certainly isn't that way these days, as states have increasingly fallen under the control over a growing federal Leviathan and its multitude of bloated bureaucracies.

Well, the time seems to have come when states - some of them at least - appear to have had enough. Take Virginia.

A group from the Commonwealth has filed suit in federal court alleging that one of the crown jewels of federal bureaucracy - the Environmental Protection Agency - has stepped way over the central government's constitutionally limited powers with new rules governing, of all things, rain water run-off.

According to the complaint filed by the Occoquan Watershed Coalition, the EPA violated the Tenth Amendment by imposing a "coercive ... unfunded mandate" on a watershed, "to implement a federal program - one not imposed by or under Virginia Law."

New standards equals hundreds of millions of dollars

The group says the EPA's rules unconstitutionally force Virginia to control the amount of rainwater allowed to flow into a stream in Fairfax County. The mandate seeks to protect benthic organisms - the benthic zone is the lowest area of a body of water, along the bottom - that the EPA says are killed off by the sediment-rich rainwater.

The suit was filed on behalf of the coalition by the Free-Market Environmental Law Clinic, which estimated the cost of the EPA's mandate at about $225 million.

"If the county is forced to spend that much money on a single watershed, it will mean not one of the other 29 watersheds in the county will receive funds for their restoration, including the eight watersheds in the OWC's territory," says the law clinic, on its Web site.

The suit says a small portion of Accotink Creek, with about 120 miles of shoreline, is "impaired," under the EPA rules, because soil along an 8.1-mile stretch has eroded and, when it rains, the soil runs off into the creek.

"To address this problem, Fairfax County would normally place rock against those parts of the stream bank that erode the most, and take other actions that fit within its budget," says an analysis of the case by the American Tradition Institute. "Virginia and Fairfax County have been working together to address Accotink Creek, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has rejected those efforts and in their place adopted a new water quantity standard that limits the total amount of water that can be discharged into the stream each day."

That "standard" is what is being challenged by OWC.

Trampling the sovereignty of the state

"The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that this kind of coercive federal mandate on a local government is simply not allowed," said Dr. David W. Schnare, Director of the FME Law Clinic.

"Because Fairfax County and the Commonwealth of Virginia refused to raise this constitutional challenge in their recent suit against EPA, the citizens directly harmed by EPA are the only ones left to protect the rights and privileges of the Commonwealth and FME Law is representing their interests," he said. "Without that assistance, the serious problems in 29 watersheds will go unaddressed while EPA asks Fairfax County to empty its coffers in a vain effort to fix a problem of minor significance."

In its suit, the OWC claims the Clean Water Act gives EPA the authority to regulate sediments flowing into streams via pipes or point sources, but gives states and local governments the power to manage non-point sources.

"This is the kind of coercive commandeering the Constitution does not authorize - commandeering that tramples the sovereignty of the state and local governments," the complaint says.

 
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cuccinelli-epa-lawsuit-virginia/2013/01...

Seems the courts think it was a pretty good piece.

But hey what did the founding fathers like Jefferson know about states rights and the importance of them and controlling the Federal authority. I mean it is not like they fought a war and created a nation under a declaration of independence to escape an overbearing over reaching govt. I mean really what is that piece of paper they wrote setting up the limits and checks and balances of govt and ensuring private citizens and states rights  unencumbered by excessive govt even worth nowadays. Really do you think a 200 year old document is really even relevant anymore?

eyexer Said:
 

gst Said:

eyexer Said:
 

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said

What does that have to do with conserving some of ND gabe?  So because some group talked to another group, that means we are responsible for spanking them?  I think that's what you are saying.  Are you saying this just for your personal gain gabe?

You seem to have NO problem telling our state how to manage itself so what is your deal with others having their opinion? 

If you really can not see the possible negative consequences of inviting orgs like the ones filing these lawsuits and collaborating with th EPA on how our state should manage our state  into our state west I am not going to invest further time into explaining it to you.

And west I support BOTH yours and my ability to have a say in telling our state to manage itself, I simply do not think out of state orgs should. Pretty simple really.

Try dropping the personal crap EVERY post west and actually discuss an issue for once.

You will not allow it gabe with your self serving, arrogant, and condescending nature.  Many have tried.  I don't know why you even bother to ask people to "discuss" with you anymore?

West, I have to break it to you, it really won;t "bother" me much if you don;t "bother" anymore!

Yet you STILL can't help responding!hahahaha  Get over yourself there almighty and just one time realize that other people have interests that are not the same as yours and they just might want to protect those interests.  This really has become a case of you vs. the sportsman and I'm convinced that more and more are seeing it that way.  Like I have said before, thank god the majority of the farmers/ranchers in this state don't think like you!

I've said this numerous times and I'll stick to it.  This measure is all about hunting access.  Farmers have tied up the land and this is the result.  And now they're screaming the loudest.  They only have themselves to blame if this measure passes.

So flood control for Fargo is about hunting access? Cause that is what their selling this measure as. But then how else would you get a high percentage of Fargo citizens ot vote for their share of the oil and gas tax revenues!

that's what happens when you try to play mind games, people think your talking about something other than what your talking about.  

johnr Said:

                                                                                                                         

WormWiggler's picture
WormWiggler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 8/29/09

WormWiggler Said:

Stop the Insanity

johnr Said:

gst Said:
It's all good, try reading this and let us know what you think.

http://www.naturalnews.com/036700_Tenth_Amendment_EPA_rainwater.html#

(NaturalNews) The Tenth Amendment has been described by some constitutional scholars and experts as the Bill of Rights' catch-all amendment, in that it was written into the nation's founding document as a way to remind future federal lawmakers and officials that unless the Constitution explicitly allows it or bans it, states - as sovereign entities - are free to do as they please.

It was Thomas Jefferson who said, in 1798, "Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government . . . whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

In other words, the federal government's powers are few and defined; state, by comparison, was supposed to be numerous and plentiful.

But that was then. It certainly isn't that way these days, as states have increasingly fallen under the control over a growing federal Leviathan and its multitude of bloated bureaucracies.

Well, the time seems to have come when states - some of them at least - appear to have had enough. Take Virginia.

A group from the Commonwealth has filed suit in federal court alleging that one of the crown jewels of federal bureaucracy - the Environmental Protection Agency - has stepped way over the central government's constitutionally limited powers with new rules governing, of all things, rain water run-off.

According to the complaint filed by the Occoquan Watershed Coalition, the EPA violated the Tenth Amendment by imposing a "coercive ... unfunded mandate" on a watershed, "to implement a federal program - one not imposed by or under Virginia Law."

New standards equals hundreds of millions of dollars

The group says the EPA's rules unconstitutionally force Virginia to control the amount of rainwater allowed to flow into a stream in Fairfax County. The mandate seeks to protect benthic organisms - the benthic zone is the lowest area of a body of water, along the bottom - that the EPA says are killed off by the sediment-rich rainwater.

The suit was filed on behalf of the coalition by the Free-Market Environmental Law Clinic, which estimated the cost of the EPA's mandate at about $225 million.

"If the county is forced to spend that much money on a single watershed, it will mean not one of the other 29 watersheds in the county will receive funds for their restoration, including the eight watersheds in the OWC's territory," says the law clinic, on its Web site.

The suit says a small portion of Accotink Creek, with about 120 miles of shoreline, is "impaired," under the EPA rules, because soil along an 8.1-mile stretch has eroded and, when it rains, the soil runs off into the creek.

"To address this problem, Fairfax County would normally place rock against those parts of the stream bank that erode the most, and take other actions that fit within its budget," says an analysis of the case by the American Tradition Institute. "Virginia and Fairfax County have been working together to address Accotink Creek, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has rejected those efforts and in their place adopted a new water quantity standard that limits the total amount of water that can be discharged into the stream each day."

That "standard" is what is being challenged by OWC.

Trampling the sovereignty of the state

"The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that this kind of coercive federal mandate on a local government is simply not allowed," said Dr. David W. Schnare, Director of the FME Law Clinic.

"Because Fairfax County and the Commonwealth of Virginia refused to raise this constitutional challenge in their recent suit against EPA, the citizens directly harmed by EPA are the only ones left to protect the rights and privileges of the Commonwealth and FME Law is representing their interests," he said. "Without that assistance, the serious problems in 29 watersheds will go unaddressed while EPA asks Fairfax County to empty its coffers in a vain effort to fix a problem of minor significance."

In its suit, the OWC claims the Clean Water Act gives EPA the authority to regulate sediments flowing into streams via pipes or point sources, but gives states and local governments the power to manage non-point sources.

"This is the kind of coercive commandeering the Constitution does not authorize - commandeering that tramples the sovereignty of the state and local governments," the complaint says.

 
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cuccinelli-epa-lawsuit-virginia/2013/01...

Seems the courts think it was a pretty good piece.

But hey what did the founding fathers like Jefferson know about states rights and the importance of them and controlling the Federal authority. I mean it is not like they fought a war and created a nation under a declaration of independence to escape an overbearing over reaching govt. I mean really what is that piece of paper they wrote setting up the limits and checks and balances of govt and ensuring private citizens and states rights  unencumbered by excessive govt even worth nowadays. Really do you think a 200 year old document is really even relevant anymore?

eyexer Said:
 

gst Said:

eyexer Said:
 

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said

What does that have to do with conserving some of ND gabe?  So because some group talked to another group, that means we are responsible for spanking them?  I think that's what you are saying.  Are you saying this just for your personal gain gabe?

You seem to have NO problem telling our state how to manage itself so what is your deal with others having their opinion? 

If you really can not see the possible negative consequences of inviting orgs like the ones filing these lawsuits and collaborating with th EPA on how our state should manage our state  into our state west I am not going to invest further time into explaining it to you.

And west I support BOTH yours and my ability to have a say in telling our state to manage itself, I simply do not think out of state orgs should. Pretty simple really.

Try dropping the personal crap EVERY post west and actually discuss an issue for once.

You will not allow it gabe with your self serving, arrogant, and condescending nature.  Many have tried.  I don't know why you even bother to ask people to "discuss" with you anymore?

West, I have to break it to you, it really won;t "bother" me much if you don;t "bother" anymore!

Yet you STILL can't help responding!hahahaha  Get over yourself there almighty and just one time realize that other people have interests that are not the same as yours and they just might want to protect those interests.  This really has become a case of you vs. the sportsman and I'm convinced that more and more are seeing it that way.  Like I have said before, thank god the majority of the farmers/ranchers in this state don't think like you!

I've said this numerous times and I'll stick to it.  This measure is all about hunting access.  Farmers have tied up the land and this is the result.  And now they're screaming the loudest.  They only have themselves to blame if this measure passes.

So flood control for Fargo is about hunting access? Cause that is what their selling this measure as. But then how else would you get a high percentage of Fargo citizens ot vote for their share of the oil and gas tax revenues!

that's what happens when you try to play mind games, people think your talking about something other than what your talking about.  

johnr Said:

WormWiggler Said:

Stop the Insanity

johnr Said:

gst Said:
It's all good, try reading this and let us know what you think.

http://www.naturalnews.com/036700_Tenth_Amendment_EPA_rainwater.html#

(NaturalNews) The Tenth Amendment has been described by some constitutional scholars and experts as the Bill of Rights' catch-all amendment, in that it was written into the nation's founding document as a way to remind future federal lawmakers and officials that unless the Constitution explicitly allows it or bans it, states - as sovereign entities - are free to do as they please.

It was Thomas Jefferson who said, in 1798, "Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government . . . whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

In other words, the federal government's powers are few and defined; state, by comparison, was supposed to be numerous and plentiful.

But that was then. It certainly isn't that way these days, as states have increasingly fallen under the control over a growing federal Leviathan and its multitude of bloated bureaucracies.

Well, the time seems to have come when states - some of them at least - appear to have had enough. Take Virginia.

A group from the Commonwealth has filed suit in federal court alleging that one of the crown jewels of federal bureaucracy - the Environmental Protection Agency - has stepped way over the central government's constitutionally limited powers with new rules governing, of all things, rain water run-off.

According to the complaint filed by the Occoquan Watershed Coalition, the EPA violated the Tenth Amendment by imposing a "coercive ... unfunded mandate" on a watershed, "to implement a federal program - one not imposed by or under Virginia Law."

New standards equals hundreds of millions of dollars

The group says the EPA's rules unconstitutionally force Virginia to control the amount of rainwater allowed to flow into a stream in Fairfax County. The mandate seeks to protect benthic organisms - the benthic zone is the lowest area of a body of water, along the bottom - that the EPA says are killed off by the sediment-rich rainwater.

The suit was filed on behalf of the coalition by the Free-Market Environmental Law Clinic, which estimated the cost of the EPA's mandate at about $225 million.

"If the county is forced to spend that much money on a single watershed, it will mean not one of the other 29 watersheds in the county will receive funds for their restoration, including the eight watersheds in the OWC's territory," says the law clinic, on its Web site.

The suit says a small portion of Accotink Creek, with about 120 miles of shoreline, is "impaired," under the EPA rules, because soil along an 8.1-mile stretch has eroded and, when it rains, the soil runs off into the creek.

"To address this problem, Fairfax County would normally place rock against those parts of the stream bank that erode the most, and take other actions that fit within its budget," says an analysis of the case by the American Tradition Institute. "Virginia and Fairfax County have been working together to address Accotink Creek, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has rejected those efforts and in their place adopted a new water quantity standard that limits the total amount of water that can be discharged into the stream each day."

That "standard" is what is being challenged by OWC.

Trampling the sovereignty of the state

"The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that this kind of coercive federal mandate on a local government is simply not allowed," said Dr. David W. Schnare, Director of the FME Law Clinic.

"Because Fairfax County and the Commonwealth of Virginia refused to raise this constitutional challenge in their recent suit against EPA, the citizens directly harmed by EPA are the only ones left to protect the rights and privileges of the Commonwealth and FME Law is representing their interests," he said. "Without that assistance, the serious problems in 29 watersheds will go unaddressed while EPA asks Fairfax County to empty its coffers in a vain effort to fix a problem of minor significance."

In its suit, the OWC claims the Clean Water Act gives EPA the authority to regulate sediments flowing into streams via pipes or point sources, but gives states and local governments the power to manage non-point sources.

"This is the kind of coercive commandeering the Constitution does not authorize - commandeering that tramples the sovereignty of the state and local governments," the complaint says.

 
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cuccinelli-epa-lawsuit-virginia/2013/01...

Seems the courts think it was a pretty good piece.

But hey what did the founding fathers like Jefferson know about states rights and the importance of them and controlling the Federal authority. I mean it is not like they fought a war and created a nation under a declaration of independence to escape an overbearing over reaching govt. I mean really what is that piece of paper they wrote setting up the limits and checks and balances of govt and ensuring private citizens and states rights  unencumbered by excessive govt even worth nowadays. Really do you think a 200 year old document is really even relevant anymore?

eyexer Said:
 

gst Said:

eyexer Said:
 

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said

What does that have to do with conserving some of ND gabe?  So because some group talked to another group, that means we are responsible for spanking them?  I think that's what you are saying.  Are you saying this just for your personal gain gabe?

You seem to have NO problem telling our state how to manage itself so what is your deal with others having their opinion? 

If you really can not see the possible negative consequences of inviting orgs like the ones filing these lawsuits and collaborating with th EPA on how our state should manage our state  into our state west I am not going to invest further time into explaining it to you.

And west I support BOTH yours and my ability to have a say in telling our state to manage itself, I simply do not think out of state orgs should. Pretty simple really.

Try dropping the personal crap EVERY post west and actually discuss an issue for once.

You will not allow it gabe with your self serving, arrogant, and condescending nature.  Many have tried.  I don't know why you even bother to ask people to "discuss" with you anymore?

West, I have to break it to you, it really won;t "bother" me much if you don;t "bother" anymore!

Yet you STILL can't help responding!hahahaha  Get over yourself there almighty and just one time realize that other people have interests that are not the same as yours and they just might want to protect those interests.  This really has become a case of you vs. the sportsman and I'm convinced that more and more are seeing it that way.  Like I have said before, thank god the majority of the farmers/ranchers in this state don't think like you!

I've said this numerous times and I'll stick to it.  This measure is all about hunting access.  Farmers have tied up the land and this is the result.  And now they're screaming the loudest.  They only have themselves to blame if this measure passes.

So flood control for Fargo is about hunting access? Cause that is what their selling this measure as. But then how else would you get a high percentage of Fargo citizens ot vote for their share of the oil and gas tax revenues!

that's what happens when you try to play mind games, people think your talking about something other than what your talking about.  

johnr Said:

WormWiggler Said:

Stop the Insanity

johnr Said:

gst Said:
It's all good, try reading this and let us know what you think.

http://www.naturalnews.com/036700_Tenth_Amendment_EPA_rainwater.html#

(NaturalNews) The Tenth Amendment has been described by some constitutional scholars and experts as the Bill of Rights' catch-all amendment, in that it was written into the nation's founding document as a way to remind future federal lawmakers and officials that unless the Constitution explicitly allows it or bans it, states - as sovereign entities - are free to do as they please.

It was Thomas Jefferson who said, in 1798, "Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government . . . whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

In other words, the federal government's powers are few and defined; state, by comparison, was supposed to be numerous and plentiful.

But that was then. It certainly isn't that way these days, as states have increasingly fallen under the control over a growing federal Leviathan and its multitude of bloated bureaucracies.

Well, the time seems to have come when states - some of them at least - appear to have had enough. Take Virginia.

A group from the Commonwealth has filed suit in federal court alleging that one of the crown jewels of federal bureaucracy - the Environmental Protection Agency - has stepped way over the central government's constitutionally limited powers with new rules governing, of all things, rain water run-off.

According to the complaint filed by the Occoquan Watershed Coalition, the EPA violated the Tenth Amendment by imposing a "coercive ... unfunded mandate" on a watershed, "to implement a federal program - one not imposed by or under Virginia Law."

New standards equals hundreds of millions of dollars

The group says the EPA's rules unconstitutionally force Virginia to control the amount of rainwater allowed to flow into a stream in Fairfax County. The mandate seeks to protect benthic organisms - the benthic zone is the lowest area of a body of water, along the bottom - that the EPA says are killed off by the sediment-rich rainwater.

The suit was filed on behalf of the coalition by the Free-Market Environmental Law Clinic, which estimated the cost of the EPA's mandate at about $225 million.

"If the county is forced to spend that much money on a single watershed, it will mean not one of the other 29 watersheds in the county will receive funds for their restoration, including the eight watersheds in the OWC's territory," says the law clinic, on its Web site.

The suit says a small portion of Accotink Creek, with about 120 miles of shoreline, is "impaired," under the EPA rules, because soil along an 8.1-mile stretch has eroded and, when it rains, the soil runs off into the creek.

"To address this problem, Fairfax County would normally place rock against those parts of the stream bank that erode the most, and take other actions that fit within its budget," says an analysis of the case by the American Tradition Institute. "Virginia and Fairfax County have been working together to address Accotink Creek, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has rejected those efforts and in their place adopted a new water quantity standard that limits the total amount of water that can be discharged into the stream each day."

That "standard" is what is being challenged by OWC.

Trampling the sovereignty of the state

"The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that this kind of coercive federal mandate on a local government is simply not allowed," said Dr. David W. Schnare, Director of the FME Law Clinic.

"Because Fairfax County and the Commonwealth of Virginia refused to raise this constitutional challenge in their recent suit against EPA, the citizens directly harmed by EPA are the only ones left to protect the rights and privileges of the Commonwealth and FME Law is representing their interests," he said. "Without that assistance, the serious problems in 29 watersheds will go unaddressed while EPA asks Fairfax County to empty its coffers in a vain effort to fix a problem of minor significance."

In its suit, the OWC claims the Clean Water Act gives EPA the authority to regulate sediments flowing into streams via pipes or point sources, but gives states and local governments the power to manage non-point sources.

"This is the kind of coercive commandeering the Constitution does not authorize - commandeering that tramples the sovereignty of the state and local governments," the complaint says.

 
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cuccinelli-epa-lawsuit-virginia/2013/01...

Seems the courts think it was a pretty good piece.

But hey what did the founding fathers like Jefferson know about states rights and the importance of them and controlling the Federal authority. I mean it is not like they fought a war and created a nation under a declaration of independence to escape an overbearing over reaching govt. I mean really what is that piece of paper they wrote setting up the limits and checks and balances of govt and ensuring private citizens and states rights  unencumbered by excessive govt even worth nowadays. Really do you think a 200 year old document is really even relevant anymore?

eyexer Said:
 

gst Said:

eyexer Said:
 

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said

What does that have to do with conserving some of ND gabe?  So because some group talked to another group, that means we are responsible for spanking them?  I think that's what you are saying.  Are you saying this just for your personal gain gabe?

You seem to have NO problem telling our state how to manage itself so what is your deal with others having their opinion? 

If you really can not see the possible negative consequences of inviting orgs like the ones filing these lawsuits and collaborating with th EPA on how our state should manage our state  into our state west I am not going to invest further time into explaining it to you.

And west I support BOTH yours and my ability to have a say in telling our state to manage itself, I simply do not think out of state orgs should. Pretty simple really.

Try dropping the personal crap EVERY post west and actually discuss an issue for once.

You will not allow it gabe with your self serving, arrogant, and condescending nature.  Many have tried.  I don't know why you even bother to ask people to "discuss" with you anymore?

West, I have to break it to you, it really won;t "bother" me much if you don;t "bother" anymore!

Yet you STILL can't help responding!hahahaha  Get over yourself there almighty and just one time realize that other people have interests that are not the same as yours and they just might want to protect those interests.  This really has become a case of you vs. the sportsman and I'm convinced that more and more are seeing it that way.  Like I have said before, thank god the majority of the farmers/ranchers in this state don't think like you!

I've said this numerous times and I'll stick to it.  This measure is all about hunting access.  Farmers have tied up the land and this is the result.  And now they're screaming the loudest.  They only have themselves to blame if this measure passes.

So flood control for Fargo is about hunting access? Cause that is what their selling this measure as. But then how else would you get a high percentage of Fargo citizens ot vote for their share of the oil and gas tax revenues!

that's what happens when you try to play mind games, people think your talking about something other than what your talking about.  

johnr Said:

                                                                                                                         

WormWiggler's picture
WormWiggler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 8/29/09

WormWiggler Said:

WormWiggler Said:

Stop the Insanity

johnr Said:

gst Said:
It's all good, try reading this and let us know what you think.

http://www.naturalnews.com/036700_Tenth_Amendment_EPA_rainwater.html#

(NaturalNews) The Tenth Amendment has been described by some constitutional scholars and experts as the Bill of Rights' catch-all amendment, in that it was written into the nation's founding document as a way to remind future federal lawmakers and officials that unless the Constitution explicitly allows it or bans it, states - as sovereign entities - are free to do as they please.

It was Thomas Jefferson who said, in 1798, "Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government . . . whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

In other words, the federal government's powers are few and defined; state, by comparison, was supposed to be numerous and plentiful.

But that was then. It certainly isn't that way these days, as states have increasingly fallen under the control over a growing federal Leviathan and its multitude of bloated bureaucracies.

Well, the time seems to have come when states - some of them at least - appear to have had enough. Take Virginia.

A group from the Commonwealth has filed suit in federal court alleging that one of the crown jewels of federal bureaucracy - the Environmental Protection Agency - has stepped way over the central government's constitutionally limited powers with new rules governing, of all things, rain water run-off.

According to the complaint filed by the Occoquan Watershed Coalition, the EPA violated the Tenth Amendment by imposing a "coercive ... unfunded mandate" on a watershed, "to implement a federal program - one not imposed by or under Virginia Law."

New standards equals hundreds of millions of dollars

The group says the EPA's rules unconstitutionally force Virginia to control the amount of rainwater allowed to flow into a stream in Fairfax County. The mandate seeks to protect benthic organisms - the benthic zone is the lowest area of a body of water, along the bottom - that the EPA says are killed off by the sediment-rich rainwater.

The suit was filed on behalf of the coalition by the Free-Market Environmental Law Clinic, which estimated the cost of the EPA's mandate at about $225 million.

"If the county is forced to spend that much money on a single watershed, it will mean not one of the other 29 watersheds in the county will receive funds for their restoration, including the eight watersheds in the OWC's territory," says the law clinic, on its Web site.

The suit says a small portion of Accotink Creek, with about 120 miles of shoreline, is "impaired," under the EPA rules, because soil along an 8.1-mile stretch has eroded and, when it rains, the soil runs off into the creek.

"To address this problem, Fairfax County would normally place rock against those parts of the stream bank that erode the most, and take other actions that fit within its budget," says an analysis of the case by the American Tradition Institute. "Virginia and Fairfax County have been working together to address Accotink Creek, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has rejected those efforts and in their place adopted a new water quantity standard that limits the total amount of water that can be discharged into the stream each day."

That "standard" is what is being challenged by OWC.

Trampling the sovereignty of the state

"The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that this kind of coercive federal mandate on a local government is simply not allowed," said Dr. David W. Schnare, Director of the FME Law Clinic.

"Because Fairfax County and the Commonwealth of Virginia refused to raise this constitutional challenge in their recent suit against EPA, the citizens directly harmed by EPA are the only ones left to protect the rights and privileges of the Commonwealth and FME Law is representing their interests," he said. "Without that assistance, the serious problems in 29 watersheds will go unaddressed while EPA asks Fairfax County to empty its coffers in a vain effort to fix a problem of minor significance."

In its suit, the OWC claims the Clean Water Act gives EPA the authority to regulate sediments flowing into streams via pipes or point sources, but gives states and local governments the power to manage non-point sources.

"This is the kind of coercive commandeering the Constitution does not authorize - commandeering that tramples the sovereignty of the state and local governments," the complaint says.

 
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cuccinelli-epa-lawsuit-virginia/2013/01...

Seems the courts think it was a pretty good piece.

But hey what did the founding fathers like Jefferson know about states rights and the importance of them and controlling the Federal authority. I mean it is not like they fought a war and created a nation under a declaration of independence to escape an overbearing over reaching govt. I mean really what is that piece of paper they wrote setting up the limits and checks and balances of govt and ensuring private citizens and states rights  unencumbered by excessive govt even worth nowadays. Really do you think a 200 year old document is really even relevant anymore?

eyexer Said:
 

gst Said:

eyexer Said:
 

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said

What does that have to do with conserving some of ND gabe?  So because some group talked to another group, that means we are responsible for spanking them?  I think that's what you are saying.  Are you saying this just for your personal gain gabe?

You seem to have NO problem telling our state how to manage itself so what is your deal with others having their opinion? 

If you really can not see the possible negative consequences of inviting orgs like the ones filing these lawsuits and collaborating with th EPA on how our state should manage our state  into our state west I am not going to invest further time into explaining it to you.

And west I support BOTH yours and my ability to have a say in telling our state to manage itself, I simply do not think out of state orgs should. Pretty simple really.

Try dropping the personal crap EVERY post west and actually discuss an issue for once.

You will not allow it gabe with your self serving, arrogant, and condescending nature.  Many have tried.  I don't know why you even bother to ask people to "discuss" with you anymore?

West, I have to break it to you, it really won;t "bother" me much if you don;t "bother" anymore!

Yet you STILL can't help responding!hahahaha  Get over yourself there almighty and just one time realize that other people have interests that are not the same as yours and they just might want to protect those interests.  This really has become a case of you vs. the sportsman and I'm convinced that more and more are seeing it that way.  Like I have said before, thank god the majority of the farmers/ranchers in this state don't think like you!

I've said this numerous times and I'll stick to it.  This measure is all about hunting access.  Farmers have tied up the land and this is the result.  And now they're screaming the loudest.  They only have themselves to blame if this measure passes.

So flood control for Fargo is about hunting access? Cause that is what their selling this measure as. But then how else would you get a high percentage of Fargo citizens ot vote for their share of the oil and gas tax revenues!

that's what happens when you try to play mind games, people think your talking about something other than what your talking about.  

johnr Said:

WormWiggler Said:

Stop the Insanity

johnr Said:

gst Said:
It's all good, try reading this and let us know what you think.

http://www.naturalnews.com/036700_Tenth_Amendment_EPA_rainwater.html#

(NaturalNews) The Tenth Amendment has been described by some constitutional scholars and experts as the Bill of Rights' catch-all amendment, in that it was written into the nation's founding document as a way to remind future federal lawmakers and officials that unless the Constitution explicitly allows it or bans it, states - as sovereign entities - are free to do as they please.

It was Thomas Jefferson who said, in 1798, "Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government . . . whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

In other words, the federal government's powers are few and defined; state, by comparison, was supposed to be numerous and plentiful.

But that was then. It certainly isn't that way these days, as states have increasingly fallen under the control over a growing federal Leviathan and its multitude of bloated bureaucracies.

Well, the time seems to have come when states - some of them at least - appear to have had enough. Take Virginia.

A group from the Commonwealth has filed suit in federal court alleging that one of the crown jewels of federal bureaucracy - the Environmental Protection Agency - has stepped way over the central government's constitutionally limited powers with new rules governing, of all things, rain water run-off.

According to the complaint filed by the Occoquan Watershed Coalition, the EPA violated the Tenth Amendment by imposing a "coercive ... unfunded mandate" on a watershed, "to implement a federal program - one not imposed by or under Virginia Law."

New standards equals hundreds of millions of dollars

The group says the EPA's rules unconstitutionally force Virginia to control the amount of rainwater allowed to flow into a stream in Fairfax County. The mandate seeks to protect benthic organisms - the benthic zone is the lowest area of a body of water, along the bottom - that the EPA says are killed off by the sediment-rich rainwater.

The suit was filed on behalf of the coalition by the Free-Market Environmental Law Clinic, which estimated the cost of the EPA's mandate at about $225 million.

"If the county is forced to spend that much money on a single watershed, it will mean not one of the other 29 watersheds in the county will receive funds for their restoration, including the eight watersheds in the OWC's territory," says the law clinic, on its Web site.

The suit says a small portion of Accotink Creek, with about 120 miles of shoreline, is "impaired," under the EPA rules, because soil along an 8.1-mile stretch has eroded and, when it rains, the soil runs off into the creek.

"To address this problem, Fairfax County would normally place rock against those parts of the stream bank that erode the most, and take other actions that fit within its budget," says an analysis of the case by the American Tradition Institute. "Virginia and Fairfax County have been working together to address Accotink Creek, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has rejected those efforts and in their place adopted a new water quantity standard that limits the total amount of water that can be discharged into the stream each day."

That "standard" is what is being challenged by OWC.

Trampling the sovereignty of the state

"The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that this kind of coercive federal mandate on a local government is simply not allowed," said Dr. David W. Schnare, Director of the FME Law Clinic.

"Because Fairfax County and the Commonwealth of Virginia refused to raise this constitutional challenge in their recent suit against EPA, the citizens directly harmed by EPA are the only ones left to protect the rights and privileges of the Commonwealth and FME Law is representing their interests," he said. "Without that assistance, the serious problems in 29 watersheds will go unaddressed while EPA asks Fairfax County to empty its coffers in a vain effort to fix a problem of minor significance."

In its suit, the OWC claims the Clean Water Act gives EPA the authority to regulate sediments flowing into streams via pipes or point sources, but gives states and local governments the power to manage non-point sources.

"This is the kind of coercive commandeering the Constitution does not authorize - commandeering that tramples the sovereignty of the state and local governments," the complaint says.

 
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cuccinelli-epa-lawsuit-virginia/2013/01...

Seems the courts think it was a pretty good piece.

But hey what did the founding fathers like Jefferson know about states rights and the importance of them and controlling the Federal authority. I mean it is not like they fought a war and created a nation under a declaration of independence to escape an overbearing over reaching govt. I mean really what is that piece of paper they wrote setting up the limits and checks and balances of govt and ensuring private citizens and states rights  unencumbered by excessive govt even worth nowadays. Really do you think a 200 year old document is really even relevant anymore?

eyexer Said:
 

gst Said:

eyexer Said:
 

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said

What does that have to do with conserving some of ND gabe?  So because some group talked to another group, that means we are responsible for spanking them?  I think that's what you are saying.  Are you saying this just for your personal gain gabe?

You seem to have NO problem telling our state how to manage itself so what is your deal with others having their opinion? 

If you really can not see the possible negative consequences of inviting orgs like the ones filing these lawsuits and collaborating with th EPA on how our state should manage our state  into our state west I am not going to invest further time into explaining it to you.

And west I support BOTH yours and my ability to have a say in telling our state to manage itself, I simply do not think out of state orgs should. Pretty simple really.

Try dropping the personal crap EVERY post west and actually discuss an issue for once.

You will not allow it gabe with your self serving, arrogant, and condescending nature.  Many have tried.  I don't know why you even bother to ask people to "discuss" with you anymore?

West, I have to break it to you, it really won;t "bother" me much if you don;t "bother" anymore!

Yet you STILL can't help responding!hahahaha  Get over yourself there almighty and just one time realize that other people have interests that are not the same as yours and they just might want to protect those interests.  This really has become a case of you vs. the sportsman and I'm convinced that more and more are seeing it that way.  Like I have said before, thank god the majority of the farmers/ranchers in this state don't think like you!

I've said this numerous times and I'll stick to it.  This measure is all about hunting access.  Farmers have tied up the land and this is the result.  And now they're screaming the loudest.  They only have themselves to blame if this measure passes.

So flood control for Fargo is about hunting access? Cause that is what their selling this measure as. But then how else would you get a high percentage of Fargo citizens ot vote for their share of the oil and gas tax revenues!

that's what happens when you try to play mind games, people think your talking about something other than what your talking about.  

johnr Said:

WormWiggler Said:

Stop the Insanity

johnr Said:

gst Said:
It's all good, try reading this and let us know what you think.

http://www.naturalnews.com/036700_Tenth_Amendment_EPA_rainwater.html#

(NaturalNews) The Tenth Amendment has been described by some constitutional scholars and experts as the Bill of Rights' catch-all amendment, in that it was written into the nation's founding document as a way to remind future federal lawmakers and officials that unless the Constitution explicitly allows it or bans it, states - as sovereign entities - are free to do as they please.

It was Thomas Jefferson who said, in 1798, "Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government . . . whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

In other words, the federal government's powers are few and defined; state, by comparison, was supposed to be numerous and plentiful.

But that was then. It certainly isn't that way these days, as states have increasingly fallen under the control over a growing federal Leviathan and its multitude of bloated bureaucracies.

Well, the time seems to have come when states - some of them at least - appear to have had enough. Take Virginia.

A group from the Commonwealth has filed suit in federal court alleging that one of the crown jewels of federal bureaucracy - the Environmental Protection Agency - has stepped way over the central government's constitutionally limited powers with new rules governing, of all things, rain water run-off.

According to the complaint filed by the Occoquan Watershed Coalition, the EPA violated the Tenth Amendment by imposing a "coercive ... unfunded mandate" on a watershed, "to implement a federal program - one not imposed by or under Virginia Law."

New standards equals hundreds of millions of dollars

The group says the EPA's rules unconstitutionally force Virginia to control the amount of rainwater allowed to flow into a stream in Fairfax County. The mandate seeks to protect benthic organisms - the benthic zone is the lowest area of a body of water, along the bottom - that the EPA says are killed off by the sediment-rich rainwater.

The suit was filed on behalf of the coalition by the Free-Market Environmental Law Clinic, which estimated the cost of the EPA's mandate at about $225 million.

"If the county is forced to spend that much money on a single watershed, it will mean not one of the other 29 watersheds in the county will receive funds for their restoration, including the eight watersheds in the OWC's territory," says the law clinic, on its Web site.

The suit says a small portion of Accotink Creek, with about 120 miles of shoreline, is "impaired," under the EPA rules, because soil along an 8.1-mile stretch has eroded and, when it rains, the soil runs off into the creek.

"To address this problem, Fairfax County would normally place rock against those parts of the stream bank that erode the most, and take other actions that fit within its budget," says an analysis of the case by the American Tradition Institute. "Virginia and Fairfax County have been working together to address Accotink Creek, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has rejected those efforts and in their place adopted a new water quantity standard that limits the total amount of water that can be discharged into the stream each day."

That "standard" is what is being challenged by OWC.

Trampling the sovereignty of the state

"The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that this kind of coercive federal mandate on a local government is simply not allowed," said Dr. David W. Schnare, Director of the FME Law Clinic.

"Because Fairfax County and the Commonwealth of Virginia refused to raise this constitutional challenge in their recent suit against EPA, the citizens directly harmed by EPA are the only ones left to protect the rights and privileges of the Commonwealth and FME Law is representing their interests," he said. "Without that assistance, the serious problems in 29 watersheds will go unaddressed while EPA asks Fairfax County to empty its coffers in a vain effort to fix a problem of minor significance."

In its suit, the OWC claims the Clean Water Act gives EPA the authority to regulate sediments flowing into streams via pipes or point sources, but gives states and local governments the power to manage non-point sources.

"This is the kind of coercive commandeering the Constitution does not authorize - commandeering that tramples the sovereignty of the state and local governments," the complaint says.

 
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cuccinelli-epa-lawsuit-virginia/2013/01...

Seems the courts think it was a pretty good piece.

But hey what did the founding fathers like Jefferson know about states rights and the importance of them and controlling the Federal authority. I mean it is not like they fought a war and created a nation under a declaration of independence to escape an overbearing over reaching govt. I mean really what is that piece of paper they wrote setting up the limits and checks and balances of govt and ensuring private citizens and states rights  unencumbered by excessive govt even worth nowadays. Really do you think a 200 year old document is really even relevant anymore?

eyexer Said:
 

gst Said:

eyexer Said:
 

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said

What does that have to do with conserving some of ND gabe?  So because some group talked to another group, that means we are responsible for spanking them?  I think that's what you are saying.  Are you saying this just for your personal gain gabe?

You seem to have NO problem telling our state how to manage itself so what is your deal with others having their opinion? 

If you really can not see the possible negative consequences of inviting orgs like the ones filing these lawsuits and collaborating with th EPA on how our state should manage our state  into our state west I am not going to invest further time into explaining it to you.

And west I support BOTH yours and my ability to have a say in telling our state to manage itself, I simply do not think out of state orgs should. Pretty simple really.

Try dropping the personal crap EVERY post west and actually discuss an issue for once.

You will not allow it gabe with your self serving, arrogant, and condescending nature.  Many have tried.  I don't know why you even bother to ask people to "discuss" with you anymore?

West, I have to break it to you, it really won;t "bother" me much if you don;t "bother" anymore!

Yet you STILL can't help responding!hahahaha  Get over yourself there almighty and just one time realize that other people have interests that are not the same as yours and they just might want to protect those interests.  This really has become a case of you vs. the sportsman and I'm convinced that more and more are seeing it that way.  Like I have said before, thank god the majority of the farmers/ranchers in this state don't think like you!

I've said this numerous times and I'll stick to it.  This measure is all about hunting access.  Farmers have tied up the land and this is the result.  And now they're screaming the loudest.  They only have themselves to blame if this measure passes.

So flood control for Fargo is about hunting access? Cause that is what their selling this measure as. But then how else would you get a high percentage of Fargo citizens ot vote for their share of the oil and gas tax revenues!

that's what happens when you try to play mind games, people think your talking about something other than what your talking about.  

johnr Said:

WormWiggler Said:

WormWiggler Said:

Stop the Insanity

johnr Said:

gst Said:
It's all good, try reading this and let us know what you think.

http://www.naturalnews.com/036700_Tenth_Amendment_EPA_rainwater.html#

(NaturalNews) The Tenth Amendment has been described by some constitutional scholars and experts as the Bill of Rights' catch-all amendment, in that it was written into the nation's founding document as a way to remind future federal lawmakers and officials that unless the Constitution explicitly allows it or bans it, states - as sovereign entities - are free to do as they please.

It was Thomas Jefferson who said, in 1798, "Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government . . . whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

In other words, the federal government's powers are few and defined; state, by comparison, was supposed to be numerous and plentiful.

But that was then. It certainly isn't that way these days, as states have increasingly fallen under the control over a growing federal Leviathan and its multitude of bloated bureaucracies.

Well, the time seems to have come when states - some of them at least - appear to have had enough. Take Virginia.

A group from the Commonwealth has filed suit in federal court alleging that one of the crown jewels of federal bureaucracy - the Environmental Protection Agency - has stepped way over the central government's constitutionally limited powers with new rules governing, of all things, rain water run-off.

According to the complaint filed by the Occoquan Watershed Coalition, the EPA violated the Tenth Amendment by imposing a "coercive ... unfunded mandate" on a watershed, "to implement a federal program - one not imposed by or under Virginia Law."

New standards equals hundreds of millions of dollars

The group says the EPA's rules unconstitutionally force Virginia to control the amount of rainwater allowed to flow into a stream in Fairfax County. The mandate seeks to protect benthic organisms - the benthic zone is the lowest area of a body of water, along the bottom - that the EPA says are killed off by the sediment-rich rainwater.

The suit was filed on behalf of the coalition by the Free-Market Environmental Law Clinic, which estimated the cost of the EPA's mandate at about $225 million.

"If the county is forced to spend that much money on a single watershed, it will mean not one of the other 29 watersheds in the county will receive funds for their restoration, including the eight watersheds in the OWC's territory," says the law clinic, on its Web site.

The suit says a small portion of Accotink Creek, with about 120 miles of shoreline, is "impaired," under the EPA rules, because soil along an 8.1-mile stretch has eroded and, when it rains, the soil runs off into the creek.

"To address this problem, Fairfax County would normally place rock against those parts of the stream bank that erode the most, and take other actions that fit within its budget," says an analysis of the case by the American Tradition Institute. "Virginia and Fairfax County have been working together to address Accotink Creek, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has rejected those efforts and in their place adopted a new water quantity standard that limits the total amount of water that can be discharged into the stream each day."

That "standard" is what is being challenged by OWC.

Trampling the sovereignty of the state

"The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that this kind of coercive federal mandate on a local government is simply not allowed," said Dr. David W. Schnare, Director of the FME Law Clinic.

"Because Fairfax County and the Commonwealth of Virginia refused to raise this constitutional challenge in their recent suit against EPA, the citizens directly harmed by EPA are the only ones left to protect the rights and privileges of the Commonwealth and FME Law is representing their interests," he said. "Without that assistance, the serious problems in 29 watersheds will go unaddressed while EPA asks Fairfax County to empty its coffers in a vain effort to fix a problem of minor significance."

In its suit, the OWC claims the Clean Water Act gives EPA the authority to regulate sediments flowing into streams via pipes or point sources, but gives states and local governments the power to manage non-point sources.

"This is the kind of coercive commandeering the Constitution does not authorize - commandeering that tramples the sovereignty of the state and local governments," the complaint says.

 
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cuccinelli-epa-lawsuit-virginia/2013/01...

Seems the courts think it was a pretty good piece.

But hey what did the founding fathers like Jefferson know about states rights and the importance of them and controlling the Federal authority. I mean it is not like they fought a war and created a nation under a declaration of independence to escape an overbearing over reaching govt. I mean really what is that piece of paper they wrote setting up the limits and checks and balances of govt and ensuring private citizens and states rights  unencumbered by excessive govt even worth nowadays. Really do you think a 200 year old document is really even relevant anymore?

eyexer Said:
 

gst Said:

eyexer Said:
 

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said

What does that have to do with conserving some of ND gabe?  So because some group talked to another group, that means we are responsible for spanking them?  I think that's what you are saying.  Are you saying this just for your personal gain gabe?

You seem to have NO problem telling our state how to manage itself so what is your deal with others having their opinion? 

If you really can not see the possible negative consequences of inviting orgs like the ones filing these lawsuits and collaborating with th EPA on how our state should manage our state  into our state west I am not going to invest further time into explaining it to you.

And west I support BOTH yours and my ability to have a say in telling our state to manage itself, I simply do not think out of state orgs should. Pretty simple really.

Try dropping the personal crap EVERY post west and actually discuss an issue for once.

You will not allow it gabe with your self serving, arrogant, and condescending nature.  Many have tried.  I don't know why you even bother to ask people to "discuss" with you anymore?

West, I have to break it to you, it really won;t "bother" me much if you don;t "bother" anymore!

Yet you STILL can't help responding!hahahaha  Get over yourself there almighty and just one time realize that other people have interests that are not the same as yours and they just might want to protect those interests.  This really has become a case of you vs. the sportsman and I'm convinced that more and more are seeing it that way.  Like I have said before, thank god the majority of the farmers/ranchers in this state don't think like you!

I've said this numerous times and I'll stick to it.  This measure is all about hunting access.  Farmers have tied up the land and this is the result.  And now they're screaming the loudest.  They only have themselves to blame if this measure passes.

So flood control for Fargo is about hunting access? Cause that is what their selling this measure as. But then how else would you get a high percentage of Fargo citizens ot vote for their share of the oil and gas tax revenues!

that's what happens when you try to play mind games, people think your talking about something other than what your talking about.  

johnr Said:

WormWiggler Said:

Stop the Insanity

johnr Said:

gst Said:
It's all good, try reading this and let us know what you think.

http://www.naturalnews.com/036700_Tenth_Amendment_EPA_rainwater.html#

(NaturalNews) The Tenth Amendment has been described by some constitutional scholars and experts as the Bill of Rights' catch-all amendment, in that it was written into the nation's founding document as a way to remind future federal lawmakers and officials that unless the Constitution explicitly allows it or bans it, states - as sovereign entities - are free to do as they please.

It was Thomas Jefferson who said, in 1798, "Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government . . . whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

In other words, the federal government's powers are few and defined; state, by comparison, was supposed to be numerous and plentiful.

But that was then. It certainly isn't that way these days, as states have increasingly fallen under the control over a growing federal Leviathan and its multitude of bloated bureaucracies.

Well, the time seems to have come when states - some of them at least - appear to have had enough. Take Virginia.

A group from the Commonwealth has filed suit in federal court alleging that one of the crown jewels of federal bureaucracy - the Environmental Protection Agency - has stepped way over the central government's constitutionally limited powers with new rules governing, of all things, rain water run-off.

According to the complaint filed by the Occoquan Watershed Coalition, the EPA violated the Tenth Amendment by imposing a "coercive ... unfunded mandate" on a watershed, "to implement a federal program - one not imposed by or under Virginia Law."

New standards equals hundreds of millions of dollars

The group says the EPA's rules unconstitutionally force Virginia to control the amount of rainwater allowed to flow into a stream in Fairfax County. The mandate seeks to protect benthic organisms - the benthic zone is the lowest area of a body of water, along the bottom - that the EPA says are killed off by the sediment-rich rainwater.

The suit was filed on behalf of the coalition by the Free-Market Environmental Law Clinic, which estimated the cost of the EPA's mandate at about $225 million.

"If the county is forced to spend that much money on a single watershed, it will mean not one of the other 29 watersheds in the county will receive funds for their restoration, including the eight watersheds in the OWC's territory," says the law clinic, on its Web site.

The suit says a small portion of Accotink Creek, with about 120 miles of shoreline, is "impaired," under the EPA rules, because soil along an 8.1-mile stretch has eroded and, when it rains, the soil runs off into the creek.

"To address this problem, Fairfax County would normally place rock against those parts of the stream bank that erode the most, and take other actions that fit within its budget," says an analysis of the case by the American Tradition Institute. "Virginia and Fairfax County have been working together to address Accotink Creek, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has rejected those efforts and in their place adopted a new water quantity standard that limits the total amount of water that can be discharged into the stream each day."

That "standard" is what is being challenged by OWC.

Trampling the sovereignty of the state

"The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that this kind of coercive federal mandate on a local government is simply not allowed," said Dr. David W. Schnare, Director of the FME Law Clinic.

"Because Fairfax County and the Commonwealth of Virginia refused to raise this constitutional challenge in their recent suit against EPA, the citizens directly harmed by EPA are the only ones left to protect the rights and privileges of the Commonwealth and FME Law is representing their interests," he said. "Without that assistance, the serious problems in 29 watersheds will go unaddressed while EPA asks Fairfax County to empty its coffers in a vain effort to fix a problem of minor significance."

In its suit, the OWC claims the Clean Water Act gives EPA the authority to regulate sediments flowing into streams via pipes or point sources, but gives states and local governments the power to manage non-point sources.

"This is the kind of coercive commandeering the Constitution does not authorize - commandeering that tramples the sovereignty of the state and local governments," the complaint says.

 
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cuccinelli-epa-lawsuit-virginia/2013/01...

Seems the courts think it was a pretty good piece.

But hey what did the founding fathers like Jefferson know about states rights and the importance of them and controlling the Federal authority. I mean it is not like they fought a war and created a nation under a declaration of independence to escape an overbearing over reaching govt. I mean really what is that piece of paper they wrote setting up the limits and checks and balances of govt and ensuring private citizens and states rights  unencumbered by excessive govt even worth nowadays. Really do you think a 200 year old document is really even relevant anymore?

eyexer Said:
 

gst Said:

eyexer Said:
 

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said

What does that have to do with conserving some of ND gabe?  So because some group talked to another group, that means we are responsible for spanking them?  I think that's what you are saying.  Are you saying this just for your personal gain gabe?

You seem to have NO problem telling our state how to manage itself so what is your deal with others having their opinion? 

If you really can not see the possible negative consequences of inviting orgs like the ones filing these lawsuits and collaborating with th EPA on how our state should manage our state  into our state west I am not going to invest further time into explaining it to you.

And west I support BOTH yours and my ability to have a say in telling our state to manage itself, I simply do not think out of state orgs should. Pretty simple really.

Try dropping the personal crap EVERY post west and actually discuss an issue for once.

You will not allow it gabe with your self serving, arrogant, and condescending nature.  Many have tried.  I don't know why you even bother to ask people to "discuss" with you anymore?

West, I have to break it to you, it really won;t "bother" me much if you don;t "bother" anymore!

Yet you STILL can't help responding!hahahaha  Get over yourself there almighty and just one time realize that other people have interests that are not the same as yours and they just might want to protect those interests.  This really has become a case of you vs. the sportsman and I'm convinced that more and more are seeing it that way.  Like I have said before, thank god the majority of the farmers/ranchers in this state don't think like you!

I've said this numerous times and I'll stick to it.  This measure is all about hunting access.  Farmers have tied up the land and this is the result.  And now they're screaming the loudest.  They only have themselves to blame if this measure passes.

So flood control for Fargo is about hunting access? Cause that is what their selling this measure as. But then how else would you get a high percentage of Fargo citizens ot vote for their share of the oil and gas tax revenues!

that's what happens when you try to play mind games, people think your talking about something other than what your talking about.  

johnr Said:

WormWiggler Said:

Stop the Insanity

johnr Said:

gst Said:
It's all good, try reading this and let us know what you think.

http://www.naturalnews.com/036700_Tenth_Amendment_EPA_rainwater.html#

(NaturalNews) The Tenth Amendment has been described by some constitutional scholars and experts as the Bill of Rights' catch-all amendment, in that it was written into the nation's founding document as a way to remind future federal lawmakers and officials that unless the Constitution explicitly allows it or bans it, states - as sovereign entities - are free to do as they please.

It was Thomas Jefferson who said, in 1798, "Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government . . . whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

In other words, the federal government's powers are few and defined; state, by comparison, was supposed to be numerous and plentiful.

But that was then. It certainly isn't that way these days, as states have increasingly fallen under the control over a growing federal Leviathan and its multitude of bloated bureaucracies.

Well, the time seems to have come when states - some of them at least - appear to have had enough. Take Virginia.

A group from the Commonwealth has filed suit in federal court alleging that one of the crown jewels of federal bureaucracy - the Environmental Protection Agency - has stepped way over the central government's constitutionally limited powers with new rules governing, of all things, rain water run-off.

According to the complaint filed by the Occoquan Watershed Coalition, the EPA violated the Tenth Amendment by imposing a "coercive ... unfunded mandate" on a watershed, "to implement a federal program - one not imposed by or under Virginia Law."

New standards equals hundreds of millions of dollars

The group says the EPA's rules unconstitutionally force Virginia to control the amount of rainwater allowed to flow into a stream in Fairfax County. The mandate seeks to protect benthic organisms - the benthic zone is the lowest area of a body of water, along the bottom - that the EPA says are killed off by the sediment-rich rainwater.

The suit was filed on behalf of the coalition by the Free-Market Environmental Law Clinic, which estimated the cost of the EPA's mandate at about $225 million.

"If the county is forced to spend that much money on a single watershed, it will mean not one of the other 29 watersheds in the county will receive funds for their restoration, including the eight watersheds in the OWC's territory," says the law clinic, on its Web site.

The suit says a small portion of Accotink Creek, with about 120 miles of shoreline, is "impaired," under the EPA rules, because soil along an 8.1-mile stretch has eroded and, when it rains, the soil runs off into the creek.

"To address this problem, Fairfax County would normally place rock against those parts of the stream bank that erode the most, and take other actions that fit within its budget," says an analysis of the case by the American Tradition Institute. "Virginia and Fairfax County have been working together to address Accotink Creek, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has rejected those efforts and in their place adopted a new water quantity standard that limits the total amount of water that can be discharged into the stream each day."

That "standard" is what is being challenged by OWC.

Trampling the sovereignty of the state

"The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that this kind of coercive federal mandate on a local government is simply not allowed," said Dr. David W. Schnare, Director of the FME Law Clinic.

"Because Fairfax County and the Commonwealth of Virginia refused to raise this constitutional challenge in their recent suit against EPA, the citizens directly harmed by EPA are the only ones left to protect the rights and privileges of the Commonwealth and FME Law is representing their interests," he said. "Without that assistance, the serious problems in 29 watersheds will go unaddressed while EPA asks Fairfax County to empty its coffers in a vain effort to fix a problem of minor significance."

In its suit, the OWC claims the Clean Water Act gives EPA the authority to regulate sediments flowing into streams via pipes or point sources, but gives states and local governments the power to manage non-point sources.

"This is the kind of coercive commandeering the Constitution does not authorize - commandeering that tramples the sovereignty of the state and local governments," the complaint says.

 
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cuccinelli-epa-lawsuit-virginia/2013/01...

Seems the courts think it was a pretty good piece.

But hey what did the founding fathers like Jefferson know about states rights and the importance of them and controlling the Federal authority. I mean it is not like they fought a war and created a nation under a declaration of independence to escape an overbearing over reaching govt. I mean really what is that piece of paper they wrote setting up the limits and checks and balances of govt and ensuring private citizens and states rights  unencumbered by excessive govt even worth nowadays. Really do you think a 200 year old document is really even relevant anymore?

eyexer Said:
 

gst Said:

eyexer Said:
 

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said

What does that have to do with conserving some of ND gabe?  So because some group talked to another group, that means we are responsible for spanking them?  I think that's what you are saying.  Are you saying this just for your personal gain gabe?

You seem to have NO problem telling our state how to manage itself so what is your deal with others having their opinion? 

If you really can not see the possible negative consequences of inviting orgs like the ones filing these lawsuits and collaborating with th EPA on how our state should manage our state  into our state west I am not going to invest further time into explaining it to you.

And west I support BOTH yours and my ability to have a say in telling our state to manage itself, I simply do not think out of state orgs should. Pretty simple really.

Try dropping the personal crap EVERY post west and actually discuss an issue for once.

You will not allow it gabe with your self serving, arrogant, and condescending nature.  Many have tried.  I don't know why you even bother to ask people to "discuss" with you anymore?

West, I have to break it to you, it really won;t "bother" me much if you don;t "bother" anymore!

Yet you STILL can't help responding!hahahaha  Get over yourself there almighty and just one time realize that other people have interests that are not the same as yours and they just might want to protect those interests.  This really has become a case of you vs. the sportsman and I'm convinced that more and more are seeing it that way.  Like I have said before, thank god the majority of the farmers/ranchers in this state don't think like you!

I've said this numerous times and I'll stick to it.  This measure is all about hunting access.  Farmers have tied up the land and this is the result.  And now they're screaming the loudest.  They only have themselves to blame if this measure passes.

So flood control for Fargo is about hunting access? Cause that is what their selling this measure as. But then how else would you get a high percentage of Fargo citizens ot vote for their share of the oil and gas tax revenues!

that's what happens when you try to play mind games, people think your talking about something other than what your talking about.  

johnr Said:

WormWiggler Said:

WormWiggler Said:

Stop the Insanity

johnr Said:

gst Said:
It's all good, try reading this and let us know what you think.

http://www.naturalnews.com/036700_Tenth_Amendment_EPA_rainwater.html#

(NaturalNews) The Tenth Amendment has been described by some constitutional scholars and experts as the Bill of Rights' catch-all amendment, in that it was written into the nation's founding document as a way to remind future federal lawmakers and officials that unless the Constitution explicitly allows it or bans it, states - as sovereign entities - are free to do as they please.

It was Thomas Jefferson who said, in 1798, "Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government . . . whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

In other words, the federal government's powers are few and defined; state, by comparison, was supposed to be numerous and plentiful.

But that was then. It certainly isn't that way these days, as states have increasingly fallen under the control over a growing federal Leviathan and its multitude of bloated bureaucracies.

Well, the time seems to have come when states - some of them at least - appear to have had enough. Take Virginia.

A group from the Commonwealth has filed suit in federal court alleging that one of the crown jewels of federal bureaucracy - the Environmental Protection Agency - has stepped way over the central government's constitutionally limited powers with new rules governing, of all things, rain water run-off.

According to the complaint filed by the Occoquan Watershed Coalition, the EPA violated the Tenth Amendment by imposing a "coercive ... unfunded mandate" on a watershed, "to implement a federal program - one not imposed by or under Virginia Law."

New standards equals hundreds of millions of dollars

The group says the EPA's rules unconstitutionally force Virginia to control the amount of rainwater allowed to flow into a stream in Fairfax County. The mandate seeks to protect benthic organisms - the benthic zone is the lowest area of a body of water, along the bottom - that the EPA says are killed off by the sediment-rich rainwater.

The suit was filed on behalf of the coalition by the Free-Market Environmental La

                                                                                                                         

wstnodak's picture
wstnodak
Offline
Joined: 11/3/02

gst Said:

wstnodak Said:
No need to apologize gabe.  That is all old news.  But I really did find it ironic that the cat gave me shit about wearing camo when he runs a so called "hunting" operation and neither he or his "hunters" has to wear camo.  Get it?

It falls into place that you would actually believe what he "gave you shit" about was actually the wearing of camo instead of the larger picture james.

wstnodak Said:

This is for the kids growing up in this state you don't have means to PAY to hunt!!!!!!!!!!

But I guess if it was up to you every section would have a fence around it and people would pay massive amounts of money to essentially slaughter a pig

Get over yourself and think about someone else for once you arrogant prick.

It must have struck a nerve though for being "old news".

You even think you know what I am thinking!haha  I tell you what, if that isn't arrogance at its finest I don't know what is.  

Gabe, you and people with your mentality are the greatest threat to the ND sportsman than any group, bill, fund, etc. will ever be and that's a fact jack!  (just cause you like orange faces) 

If god didn't want us to eat animals....he wouldn't have made them out of food.

wstnodak's picture
wstnodak
Offline
Joined: 11/3/02

Fritz the Cat Said:
Jimmy, you crack me up. You have such a quick temper.

"the handful of people pulling the levers know what it is you desire"

Now what in the hell is that supposed to mean there Dwight? 

You desire access. There is a small handful of persons who seek to rush as much private property into public assests as soon as they can. But, they need your help. This land shall be set aside for the sportsmen. (wink wink) That is where you come in.
After you help them erase the barriers, such as North Dakotas Anti-corporate Farming Law, then they will help you with access. (wink wink)

Dear Ron Gilmore. Before you go nuts with your reasons why the Anti-corporate Farming Law needs to be torn apart, you need to be reminded that I feel the same as Joel Heitkamp when you used to call in. Joel said, "Ron, I recognize the voice and I'm going to hang up now because I'm more interested in what others have to say."

Too funny.

Really cat, I know you would like to think you are getting under my skin but it takes a lot more than a small man behind a computer to get me worked up.  Nope, the question you quoted me on was serious.  Most of the time I don't have a clue what kind of ebonics your spewing.  Seriously, I don't know if it is your attempt at being clever or just you struggling with the English language but either way it doesn't help your "internet image".

Have a good weekend spending 90% of your time behind the computer gabe and Dwight....sounds like such a fun weekend.

If god didn't want us to eat animals....he wouldn't have made them out of food.

Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

Plainsman wrote,

I think it was Swift who posted a page from the North Dakota Farm Bureau and gst said it was just a "wish list".  It was asking for the removal of regulations, and I don't remember the exact words gst, but it was radical enough that you tried to write it off as just a "wish list" and not real.  Remember now.
 

Instead of posting what someone else said, why don't you do some leg work of your own, investigate and then post something here of substance.

Anyway, is the picture becoming clear for those of you riding the fence?  Go read ten years of my political opinions and then tell me if you think I am liberal or conservative.

 Liberal or conservative? Who cares. Your message never changes. "We Want Access To Our Wildlife Across Private Property." We pay taxes so therefore.........

I think it's as some have said they want to control the hunting. 

Who said???We are going to need a name or else you simply made this up.

We have a socialist ag program, and the people getting the money have no appreciation for those paying the money.  They are going to shaft you further if you have a bow, rifle, or shotgun in your hands.  Clear? 

 

You are trying to create division........Clear

We have people trying to advance old Europe from which we risked life and limb to escape.

I see Bruce that you are still a disciple of the North American Wildlife Conservation Model. Any reference about Europe usually comes out of that piece of propaganda. Written by Dr. Valerius Geist who immigrated here from communist East Germany. He had lots of slogans like "Opportunity for all".

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Plainsman Said:
I think we all get the picture.  The EPA must be attacked so they don't keep trying to control what they actually should. Once again Bruce where has tis eve been stated?  I think it was Swift who posted a page from the North Dakota Farm Bureau and gst said it was just a "wish list".  It was asking for the removal of regulations, and I don't remember the exact words gst, but it was radical enough that you tried to write it off as just a "wish list" and not real.  Remember now.

I remember exactly plainsman and that is why I have asked you to substantiate your claim that "some ag org was calling for the removal of all regulation" ..So is that true or not Bruce?

Anyway, is the picture becoming clear for those of you riding the fence?  Go read ten years of my political opinions and then tell me if you think I am liberal or conservative.  Then ask yourself why these people are against conservation. Once again Bruce the big lie. Explain how I am "against conservation when I spend tens of thousands of my own dollars implementing connservation. Really Bruce explain that with some sort of commons sense logic. Remember all the links I shared to conservation orgs and programs that I am involved with over on Nodak when you made this same lie over there? Without this lie Bruce what do you have left???  I think it's as some have said they want to control the hunting.  They say that other interests will attack hunting on public land.  I'm sure they will, but right now we are in trouble on private land.  We have a socialist ag program, and the people getting the money have no appreciation for those paying the money.  They are going to shaft you further if you have a bow, rifle, or shotgun in your hands.  Clear? 

We have people trying to advance old Europe from which we risked life and limb to escape.  So supporting private property rights of all generations is returning to old Europe???

Bruce why has the state never before written spending mandates into our constitution?

This measure does setting presidence.

Bruce please give the top examples of where a govt mandated spending programs requiring the expenditure of 75% of funds rather than performance orientated funding  has worked and benefited anyone long term.

This measure requires this mandated spending.

Nothing to do with your anti conservation lie Bruce, nothing to do with your anti hunting lie, nothing to do with property rights, all the tired old accusations, just simple responsible, accountable, fiscal conservatism.

Do you agree with fiscal conservatism Bruce?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

wstnodak Said:

Really cat, I know you would like to think you are getting under my skin but it takes a lot more than a small man behind a computer to
get me worked up. 

wstnodak Said:

Get over yourself and think about someone else for once you arrogant prick.

Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

wstnodak wrote,

Really cat, I know you would like to think you are getting under my skin but it takes a lot more than a small man behind a computer to get me worked up.  Nope, the question you quoted me on was serious.  Most of the time I don't have a clue what kind of ebonics your spewing.  Seriously, I don't know if it is your attempt at being clever or just you struggling with the English language but either way it doesn't help your "internet image".



My internet image???? Jimmy this is just a public forum.

Other then your usual name calling, I can't think of one thing you contributed to this thread.

I came into this thread on page seven. Posted a link to the ND Century Code the rules to build a berm, dike or dam. Not sure what the rules are in Wyoming but I'm sure they are more similar than they are different.

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

Neat

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

euwwwww.  $6.99???

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

Why do so many subjects lead back to complaining about a conservation provision? 

WormWiggler's picture
WormWiggler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 8/29/09

WormWiggler Said:

WormWiggler Said:

WormWiggler Said:

Stop the Insanity

johnr Said:

gst Said:
It's all good, try reading this and let us know what you think.

http://www.naturalnews.com/036700_Tenth_Amendment_EPA_rainwater.html#

(NaturalNews) The Tenth Amendment has been described by some constitutional scholars and experts as the Bill of Rights' catch-all amendment, in that it was written into the nation's founding document as a way to remind future federal lawmakers and officials that unless the Constitution explicitly allows it or bans it, states - as sovereign entities - are free to do as they please.

It was Thomas Jefferson who said, in 1798, "Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government . . . whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

In other words, the federal government's powers are few and defined; state, by comparison, was supposed to be numerous and plentiful.

But that was then. It certainly isn't that way these days, as states have increasingly fallen under the control over a growing federal Leviathan and its multitude of bloated bureaucracies.

Well, the time seems to have come when states - some of them at least - appear to have had enough. Take Virginia.

A group from the Commonwealth has filed suit in federal court alleging that one of the crown jewels of federal bureaucracy - the Environmental Protection Agency - has stepped way over the central government's constitutionally limited powers with new rules governing, of all things, rain water run-off.

According to the complaint filed by the Occoquan Watershed Coalition, the EPA violated the Tenth Amendment by imposing a "coercive ... unfunded mandate" on a watershed, "to implement a federal program - one not imposed by or under Virginia Law."

New standards equals hundreds of millions of dollars

The group says the EPA's rules unconstitutionally force Virginia to control the amount of rainwater allowed to flow into a stream in Fairfax County. The mandate seeks to protect benthic organisms - the benthic zone is the lowest area of a body of water, along the bottom - that the EPA says are killed off by the sediment-rich rainwater.

The suit was filed on behalf of the coalition by the Free-Market Environmental Law Clinic, which estimated the cost of the EPA's mandate at about $225 million.

"If the county is forced to spend that much money on a single watershed, it will mean not one of the other 29 watersheds in the county will receive funds for their restoration, including the eight watersheds in the OWC's territory," says the law clinic, on its Web site.

The suit says a small portion of Accotink Creek, with about 120 miles of shoreline, is "impaired," under the EPA rules, because soil along an 8.1-mile stretch has eroded and, when it rains, the soil runs off into the creek.

"To address this problem, Fairfax County would normally place rock against those parts of the stream bank that erode the most, and take other actions that fit within its budget," says an analysis of the case by the American Tradition Institute. "Virginia and Fairfax County have been working together to address Accotink Creek, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has rejected those efforts and in their place adopted a new water quantity standard that limits the total amount of water that can be discharged into the stream each day."

That "standard" is what is being challenged by OWC.

Trampling the sovereignty of the state

"The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that this kind of coercive federal mandate on a local government is simply not allowed," said Dr. David W. Schnare, Director of the FME Law Clinic.

"Because Fairfax County and the Commonwealth of Virginia refused to raise this constitutional challenge in their recent suit against EPA, the citizens directly harmed by EPA are the only ones left to protect the rights and privileges of the Commonwealth and FME Law is representing their interests," he said. "Without that assistance, the serious problems in 29 watersheds will go unaddressed while EPA asks Fairfax County to empty its coffers in a vain effort to fix a problem of minor significance."

In its suit, the OWC claims the Clean Water Act gives EPA the authority to regulate sediments flowing into streams via pipes or point sources, but gives states and local governments the power to manage non-point sources.

"This is the kind of coercive commandeering the Constitution does not authorize - commandeering that tramples the sovereignty of the state and local governments," the complaint says.

 
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cuccinelli-epa-lawsuit-virginia/2013/01...

Seems the courts think it was a pretty good piece.

But hey what did the founding fathers like Jefferson know about states rights and the importance of them and controlling the Federal authority. I mean it is not like they fought a war and created a nation under a declaration of independence to escape an overbearing over reaching govt. I mean really what is that piece of paper they wrote setting up the limits and checks and balances of govt and ensuring private citizens and states rights  unencumbered by excessive govt even worth nowadays. Really do you think a 200 year old document is really even relevant anymore?

eyexer Said:
 

gst Said:

eyexer Said:
 

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said

What does that have to do with conserving some of ND gabe?  So because some group talked to another group, that means we are responsible for spanking them?  I think that's what you are saying.  Are you saying this just for your personal gain gabe?

You seem to have NO problem telling our state how to manage itself so what is your deal with others having their opinion? 

If you really can not see the possible negative consequences of inviting orgs like the ones filing these lawsuits and collaborating with th EPA on how our state should manage our state  into our state west I am not going to invest further time into explaining it to you.

And west I support BOTH yours and my ability to have a say in telling our state to manage itself, I simply do not think out of state orgs should. Pretty simple really.

Try dropping the personal crap EVERY post west and actually discuss an issue for once.

You will not allow it gabe with your self serving, arrogant, and condescending nature.  Many have tried.  I don't know why you even bother to ask people to "discuss" with you anymore?

West, I have to break it to you, it really won;t "bother" me much if you don;t "bother" anymore!

Yet you STILL can't help responding!hahahaha  Get over yourself there almighty and just one time realize that other people have interests that are not the same as yours and they just might want to protect those interests.  This really has become a case of you vs. the sportsman and I'm convinced that more and more are seeing it that way.  Like I have said before, thank god the majority of the farmers/ranchers in this state don't think like you!

I've said this numerous times and I'll stick to it.  This measure is all about hunting access.  Farmers have tied up the land and this is the result.  And now they're screaming the loudest.  They only have themselves to blame if this measure passes.

So flood control for Fargo is about hunting access? Cause that is what their selling this measure as. But then how else would you get a high percentage of Fargo citizens ot vote for their share of the oil and gas tax revenues!

that's what happens when you try to play mind games, people think your talking about something other than what your talking about.  

johnr Said:

WormWiggler Said:

Stop the Insanity

johnr Said:

gst Said:
It's all good, try reading this and let us know what you think.

http://www.naturalnews.com/036700_Tenth_Amendment_EPA_rainwater.html#

(NaturalNews) The Tenth Amendment has been described by some constitutional scholars and experts as the Bill of Rights' catch-all amendment, in that it was written into the nation's founding document as a way to remind future federal lawmakers and officials that unless the Constitution explicitly allows it or bans it, states - as sovereign entities - are free to do as they please.

It was Thomas Jefferson who said, in 1798, "Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government . . . whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

In other words, the federal government's powers are few and defined; state, by comparison, was supposed to be numerous and plentiful.

But that was then. It certainly isn't that way these days, as states have increasingly fallen under the control over a growing federal Leviathan and its multitude of bloated bureaucracies.

Well, the time seems to have come when states - some of them at least - appear to have had enough. Take Virginia.

A group from the Commonwealth has filed suit in federal court alleging that one of the crown jewels of federal bureaucracy - the Environmental Protection Agency - has stepped way over the central government's constitutionally limited powers with new rules governing, of all things, rain water run-off.

According to the complaint filed by the Occoquan Watershed Coalition, the EPA violated the Tenth Amendment by imposing a "coercive ... unfunded mandate" on a watershed, "to implement a federal program - one not imposed by or under Virginia Law."

New standards equals hundreds of millions of dollars

The group says the EPA's rules unconstitutionally force Virginia to control the amount of rainwater allowed to flow into a stream in Fairfax County. The mandate seeks to protect benthic organisms - the benthic zone is the lowest area of a body of water, along the bottom - that the EPA says are killed off by the sediment-rich rainwater.

The suit was filed on behalf of the coalition by the Free-Market Environmental Law Clinic, which estimated the cost of the EPA's mandate at about $225 million.

"If the county is forced to spend that much money on a single watershed, it will mean not one of the other 29 watersheds in the county will receive funds for their restoration, including the eight watersheds in the OWC's territory," says the law clinic, on its Web site.

The suit says a small portion of Accotink Creek, with about 120 miles of shoreline, is "impaired," under the EPA rules, because soil along an 8.1-mile stretch has eroded and, when it rains, the soil runs off into the creek.

"To address this problem, Fairfax County would normally place rock against those parts of the stream bank that erode the most, and take other actions that fit within its budget," says an analysis of the case by the American Tradition Institute. "Virginia and Fairfax County have been working together to address Accotink Creek, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has rejected those efforts and in their place adopted a new water quantity standard that limits the total amount of water that can be discharged into the stream each day."

That "standard" is what is being challenged by OWC.

Trampling the sovereignty of the state

"The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that this kind of coercive federal mandate on a local government is simply not allowed," said Dr. David W. Schnare, Director of the FME Law Clinic.

"Because Fairfax County and the Commonwealth of Virginia refused to raise this constitutional challenge in their recent suit against EPA, the citizens directly harmed by EPA are the only ones left to protect the rights and privileges of the Commonwealth and FME Law is representing their interests," he said. "Without that assistance, the serious problems in 29 watersheds will go unaddressed while EPA asks Fairfax County to empty its coffers in a vain effort to fix a problem of minor significance."

In its suit, the OWC claims the Clean Water Act gives EPA the authority to regulate sediments flowing into streams via pipes or point sources, but gives states and local governments the power to manage non-point sources.

"This is the kind of coercive commandeering the Constitution does not authorize - commandeering that tramples the sovereignty of the state and local governments," the complaint says.

 
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cuccinelli-epa-lawsuit-virginia/2013/01...

Seems the courts think it was a pretty good piece.

But hey what did the founding fathers like Jefferson know about states rights and the importance of them and controlling the Federal authority. I mean it is not like they fought a war and created a nation under a declaration of independence to escape an overbearing over reaching govt. I mean really what is that piece of paper they wrote setting up the limits and checks and balances of govt and ensuring private citizens and states rights  unencumbered by excessive govt even worth nowadays. Really do you think a 200 year old document is really even relevant anymore?

eyexer Said:
 

gst Said:

eyexer Said:
 

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said

What does that have to do with conserving some of ND gabe?  So because some group talked to another group, that means we are responsible for spanking them?  I think that's what you are saying.  Are you saying this just for your personal gain gabe?

You seem to have NO problem telling our state how to manage itself so what is your deal with others having their opinion? 

If you really can not see the possible negative consequences of inviting orgs like the ones filing these lawsuits and collaborating with th EPA on how our state should manage our state  into our state west I am not going to invest further time into explaining it to you.

And west I support BOTH yours and my ability to have a say in telling our state to manage itself, I simply do not think out of state orgs should. Pretty simple really.

Try dropping the personal crap EVERY post west and actually discuss an issue for once.

You will not allow it gabe with your self serving, arrogant, and condescending nature.  Many have tried.  I don't know why you even bother to ask people to "discuss" with you anymore?

West, I have to break it to you, it really won;t "bother" me much if you don;t "bother" anymore!

Yet you STILL can't help responding!hahahaha  Get over yourself there almighty and just one time realize that other people have interests that are not the same as yours and they just might want to protect those interests.  This really has become a case of you vs. the sportsman and I'm convinced that more and more are seeing it that way.  Like I have said before, thank god the majority of the farmers/ranchers in this state don't think like you!

I've said this numerous times and I'll stick to it.  This measure is all about hunting access.  Farmers have tied up the land and this is the result.  And now they're screaming the loudest.  They only have themselves to blame if this measure passes.

So flood control for Fargo is about hunting access? Cause that is what their selling this measure as. But then how else would you get a high percentage of Fargo citizens ot vote for their share of the oil and gas tax revenues!

that's what happens when you try to play mind games, people think your talking about something other than what your talking about.  

johnr Said:

WormWiggler Said:

Stop the Insanity

johnr Said:

gst Said:
It's all good, try reading this and let us know what you think.

http://www.naturalnews.com/036700_Tenth_Amendment_EPA_rainwater.html#

(NaturalNews) The Tenth Amendment has been described by some constitutional scholars and experts as the Bill of Rights' catch-all amendment, in that it was written into the nation's founding document as a way to remind future federal lawmakers and officials that unless the Constitution explicitly allows it or bans it, states - as sovereign entities - are free to do as they please.

It was Thomas Jefferson who said, in 1798, "Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government . . . whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

In other words, the federal government's powers are few and defined; state, by comparison, was supposed to be numerous and plentiful.

But that was then. It certainly isn't that way these days, as states have increasingly fallen under the control over a growing federal Leviathan and its multitude of bloated bureaucracies.

Well, the time seems to have come when states - some of them at least - appear to have had enough. Take Virginia.

A group from the Commonwealth has filed suit in federal court alleging that one of the crown jewels of federal bureaucracy - the Environmental Protection Agency - has stepped way over the central government's constitutionally limited powers with new rules governing, of all things, rain water run-off.

According to the complaint filed by the Occoquan Watershed Coalition, the EPA violated the Tenth Amendment by imposing a "coercive ... unfunded mandate" on a watershed, "to implement a federal program - one not imposed by or under Virginia Law."

New standards equals hundreds of millions of dollars

The group says the EPA's rules unconstitutionally force Virginia to control the amount of rainwater allowed to flow into a stream in Fairfax County. The mandate seeks to protect benthic organisms - the benthic zone is the lowest area of a body of water, along the bottom - that the EPA says are killed off by the sediment-rich rainwater.

The suit was filed on behalf of the coalition by the Free-Market Environmental Law Clinic, which estimated the cost of the EPA's mandate at about $225 million.

"If the county is forced to spend that much money on a single watershed, it will mean not one of the other 29 watersheds in the county will receive funds for their restoration, including the eight watersheds in the OWC's territory," says the law clinic, on its Web site.

The suit says a small portion of Accotink Creek, with about 120 miles of shoreline, is "impaired," under the EPA rules, because soil along an 8.1-mile stretch has eroded and, when it rains, the soil runs off into the creek.

"To address this problem, Fairfax County would normally place rock against those parts of the stream bank that erode the most, and take other actions that fit within its budget," says an analysis of the case by the American Tradition Institute. "Virginia and Fairfax County have been working together to address Accotink Creek, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has rejected those efforts and in their place adopted a new water quantity standard that limits the total amount of water that can be discharged into the stream each day."

That "standard" is what is being challenged by OWC.

Trampling the sovereignty of the state

"The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that this kind of coercive federal mandate on a local government is simply not allowed," said Dr. David W. Schnare, Director of the FME Law Clinic.

"Because Fairfax County and the Commonwealth of Virginia refused to raise this constitutional challenge in their recent suit against EPA, the citizens directly harmed by EPA are the only ones left to protect the rights and privileges of the Commonwealth and FME Law is representing their interests," he said. "Without that assistance, the serious problems in 29 watersheds will go unaddressed while EPA asks Fairfax County to empty its coffers in a vain effort to fix a problem of minor significance."

In its suit, the OWC claims the Clean Water Act gives EPA the authority to regulate sediments flowing into streams via pipes or point sources, but gives states and local governments the power to manage non-point sources.

"This is the kind of coercive commandeering the Constitution does not authorize - commandeering that tramples the sovereignty of the state and local governments," the complaint says.

 
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cuccinelli-epa-lawsuit-virginia/2013/01...

Seems the courts think it was a pretty good piece.

But hey what did the founding fathers like Jefferson know about states rights and the importance of them and controlling the Federal authority. I mean it is not like they fought a war and created a nation under a declaration of independence to escape an overbearing over reaching govt. I mean really what is that piece of paper they wrote setting up the limits and checks and balances of govt and ensuring private citizens and states rights  unencumbered by excessive govt even worth nowadays. Really do you think a 200 year old document is really even relevant anymore?

eyexer Said:
 

gst Said:

eyexer Said:
 

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said

What does that have to do with conserving some of ND gabe?  So because some group talked to another group, that means we are responsible for spanking them?  I think that's what you are saying.  Are you saying this just for your personal gain gabe?

You seem to have NO problem telling our state how to manage itself so what is your deal with others having their opinion? 

If you really can not see the possible negative consequences of inviting orgs like the ones filing these lawsuits and collaborating with th EPA on how our state should manage our state  into our state west I am not going to invest further time into explaining it to you.

And west I support BOTH yours and my ability to have a say in telling our state to manage itself, I simply do not think out of state orgs should. Pretty simple really.

Try dropping the personal crap EVERY post west and actually discuss an issue for once.

You will not allow it gabe with your self serving, arrogant, and condescending nature.  Many have tried.  I don't know why you even bother to ask people to "discuss" with you anymore?

West, I have to break it to you, it really won;t "bother" me much if you don;t "bother" anymore!

Yet you STILL can't help responding!hahahaha  Get over yourself there almighty and just one time realize that other people have interests that are not the same as yours and they just might want to protect those interests.  This really has become a case of you vs. the sportsman and I'm convinced that more and more are seeing it that way.  Like I have said before, thank god the majority of the farmers/ranchers in this state don't think like you!

I've said this numerous times and I'll stick to it.  This measure is all about hunting access.  Farmers have tied up the land and this is the result.  And now they're screaming the loudest.  They only have themselves to blame if this measure passes.

So flood control for Fargo is about hunting access? Cause that is what their selling this measure as. But then how else would you get a high percentage of Fargo citizens ot vote for their share of the oil and gas tax revenues!

that's what happens when you try to play mind games, people think your talking about something other than what your talking about.  

johnr Said:

WormWiggler Said:

WormWiggler Said:

Stop the Insanity

johnr Said:

gst Said:
It's all good, try reading this and let us know what you think.

http://www.naturalnews.com/036700_Tenth_Amendment_EPA_rainwater.html#

(NaturalNews) The Tenth Amendment has been described by some constitutional scholars and experts as the Bill of Rights' catch-all amendment, in that it was written into the nation's founding document as a way to remind future federal lawmakers and officials that unless the Constitution explicitly allows it or bans it, states - as sovereign entities - are free to do as they please.

It was Thomas Jefferson who said, in 1798, "Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government . . . whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

In other words, the federal government's powers are few and defined; state, by comparison, was supposed to be numerous and plentiful.

But that was then. It certainly isn't that way these days, as states have increasingly fallen under the control over a growing federal Leviathan and its multitude of bloated bureaucracies.

Well, the time seems to have come when states - some of them at least - appear to have had enough. Take Virginia.

A group from the Commonwealth has filed suit in federal court alleging that one of the crown jewels of federal bureaucracy - the Environmental Protection Agency - has stepped way over the central government's constitutionally limited powers with new rules governing, of all things, rain water run-off.

According to the complaint filed by the Occoquan Watershed Coalition, the EPA violated the Tenth Amendment by imposing a "coercive ... unfunded mandate" on a watershed, "to implement a federal program - one not imposed by or under Virginia Law."

New standards equals hundreds of millions of dollars

The group says the EPA's rules unconstitutionally force Virginia to control the amount of rainwater allowed to flow into a stream in Fairfax County. The mandate seeks to protect benthic organisms - the benthic zone is the lowest area of a body of water, along the bottom - that the EPA says are killed off by the sediment-rich rainwater.

The suit was filed on behalf of the coalition by the Free-Market Environmental Law Clinic, which estimated the cost of the EPA's mandate at about $225 million.

"If the county is forced to spend that much money on a single watershed, it will mean not one of the other 29 watersheds in the county will receive funds for their restoration, including the eight watersheds in the OWC's territory," says the law clinic, on its Web site.

The suit says a small portion of Accotink Creek, with about 120 miles of shoreline, is "impaired," under the EPA rules, because soil along an 8.1-mile stretch has eroded and, when it rains, the soil runs off into the creek.

"To address this problem, Fairfax County would normally place rock against those parts of the stream bank that erode the most, and take other actions that fit within its budget," says an analysis of the case by the American Tradition Institute. "Virginia and Fairfax County have been working together to address Accotink Creek, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has rejected those efforts and in their place adopted a new water quantity standard that limits the total amount of water that can be discharged into the stream each day."

That "standard" is what is being challenged by OWC.

Trampling the sovereignty of the state

"The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that this kind of coercive federal mandate on a local government is simply not allowed," said Dr. David W. Schnare, Director of the FME Law Clinic.

"Because Fairfax County and the Commonwealth of Virginia refused to raise this constitutional challenge in their recent suit against EPA, the citizens directly harmed by EPA are the only ones left to protect the rights and privileges of the Commonwealth and FME Law is representing their interests," he said. "Without that assistance, the serious problems in 29 watersheds will go unaddressed while EPA asks Fairfax County to empty its coffers in a vain effort to fix a problem of minor significance."

In its suit, the OWC claims the Clean Water Act gives EPA the authority to regulate sediments flowing into streams via pipes or point sources, but gives states and local governments the power to manage non-point sources.

"This is the kind of coercive commandeering the Constitution does not authorize - commandeering that tramples the sovereignty of the state and local governments," the complaint says.

 
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cuccinelli-epa-lawsuit-virginia/2013/01...

Seems the courts think it was a pretty good piece.

But hey what did the founding fathers like Jefferson know about states rights and the importance of them and controlling the Federal authority. I mean it is not like they fought a war and created a nation under a declaration of independence to escape an overbearing over reaching govt. I mean really what is that piece of paper they wrote setting up the limits and checks and balances of govt and ensuring private citizens and states rights  unencumbered by excessive govt even worth nowadays. Really do you think a 200 year old document is really even relevant anymore?

eyexer Said:
 

gst Said:

eyexer Said:
 

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said

What does that have to do with conserving some of ND gabe?  So because some group talked to another group, that means we are responsible for spanking them?  I think that's what you are saying.  Are you saying this just for your personal gain gabe?

You seem to have NO problem telling our state how to manage itself so what is your deal with others having their opinion? 

If you really can not see the possible negative consequences of inviting orgs like the ones filing these lawsuits and collaborating with th EPA on how our state should manage our state  into our state west I am not going to invest further time into explaining it to you.

And west I support BOTH yours and my ability to have a say in telling our state to manage itself, I simply do not think out of state orgs should. Pretty simple really.

Try dropping the personal crap EVERY post west and actually discuss an issue for once.

You will not allow it gabe with your self serving, arrogant, and condescending nature.  Many have tried.  I don't know why you even bother to ask people to "discuss" with you anymore?

West, I have to break it to you, it really won;t "bother" me much if you don;t "bother" anymore!

Yet you STILL can't help responding!hahahaha  Get over yourself there almighty and just one time realize that other people have interests that are not the same as yours and they just might want to protect those interests.  This really has become a case of you vs. the sportsman and I'm convinced that more and more are seeing it that way.  Like I have said before, thank god the majority of the farmers/ranchers in this state don't think like you!

I've said this numerous times and I'll stick to it.  This measure is all about hunting access.  Farmers have tied up the land and this is the result.  And now they're screaming the loudest.  They only have themselves to blame if this measure passes.

So flood control for Fargo is about hunting access? Cause that is what their selling this measure as. But then how else would you get a high percentage of Fargo citizens ot vote for their share of the oil and gas tax revenues!

that's what happens when you try to play mind games, people think your talking about something other than what your talking about.  

johnr Said:

WormWiggler Said:

Stop the Insanity

johnr Said:

gst Said:
It's all good, try reading this and let us know what you think.

http://www.naturalnews.com/036700_Tenth_Amendment_EPA_rainwater.html#

(NaturalNews) The Tenth Amendment has been described by some constitutional scholars and experts as the Bill of Rights' catch-all amendment, in that it was written into the nation's founding document as a way to remind future federal lawmakers and officials that unless the Constitution explicitly allows it or bans it, states - as sovereign entities - are free to do as they please.

It was Thomas Jefferson who said, in 1798, "Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government . . . whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

In other words, the federal government's powers are few and defined; state, by comparison, was supposed to be numerous and plentiful.

But that was then. It certainly isn't that way these days, as states have increasingly fallen under the control over a growing federal Leviathan and its multitude of bloated bureaucracies.

Well, the time seems to have come when states - some of them at least - appear to have had enough. Take Virginia.

A group from the Commonwealth has filed suit in federal court alleging that one of the crown jewels of federal bureaucracy - the Environmental Protection Agency - has stepped way over the central government's constitutionally limited powers with new rules governing, of all things, rain water run-off.

According to the complaint filed by the Occoquan Watershed Coalition, the EPA violated the Tenth Amendment by imposing a "coercive ... unfunded mandate" on a watershed, "to implement a federal program - one not imposed by or under Virginia Law."

New standards equals hundreds of millions of dollars

The group says the EPA's rules unconstitutionally force Virginia to control the amount of rainwater allowed to flow into a stream in Fairfax County. The mandate seeks to protect benthic organisms - the benthic zone is the lowest area of a body of water, along the bottom - that the EPA says are killed off by the sediment-rich rainwater.

The suit was filed on behalf of the coalition by the Free-Market Environmental Law Clinic, which estimated the cost of the EPA's mandate at about $225 million.

"If the county is forced to spend that much money on a single watershed, it will mean not one of the other 29 watersheds in the county will receive funds for their restoration, including the eight watersheds in the OWC's territory," says the law clinic, on its Web site.

The suit says a small portion of Accotink Creek, with about 120 miles of shoreline, is "impaired," under the EPA rules, because soil along an 8.1-mile stretch has eroded and, when it rains, the soil runs off into the creek.

"To address this problem, Fairfax County would normally place rock against those parts of the stream bank that erode the most, and take other actions that fit within its budget," says an analysis of the case by the American Tradition Institute. "Virginia and Fairfax County have been working together to address Accotink Creek, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has rejected those efforts and in their place adopted a new water quantity standard that limits the total amount of water that can be discharged into the stream each day."

That "standard" is what is being challenged by OWC.

Trampling the sovereignty of the state

"The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that this kind of coercive federal mandate on a local government is simply not allowed," said Dr. David W. Schnare, Director of the FME Law Clinic.

"Because Fairfax County and the Commonwealth of Virginia refused to raise this constitutional challenge in their recent suit against EPA, the citizens directly harmed by EPA are the only ones left to protect the rights and privileges of the Commonwealth and FME Law is representing their interests," he said. "Without that assistance, the serious problems in 29 watersheds will go unaddressed while EPA asks Fairfax County to empty its coffers in a vain effort to fix a problem of minor significance."

In its suit, the OWC claims the Clean Water Act gives EPA the authority to regulate sediments flowing into streams via pipes or point sources, but gives states and local governments the power to manage non-point sources.

"This is the kind of coercive commandeering the Constitution does not authorize - commandeering that tramples the sovereignty of the state and local governments," the complaint says.

 
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cuccinelli-epa-lawsuit-virginia/2013/01...

Seems the courts think it was a pretty good piece.

But hey what did the founding fathers like Jefferson know about states rights and the importance of them and controlling the Federal authority. I mean it is not like they fought a war and created a nation under a declaration of independence to escape an overbearing over reaching govt. I mean really what is that piece of paper they wrote setting up the limits and checks and balances of govt and ensuring private citizens and states rights  unencumbered by excessive govt even worth nowadays. Really do you think a 200 year old document is really even relevant anymore?

eyexer Said:
 

gst Said:

eyexer Said:
 

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said

What does that have to do with conserving some of ND gabe?  So because some group talked to another group, that means we are responsible for spanking them?  I think that's what you are saying.  Are you saying this just for your personal gain gabe?

You seem to have NO problem telling our state how to manage itself so what is your deal with others having their opinion? 

If you really can not see the possible negative consequences of inviting orgs like the ones filing these lawsuits and collaborating with th EPA on how our state should manage our state  into our state west I am not going to invest further time into explaining it to you.

And west I support BOTH yours and my ability to have a say in telling our state to manage itself, I simply do not think out of state orgs should. Pretty simple really.

Try dropping the personal crap EVERY post west and actually discuss an issue for once.

You will not allow it gabe with your self serving, arrogant, and condescending nature.  Many have tried.  I don't know why you even bother to ask people to "discuss" with you anymore?

West, I have to break it to you, it really won;t "bother" me much if you don;t "bother" anymore!

Yet you STILL can't help responding!hahahaha  Get over yourself there almighty and just one time realize that other people have interests that are not the same as yours and they just might want to protect those interests.  This really has become a case of you vs. the sportsman and I'm convinced that more and more are seeing it that way.  Like I have said before, thank god the majority of the farmers/ranchers in this state don't think like you!

I've said this numerous times and I'll stick to it.  This measure is all about hunting access.  Farmers have tied up the land and this is the result.  And now they're screaming the loudest.  They only have themselves to blame if this measure passes.

So flood control for Fargo is about hunting access? Cause that is what their selling this measure as. But then how else would you get a high percentage of Fargo citizens ot vote for their share of the oil and gas tax revenues!

that's what happens when you try to play mind games, people think your talking about something other than what your talking about.  

johnr Said:

WormWiggler Said:

Stop the Insanity

johnr Said:

gst Said:
It's all good, try reading this and let us know what you think.

http://www.naturalnews.com/036700_Tenth_Amendment_EPA_rainwater.html#

(NaturalNews) The Tenth Amendment has been described by some constitutional scholars and experts as the Bill of Rights' catch-all amendment, in that it was written into the nation's founding document as a way to remind future federal lawmakers and officials that unless the Constitution explicitly allows it or bans it, states - as sovereign entities - are free to do as they please.

It was Thomas Jefferson who said, in 1798, "Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government . . . whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

In other words, the federal government's powers are few and defined; state, by comparison, was supposed to be numerous and plentiful.

But that was then. It certainly isn't that way these days, as states have increasingly fallen under the control over a growing federal Leviathan and its multitude of bloated bureaucracies.

Well, the time seems to have come when states - some of them at least - appear to have had enough. Take Virginia.

A group from the Commonwealth has filed suit in federal court alleging that one of the crown jewels of federal bureaucracy - the Environmental Protection Agency - has stepped way over the central government's constitutionally limited powers with new rules governing, of all things, rain water run-off.

According to the complaint filed by the Occoquan Watershed Coalition, the EPA violated the Tenth Amendment by imposing a "coercive ... unfunded mandate" on a watershed, "to implement a federal program - one not imposed by or under Virginia Law."

New standards equals hundreds of millions of dollars

The group says the EPA's rules unconstitutionally force Virginia to control the amount of rainwater allowed to flow into a stream in Fairfax County. The mandate seeks to protect benthic organisms - the benthic zone is the lowest area of a body of water, along the bottom - that the EPA says are killed off by the sediment-rich rainwater.

The suit was filed on behalf of the coalition by the Free-Market Environmental Law Clinic, which estimated the cost of the EPA's mandate at about $225 million.

"If the county is forced to spend that much money on a single watershed, it will mean not one of the other 29 watersheds in the county will receive funds for their restoration, including the eight watersheds in the OWC's territory," says the law clinic, on its Web site.

The suit says a small portion of Accotink Creek, with about 120 miles of shoreline, is "impaired," under the EPA rules, because soil along an 8.1-mile stretch has eroded and, when it rains, the soil runs off into the creek.

"To address this problem, Fairfax County would normally place rock against those parts of the stream bank that erode the most, and take other actions that fit within its budget," says an analysis of the case by the American Tradition Institute. "Virginia and Fairfax County have been working together to address Accotink Creek, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has rejected those efforts and in their place adopted a new water quantity standard that limits the total amount of water that can be discharged into the stream each day."

That "standard" is what is being challenged by OWC.

Trampling the sovereignty of the state

"The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that this kind of coercive federal mandate on a local government is simply not allowed," said Dr. David W. Schnare, Director of the FME Law Clinic.

"Because Fairfax County and the Commonwealth of Virginia refused to raise this constitutional challenge in their recent suit against EPA, the citizens directly harmed by EPA are the only ones left to protect the rights and privileges of the Commonwealth and FME Law is representing their interests," he said. "Without that assistance, the serious problems in 29 watersheds will go unaddressed while EPA asks Fairfax County to empty its coffers in a vain effort to fix a problem of minor significance."

In its suit, the OWC claims the Clean Water Act gives EPA the authority to regulate sediments flowing into streams via pipes or point sources, but gives states and local governments the power to manage non-point sources.

"This is the kind of coercive commandeering the Constitution does not authorize - commandeering that tramples the sovereignty of the state and local governments," the complaint says.

 
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cuccinelli-epa-lawsuit-virginia/2013/01...

Seems the courts think it was a pretty good piece.

But hey what did the founding fathers like Jefferson know about states rights and the importance of them and controlling the Federal authority. I mean it is not like they fought a war and created a nation under a declaration of independence to escape an overbearing over reaching govt. I mean really what is that piece of paper they wrote setting up the limits and checks and balances of govt and ensuring private citizens and states rights  unencumbered by excessive govt even worth nowadays. Really do you think a 200 year old document is really even relevant anymore?

eyexer Said:
 

gst Said:

eyexer Said:
 

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said

What does that have to do with conserving some of ND gabe?  So because some group talked to another group, that means we are responsible for spanking them?  I think that's what you are saying.  Are you saying this just for your personal gain gabe?

You seem to have NO problem telling our state how to manage itself so what is your deal with others having their opinion? 

If you really can not see the possible negative consequences of inviting orgs like the ones filing these lawsuits and collaborating with th EPA on how our state should manage our state  into our state west I am not going to invest further time into explaining it to you.

And west I support BOTH yours and my ability to have a say in telling our state to manage itself, I simply do not think out of state orgs should. Pretty simple really.

Try dropping the personal crap EVERY post west and actually discuss an issue for once.

You will not allow it gabe with your self serving, arrogant, and condescending nature.  Many have tried.  I don't know why you even bother to ask people to "discuss" with you anymore?

West, I have to break it to you, it really won;t "bother" me much if you don;t "bother" anymore!

Yet you STILL can't help responding!hahahaha  Get over yourself there almighty and just one time realize that other people have interests that are not the same as yours and they just might want to protect those interests.  This really has become a case of you vs. the sportsman and I'm convinced that more and more are seeing it that way.  Like I have said before, thank god the majority of the farmers/ranchers in this state don't think like you!

I've said this numerous times and I'll stick to it.  This measure is all about hunting access.  Farmers have tied up the land and this is the result.  And now they're screaming the loudest.  They only have themselves to blame if this measure passes.

So flood control for Fargo is about hunting access? Cause that is what their selling this measure as. But then how else would you get a high percentage of Fargo citizens ot vote for their share of the oil and gas tax revenues!

that's what happens when you try to play mind games, people think your talking about something other than what your talking about.  

johnr Said:

WormWiggler Said:

WormWiggler Said:

Stop the Insanity

johnr Said:

gst Said:
It's all good, try reading this and let us know what you think.

http://www.naturalnews.com/036700_Tenth_Amendment_EPA_rainwater.html#

(NaturalNews) The Tenth Amendment has been described by some constitutional scholars and experts as the Bill of Rights' catch-all amendment, in that it was written into the nation's founding document as a way to remind future federal lawmakers and officials that unless the Constitution explicitly allows it or bans it, states - as sovereign entities - are free to do as they please.

It was Thomas Jefferson who said, in 1798, "Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government . . . whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

In other words, the federal government's powers are few and defined; state, by comparison, was supposed to be numerous and plentiful.

But that was then. It certainly isn't that way these days, as states have increasingly fallen under the control over a growing federal Leviathan and its multitude of bloated bureaucracies.

Well, the time seems to have come when states - some of them at least - appear to have had enough. Take Virginia.

A group from the Commonwealth has filed suit in federal court alleging that one of the crown jewels of federal bureaucracy - the Environmental Protection Agency - has stepped way over the central government's constitutionally limited powers with new rules governing, of all things, rain water run-off.

According to the complaint filed by the Occoquan Watershed Coalition, the EPA violated the Tenth Amendment by imposing a "coercive ... unfunded mandate" on a watershed, "to implement a federal program - one not imposed by or under Virginia Law."

New standards equals hundreds of millions of dollars

The group says the EPA's rules unconstitutionally force Virginia to control the amount of rainwater allowed to flow into a stream in Fairfax County. The mandate seeks to protect benthic organisms - the benthic zone is the lowest area of a body of water, along the bottom - that the EPA says are killed off by the sediment-rich rainwater.

The suit was filed on behalf of the c

                                                                                                                         

Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

Worm,

Interesting strategy.

Plainsman Said:
Why do so many subjects lead back to complaining about a conservation provision? 

It just isn't as much fun without helpers like swift is it?

WormWiggler's picture
WormWiggler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 8/29/09

So back in the 80s, how many days did you guys yell "Tastes Great, Less Filling"?

                                                                                                                         

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Plainsman Said:
Why do so many subjects lead back to complaining about a conservation provision? 

Once again bruce try to understand the issue many have is NOT about conservation.

Why do you always have to try and disingenuously claim it is?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

I know, I know, it is just to hard to resist the temptation to click on the link isn;t it.

WormWiggler Said:
So back in the 80s, how many days did you guys yell "Tastes Great, Less Filling"?
johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

WormWiggler Said:

Stop the Insanity

johnr Said:

gst Said:
It's all good, try reading this and let us know what you think.

http://www.naturalnews.com/036700_Tenth_Amendment_EPA_rainwater.html#

(NaturalNews) The Tenth Amendment has been described by some constitutional scholars and experts as the Bill of Rights' catch-all amendment, in that it was written into the nation's founding document as a way to remind future federal lawmakers and officials that unless the Constitution explicitly allows it or bans it, states - as sovereign entities - are free to do as they please.

It was Thomas Jefferson who said, in 1798, "Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government . . . whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

In other words, the federal government's powers are few and defined; state, by comparison, was supposed to be numerous and plentiful.

But that was then. It certainly isn't that way these days, as states have increasingly fallen under the control over a growing federal Leviathan and its multitude of bloated bureaucracies.

Well, the time seems to have come when states - some of them at least - appear to have had enough. Take Virginia.

A group from the Commonwealth has filed suit in federal court alleging that one of the crown jewels of federal bureaucracy - the Environmental Protection Agency - has stepped way over the central government's constitutionally limited powers with new rules governing, of all things, rain water run-off.

According to the complaint filed by the Occoquan Watershed Coalition, the EPA violated the Tenth Amendment by imposing a "coercive ... unfunded mandate" on a watershed, "to implement a federal program - one not imposed by or under Virginia Law."

New standards equals hundreds of millions of dollars

The group says the EPA's rules unconstitutionally force Virginia to control the amount of rainwater allowed to flow into a stream in Fairfax County. The mandate seeks to protect benthic organisms - the benthic zone is the lowest area of a body of water, along the bottom - that the EPA says are killed off by the sediment-rich rainwater.

The suit was filed on behalf of the coalition by the Free-Market Environmental Law Clinic, which estimated the cost of the EPA's mandate at about $225 million.

"If the county is forced to spend that much money on a single watershed, it will mean not one of the other 29 watersheds in the county will receive funds for their restoration, including the eight watersheds in the OWC's territory," says the law clinic, on its Web site.

The suit says a small portion of Accotink Creek, with about 120 miles of shoreline, is "impaired," under the EPA rules, because soil along an 8.1-mile stretch has eroded and, when it rains, the soil runs off into the creek.

"To address this problem, Fairfax County would normally place rock against those parts of the stream bank that erode the most, and take other actions that fit within its budget," says an analysis of the case by the American Tradition Institute. "Virginia and Fairfax County have been working together to address Accotink Creek, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has rejected those efforts and in their place adopted a new water quantity standard that limits the total amount of water that can be discharged into the stream each day."

That "standard" is what is being challenged by OWC.

Trampling the sovereignty of the state

"The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that this kind of coercive federal mandate on a local government is simply not allowed," said Dr. David W. Schnare, Director of the FME Law Clinic.

"Because Fairfax County and the Commonwealth of Virginia refused to raise this constitutional challenge in their recent suit against EPA, the citizens directly harmed by EPA are the only ones left to protect the rights and privileges of the Commonwealth and FME Law is representing their interests," he said. "Without that assistance, the serious problems in 29 watersheds will go unaddressed while EPA asks Fairfax County to empty its coffers in a vain effort to fix a problem of minor significance."

In its suit, the OWC claims the Clean Water Act gives EPA the authority to regulate sediments flowing into streams via pipes or point sources, but gives states and local governments the power to manage non-point sources.

"This is the kind of coercive commandeering the Constitution does not authorize - commandeering that tramples the sovereignty of the state and local governments," the complaint says.

 
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cuccinelli-epa-lawsuit-virginia/2013/01...

Seems the courts think it was a pretty good piece.

But hey what did the founding fathers like Jefferson know about states rights and the importance of them and controlling the Federal authority. I mean it is not like they fought a war and created a nation under a declaration of independence to escape an overbearing over reaching govt. I mean really what is that piece of paper they wrote setting up the limits and checks and balances of govt and ensuring private citizens and states rights  unencumbered by excessive govt even worth nowadays. Really do you think a 200 year old document is really even relevant anymore?

eyexer Said:
 

gst Said:

eyexer Said:
 

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said

What does that have to do with conserving some of ND gabe?  So because some group talked to another group, that means we are responsible for spanking them?  I think that's what you are saying.  Are you saying this just for your personal gain gabe?

You seem to have NO problem telling our state how to manage itself so what is your deal with others having their opinion? 

If you really can not see the possible negative consequences of inviting orgs like the ones filing these lawsuits and collaborating with th EPA on how our state should manage our state  into our state west I am not going to invest further time into explaining it to you.

And west I support BOTH yours and my ability to have a say in telling our state to manage itself, I simply do not think out of state orgs should. Pretty simple really.

Try dropping the personal crap EVERY post west and actually discuss an issue for once.

You will not allow it gabe with your self serving, arrogant, and condescending nature.  Many have tried.  I don't know why you even bother to ask people to "discuss" with you anymore?

West, I have to break it to you, it really won;t "bother" me much if you don;t "bother" anymore!

Yet you STILL can't help responding!hahahaha  Get over yourself there almighty and just one time realize that other people have interests that are not the same as yours and they just might want to protect those interests.  This really has become a case of you vs. the sportsman and I'm convinced that more and more are seeing it that way.  Like I have said before, thank god the majority of the farmers/ranchers in this state don't think like you!

I've said this numerous times and I'll stick to it.  This measure is all about hunting access.  Farmers have tied up the land and this is the result.  And now they're screaming the loudest.  They only have themselves to blame if this measure passes.

So flood control for Fargo is about hunting access? Cause that is what their selling this measure as. But then how else would you get a high percentage of Fargo citizens ot vote for their share of the oil and gas tax revenues!

that's what happens when you try to play mind games, people think your talking about something other than what your talking about.  

johnr Said:

WormWiggler Said:

WormWiggler Said:

WormWiggler Said:

Stop the Insanity

johnr Said:

gst Said:
It's all good, try reading this and let us know what you think.

http://www.naturalnews.com/036700_Tenth_Amendment_EPA_rainwater.html#

(NaturalNews) The Tenth Amendment has been described by some constitutional scholars and experts as the Bill of Rights' catch-all amendment, in that it was written into the nation's founding document as a way to remind future federal lawmakers and officials that unless the Constitution explicitly allows it or bans it, states - as sovereign entities - are free to do as they please.

It was Thomas Jefferson who said, in 1798, "Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government . . . whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

In other words, the federal government's powers are few and defined; state, by comparison, was supposed to be numerous and plentiful.

But that was then. It certainly isn't that way these days, as states have increasingly fallen under the control over a growing federal Leviathan and its multitude of bloated bureaucracies.

Well, the time seems to have come when states - some of them at least - appear to have had enough. Take Virginia.

A group from the Commonwealth has filed suit in federal court alleging that one of the crown jewels of federal bureaucracy - the Environmental Protection Agency - has stepped way over the central government's constitutionally limited powers with new rules governing, of all things, rain water run-off.

According to the complaint filed by the Occoquan Watershed Coalition, the EPA violated the Tenth Amendment by imposing a "coercive ... unfunded mandate" on a watershed, "to implement a federal program - one not imposed by or under Virginia Law."

New standards equals hundreds of millions of dollars

The group says the EPA's rules unconstitutionally force Virginia to control the amount of rainwater allowed to flow into a stream in Fairfax County. The mandate seeks to protect benthic organisms - the benthic zone is the lowest area of a body of water, along the bottom - that the EPA says are killed off by the sediment-rich rainwater.

The suit was filed on behalf of the coalition by the Free-Market Environmental Law Clinic, which estimated the cost of the EPA's mandate at about $225 million.

"If the county is forced to spend that much money on a single watershed, it will mean not one of the other 29 watersheds in the county will receive funds for their restoration, including the eight watersheds in the OWC's territory," says the law clinic, on its Web site.

The suit says a small portion of Accotink Creek, with about 120 miles of shoreline, is "impaired," under the EPA rules, because soil along an 8.1-mile stretch has eroded and, when it rains, the soil runs off into the creek.

"To address this problem, Fairfax County would normally place rock against those parts of the stream bank that erode the most, and take other actions that fit within its budget," says an analysis of the case by the American Tradition Institute. "Virginia and Fairfax County have been working together to address Accotink Creek, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has rejected those efforts and in their place adopted a new water quantity standard that limits the total amount of water that can be discharged into the stream each day."

That "standard" is what is being challenged by OWC.

Trampling the sovereignty of the state

"The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that this kind of coercive federal mandate on a local government is simply not allowed," said Dr. David W. Schnare, Director of the FME Law Clinic.

"Because Fairfax County and the Commonwealth of Virginia refused to raise this constitutional challenge in their recent suit against EPA, the citizens directly harmed by EPA are the only ones left to protect the rights and privileges of the Commonwealth and FME Law is representing their interests," he said. "Without that assistance, the serious problems in 29 watersheds will go unaddressed while EPA asks Fairfax County to empty its coffers in a vain effort to fix a problem of minor significance."

In its suit, the OWC claims the Clean Water Act gives EPA the authority to regulate sediments flowing into streams via pipes or point sources, but gives states and local governments the power to manage non-point sources.

"This is the kind of coercive commandeering the Constitution does not authorize - commandeering that tramples the sovereignty of the state and local governments," the complaint says.

 
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cuccinelli-epa-lawsuit-virginia/2013/01...

Seems the courts think it was a pretty good piece.

But hey what did the founding fathers like Jefferson know about states rights and the importance of them and controlling the Federal authority. I mean it is not like they fought a war and created a nation under a declaration of independence to escape an overbearing over reaching govt. I mean really what is that piece of paper they wrote setting up the limits and checks and balances of govt and ensuring private citizens and states rights  unencumbered by excessive govt even worth nowadays. Really do you think a 200 year old document is really even relevant anymore?

eyexer Said:
 

gst Said:

eyexer Said:
 

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said

What does that have to do with conserving some of ND gabe?  So because some group talked to another group, that means we are responsible for spanking them?  I think that's what you are saying.  Are you saying this just for your personal gain gabe?

You seem to have NO problem telling our state how to manage itself so what is your deal with others having their opinion? 

If you really can not see the possible negative consequences of inviting orgs like the ones filing these lawsuits and collaborating with th EPA on how our state should manage our state  into our state west I am not going to invest further time into explaining it to you.

And west I support BOTH yours and my ability to have a say in telling our state to manage itself, I simply do not think out of state orgs should. Pretty simple really.

Try dropping the personal crap EVERY post west and actually discuss an issue for once.

You will not allow it gabe with your self serving, arrogant, and condescending nature.  Many have tried.  I don't know why you even bother to ask people to "discuss" with you anymore?

West, I have to break it to you, it really won;t "bother" me much if you don;t "bother" anymore!

Yet you STILL can't help responding!hahahaha  Get over yourself there almighty and just one time realize that other people have interests that are not the same as yours and they just might want to protect those interests.  This really has become a case of you vs. the sportsman and I'm convinced that more and more are seeing it that way.  Like I have said before, thank god the majority of the farmers/ranchers in this state don't think like you!

I've said this numerous times and I'll stick to it.  This measure is all about hunting access.  Farmers have tied up the land and this is the result.  And now they're screaming the loudest.  They only have themselves to blame if this measure passes.

So flood control for Fargo is about hunting access? Cause that is what their selling this measure as. But then how else would you get a high percentage of Fargo citizens ot vote for their share of the oil and gas tax revenues!

that's what happens when you try to play mind games, people think your talking about something other than what your talking about.  

johnr Said:

WormWiggler Said:

Stop the Insanity

johnr Said:

gst Said:
It's all good, try reading this and let us know what you think.

http://www.naturalnews.com/036700_Tenth_Amendment_EPA_rainwater.html#

(NaturalNews) The Tenth Amendment has been described by some constitutional scholars and experts as the Bill of Rights' catch-all amendment, in that it was written into the nation's founding document as a way to remind future federal lawmakers and officials that unless the Constitution explicitly allows it or bans it, states - as sovereign entities - are free to do as they please.

It was Thomas Jefferson who said, in 1798, "Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government . . . whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

In other words, the federal government's powers are few and defined; state, by comparison, was supposed to be numerous and plentiful.

But that was then. It certainly isn't that way these days, as states have increasingly fallen under the control over a growing federal Leviathan and its multitude of bloated bureaucracies.

Well, the time seems to have come when states - some of them at least - appear to have had enough. Take Virginia.

A group from the Commonwealth has filed suit in federal court alleging that one of the crown jewels of federal bureaucracy - the Environmental Protection Agency - has stepped way over the central government's constitutionally limited powers with new rules governing, of all things, rain water run-off.

According to the complaint filed by the Occoquan Watershed Coalition, the EPA violated the Tenth Amendment by imposing a "coercive ... unfunded mandate" on a watershed, "to implement a federal program - one not imposed by or under Virginia Law."

New standards equals hundreds of millions of dollars

The group says the EPA's rules unconstitutionally force Virginia to control the amount of rainwater allowed to flow into a stream in Fairfax County. The mandate seeks to protect benthic organisms - the benthic zone is the lowest area of a body of water, along the bottom - that the EPA says are killed off by the sediment-rich rainwater.

The suit was filed on behalf of the coalition by the Free-Market Environmental Law Clinic, which estimated the cost of the EPA's mandate at about $225 million.

"If the county is forced to spend that much money on a single watershed, it will mean not one of the other 29 watersheds in the county will receive funds for their restoration, including the eight watersheds in the OWC's territory," says the law clinic, on its Web site.

The suit says a small portion of Accotink Creek, with about 120 miles of shoreline, is "impaired," under the EPA rules, because soil along an 8.1-mile stretch has eroded and, when it rains, the soil runs off into the creek.

"To address this problem, Fairfax County would normally place rock against those parts of the stream bank that erode the most, and take other actions that fit within its budget," says an analysis of the case by the American Tradition Institute. "Virginia and Fairfax County have been working together to address Accotink Creek, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has rejected those efforts and in their place adopted a new water quantity standard that limits the total amount of water that can be discharged into the stream each day."

That "standard" is what is being challenged by OWC.

Trampling the sovereignty of the state

"The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that this kind of coercive federal mandate on a local government is simply not allowed," said Dr. David W. Schnare, Director of the FME Law Clinic.

"Because Fairfax County and the Commonwealth of Virginia refused to raise this constitutional challenge in their recent suit against EPA, the citizens directly harmed by EPA are the only ones left to protect the rights and privileges of the Commonwealth and FME Law is representing their interests," he said. "Without that assistance, the serious problems in 29 watersheds will go unaddressed while EPA asks Fairfax County to empty its coffers in a vain effort to fix a problem of minor significance."

In its suit, the OWC claims the Clean Water Act gives EPA the authority to regulate sediments flowing into streams via pipes or point sources, but gives states and local governments the power to manage non-point sources.

"This is the kind of coercive commandeering the Constitution does not authorize - commandeering that tramples the sovereignty of the state and local governments," the complaint says.

 
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cuccinelli-epa-lawsuit-virginia/2013/01...

Seems the courts think it was a pretty good piece.

But hey what did the founding fathers like Jefferson know about states rights and the importance of them and controlling the Federal authority. I mean it is not like they fought a war and created a nation under a declaration of independence to escape an overbearing over reaching govt. I mean really what is that piece of paper they wrote setting up the limits and checks and balances of govt and ensuring private citizens and states rights  unencumbered by excessive govt even worth nowadays. Really do you think a 200 year old document is really even relevant anymore?

eyexer Said:
 

gst Said:

eyexer Said:
 

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said

What does that have to do with conserving some of ND gabe?  So because some group talked to another group, that means we are responsible for spanking them?  I think that's what you are saying.  Are you saying this just for your personal gain gabe?

You seem to have NO problem telling our state how to manage itself so what is your deal with others having their opinion? 

If you really can not see the possible negative consequences of inviting orgs like the ones filing these lawsuits and collaborating with th EPA on how our state should manage our state  into our state west I am not going to invest further time into explaining it to you.

And west I support BOTH yours and my ability to have a say in telling our state to manage itself, I simply do not think out of state orgs should. Pretty simple really.

Try dropping the personal crap EVERY post west and actually discuss an issue for once.

You will not allow it gabe with your self serving, arrogant, and condescending nature.  Many have tried.  I don't know why you even bother to ask people to "discuss" with you anymore?

West, I have to break it to you, it really won;t "bother" me much if you don;t "bother" anymore!

Yet you STILL can't help responding!hahahaha  Get over yourself there almighty and just one time realize that other people have interests that are not the same as yours and they just might want to protect those interests.  This really has become a case of you vs. the sportsman and I'm convinced that more and more are seeing it that way.  Like I have said before, thank god the majority of the farmers/ranchers in this state don't think like you!

I've said this numerous times and I'll stick to it.  This measure is all about hunting access.  Farmers have tied up the land and this is the result.  And now they're screaming the loudest.  They only have themselves to blame if this measure passes.

So flood control for Fargo is about hunting access? Cause that is what their selling this measure as. But then how else would you get a high percentage of Fargo citizens ot vote for their share of the oil and gas tax revenues!

that's what happens when you try to play mind games, people think your talking about something other than what your talking about.  

johnr Said:

WormWiggler Said:

Stop the Insanity

johnr Said:

gst Said:
It's all good, try reading this and let us know what you think.

http://www.naturalnews.com/036700_Tenth_Amendment_EPA_rainwater.html#

(NaturalNews) The Tenth Amendment has been described by some constitutional scholars and experts as the Bill of Rights' catch-all amendment, in that it was written into the nation's founding document as a way to remind future federal lawmakers and officials that unless the Constitution explicitly allows it or bans it, states - as sovereign entities - are free to do as they please.

It was Thomas Jefferson who said, in 1798, "Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government . . . whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

In other words, the federal government's powers are few and defined; state, by comparison, was supposed to be numerous and plentiful.

But that was then. It certainly isn't that way these days, as states have increasingly fallen under the control over a growing federal Leviathan and its multitude of bloated bureaucracies.

Well, the time seems to have come when states - some of them at least - appear to have had enough. Take Virginia.

A group from the Commonwealth has filed suit in federal court alleging that one of the crown jewels of federal bureaucracy - the Environmental Protection Agency - has stepped way over the central government's constitutionally limited powers with new rules governing, of all things, rain water run-off.

According to the complaint filed by the Occoquan Watershed Coalition, the EPA violated the Tenth Amendment by imposing a "coercive ... unfunded mandate" on a watershed, "to implement a federal program - one not imposed by or under Virginia Law."

New standards equals hundreds of millions of dollars

The group says the EPA's rules unconstitutionally force Virginia to control the amount of rainwater allowed to flow into a stream in Fairfax County. The mandate seeks to protect benthic organisms - the benthic zone is the lowest area of a body of water, along the bottom - that the EPA says are killed off by the sediment-rich rainwater.

The suit was filed on behalf of the coalition by the Free-Market Environmental Law Clinic, which estimated the cost of the EPA's mandate at about $225 million.

"If the county is forced to spend that much money on a single watershed, it will mean not one of the other 29 watersheds in the county will receive funds for their restoration, including the eight watersheds in the OWC's territory," says the law clinic, on its Web site.

The suit says a small portion of Accotink Creek, with about 120 miles of shoreline, is "impaired," under the EPA rules, because soil along an 8.1-mile stretch has eroded and, when it rains, the soil runs off into the creek.

"To address this problem, Fairfax County would normally place rock against those parts of the stream bank that erode the most, and take other actions that fit within its budget," says an analysis of the case by the American Tradition Institute. "Virginia and Fairfax County have been working together to address Accotink Creek, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has rejected those efforts and in their place adopted a new water quantity standard that limits the total amount of water that can be discharged into the stream each day."

That "standard" is what is being challenged by OWC.

Trampling the sovereignty of the state

"The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that this kind of coercive federal mandate on a local government is simply not allowed," said Dr. David W. Schnare, Director of the FME Law Clinic.

"Because Fairfax County and the Commonwealth of Virginia refused to raise this constitutional challenge in their recent suit against EPA, the citizens directly harmed by EPA are the only ones left to protect the rights and privileges of the Commonwealth and FME Law is representing their interests," he said. "Without that assistance, the serious problems in 29 watersheds will go unaddressed while EPA asks Fairfax County to empty its coffers in a vain effort to fix a problem of minor significance."

In its suit, the OWC claims the Clean Water Act gives EPA the authority to regulate sediments flowing into streams via pipes or point sources, but gives states and local governments the power to manage non-point sources.

"This is the kind of coercive commandeering the Constitution does not authorize - commandeering that tramples the sovereignty of the state and local governments," the complaint says.

 
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cuccinelli-epa-lawsuit-virginia/2013/01...

Seems the courts think it was a pretty good piece.

But hey what did the founding fathers like Jefferson know about states rights and the importance of them and controlling the Federal authority. I mean it is not like they fought a war and created a nation under a declaration of independence to escape an overbearing over reaching govt. I mean really what is that piece of paper they wrote setting up the limits and checks and balances of govt and ensuring private citizens and states rights  unencumbered by excessive govt even worth nowadays. Really do you think a 200 year old document is really even relevant anymore?

eyexer Said:
 

gst Said:

eyexer Said:
 

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said

What does that have to do with conserving some of ND gabe?  So because some group talked to another group, that means we are responsible for spanking them?  I think that's what you are saying.  Are you saying this just for your personal gain gabe?

You seem to have NO problem telling our state how to manage itself so what is your deal with others having their opinion? 

If you really can not see the possible negative consequences of inviting orgs like the ones filing these lawsuits and collaborating with th EPA on how our state should manage our state  into our state west I am not going to invest further time into explaining it to you.

And west I support BOTH yours and my ability to have a say in telling our state to manage itself, I simply do not think out of state orgs should. Pretty simple really.

Try dropping the personal crap EVERY post west and actually discuss an issue for once.

You will not allow it gabe with your self serving, arrogant, and condescending nature.  Many have tried.  I don't know why you even bother to ask people to "discuss" with you anymore?

West, I have to break it to you, it really won;t "bother" me much if you don;t "bother" anymore!

Yet you STILL can't help responding!hahahaha  Get over yourself there almighty and just one time realize that other people have interests that are not the same as yours and they just might want to protect those interests.  This really has become a case of you vs. the sportsman and I'm convinced that more and more are seeing it that way.  Like I have said before, thank god the majority of the farmers/ranchers in this state don't think like you!

I've said this numerous times and I'll stick to it.  This measure is all about hunting access.  Farmers have tied up the land and this is the result.  And now they're screaming the loudest.  They only have themselves to blame if this measure passes.

So flood control for Fargo is about hunting access? Cause that is what their selling this measure as. But then how else would you get a high percentage of Fargo citizens ot vote for their share of the oil and gas tax revenues!

that's what happens when you try to play mind games, people think your talking about something other than what your talking about.  

johnr Said:

WormWiggler Said:

WormWiggler Said:

Stop the Insanity

johnr Said:

gst Said:
It's all good, try reading this and let us know what you think.

http://www.naturalnews.com/036700_Tenth_Amendment_EPA_rainwater.html#

(NaturalNews) The Tenth Amendment has been described by some constitutional scholars and experts as the Bill of Rights' catch-all amendment, in that it was written into the nation's founding document as a way to remind future federal lawmakers and officials that unless the Constitution explicitly allows it or bans it, states - as sovereign entities - are free to do as they please.

It was Thomas Jefferson who said, in 1798, "Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government . . . whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

In other words, the federal government's powers are few and defined; state, by comparison, was supposed to be numerous and plentiful.

But that was then. It certainly isn't that way these days, as states have increasingly fallen under the control over a growing federal Leviathan and its multitude of bloated bureaucracies.

Well, the time seems to have come when states - some of them at least - appear to have had enough. Take Virginia.

A group from the Commonwealth has filed suit in federal court alleging that one of the crown jewels of federal bureaucracy - the Environmental Protection Agency - has stepped way over the central government's constitutionally limited powers with new rules governing, of all things, rain water run-off.

According to the complaint filed by the Occoquan Watershed Coalition, the EPA violated the Tenth Amendment by imposing a "coercive ... unfunded mandate" on a watershed, "to implement a federal program - one not imposed by or under Virginia Law."

New standards equals hundreds of millions of dollars

The group says the EPA's rules unconstitutionally force Virginia to control the amount of rainwater allowed to flow into a stream in Fairfax County. The mandate seeks to protect benthic organisms - the benthic zone is the lowest area of a body of water, along the bottom - that the EPA says are killed off by the sediment-rich rainwater.

The suit was filed on behalf of the coalition by the Free-Market Environmental Law Clinic, which estimated the cost of the EPA's mandate at about $225 million.

"If the county is forced to spend that much money on a single watershed, it will mean not one of the other 29 watersheds in the county will receive funds for their restoration, including the eight watersheds in the OWC's territory," says the law clinic, on its Web site.

The suit says a small portion of Accotink Creek, with about 120 miles of shoreline, is "impaired," under the EPA rules, because soil along an 8.1-mile stretch has eroded and, when it rains, the soil runs off into the creek.

"To address this problem, Fairfax County would normally place rock against those parts of the stream bank that erode the most, and take other actions that fit within its budget," says an analysis of the case by the American Tradition Institute. "Virginia and Fairfax County have been working together to address Accotink Creek, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has rejected those efforts and in their place adopted a new water quantity standard that limits the total amount of water that can be discharged into the stream each day."

That "standard" is what is being challenged by OWC.

Trampling the sovereignty of the state

"The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that this kind of coercive federal mandate on a local government is simply not allowed," said Dr. David W. Schnare, Director of the FME Law Clinic.

"Because Fairfax County and the Commonwealth of Virginia refused to raise this constitutional challenge in their recent suit against EPA, the citizens directly harmed by EPA are the only ones left to protect the rights and privileges of the Commonwealth and FME Law is representing their interests," he said. "Without that assistance, the serious problems in 29 watersheds will go unaddressed while EPA asks Fairfax County to empty its coffers in a vain effort to fix a problem of minor significance."

In its suit, the OWC claims the Clean Water Act gives EPA the authority to regulate sediments flowing into streams via pipes or point sources, but gives states and local governments the power to manage non-point sources.

"This is the kind of coercive commandeering the Constitution does not authorize - commandeering that tramples the sovereignty of the state and local governments," the complaint says.

 
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cuccinelli-epa-lawsuit-virginia/2013/01...

Seems the courts think it was a pretty good piece.

But hey what did the founding fathers like Jefferson know about states rights and the importance of them and controlling the Federal authority. I mean it is not like they fought a war and created a nation under a declaration of independence to escape an overbearing over reaching govt. I mean really what is that piece of paper they wrote setting up the limits and checks and balances of govt and ensuring private citizens and states rights  unencumbered by excessive govt even worth nowadays. Really do you think a 200 year old document is really even relevant anymore?

eyexer Said:
 

gst Said:

eyexer Said:
 

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said

What does that have to do with conserving some of ND gabe?  So because some group talked to another group, that means we are responsible for spanking them?  I think that's what you are saying.  Are you saying this just for your personal gain gabe?

You seem to have NO problem telling our state how to manage itself so what is your deal with others having their opinion? 

If you really can not see the possible negative consequences of inviting orgs like the ones filing these lawsuits and collaborating with th EPA on how our state should manage our state  into our state west I am not going to invest further time into explaining it to you.

And west I support BOTH yours and my ability to have a say in telling our state to manage itself, I simply do not think out of state orgs should. Pretty simple really.

Try dropping the personal crap EVERY post west and actually discuss an issue for once.

You will not allow it gabe with your self serving, arrogant, and condescending nature.  Many have tried.  I don't know why you even bother to ask people to "discuss" with you anymore?

West, I have to break it to you, it really won;t "bother" me much if you don;t "bother" anymore!

Yet you STILL can't help responding!hahahaha  Get over yourself there almighty and just one time realize that other people have interests that are not the same as yours and they just might want to protect those interests.  This really has become a case of you vs. the sportsman and I'm convinced that more and more are seeing it that way.  Like I have said before, thank god the majority of the farmers/ranchers in this state don't think like you!

I've said this numerous times and I'll stick to it.  This measure is all about hunting access.  Farmers have tied up the land and this is the result.  And now they're screaming the loudest.  They only have themselves to blame if this measure passes.

So flood control for Fargo is about hunting access? Cause that is what their selling this measure as. But then how else would you get a high percentage of Fargo citizens ot vote for their share of the oil and gas tax revenues!

that's what happens when you try to play mind games, people think your talking about something other than what your talking about.  

johnr Said:

WormWiggler Said:

Stop the Insanity

johnr Said:

gst Said:
It's all good, try reading this and let us know what you think.

http://www.naturalnews.com/036700_Tenth_Amendment_EPA_rainwater.html#

(NaturalNews) The Tenth Amendment has been described by some constitutional scholars and experts as the Bill of Rights' catch-all amendment, in that it was written into the nation's founding document as a way to remind future federal lawmakers and officials that unless the Constitution explicitly allows it or bans it, states - as sovereign entities - are free to do as they please.

It was Thomas Jefferson who said, in 1798, "Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government . . . whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

In other words, the federal government's powers are few and defined; state, by comparison, was supposed to be numerous and plentiful.

But that was then. It certainly isn't that way these days, as states have increasingly fallen under the control over a growing federal Leviathan and its multitude of bloated bureaucracies.

Well, the time seems to have come when states - some of them at least - appear to have had enough. Take Virginia.

A group from the Commonwealth has filed suit in federal court alleging that one of the crown jewels of federal bureaucracy - the Environmental Protection Agency - has stepped way over the central government's constitutionally limited powers with new rules governing, of all things, rain water run-off.

According to the complaint filed by the Occoquan Watershed Coalition, the EPA violated the Tenth Amendment by imposing a "coercive ... unfunded mandate" on a watershed, "to implement a federal program - one not imposed by or under Virginia Law."

New standards equals hundreds of millions of dollars

The group says the EPA's rules unconstitutionally force Virginia to control the amount of rainwater allowed to flow into a stream in Fairfax County. The mandate seeks to protect benthic organisms - the benthic zone is the lowest area of a body of water, along the bottom - that the EPA says are killed off by the sediment-rich rainwater.

The suit was filed on behalf of the coalition by the Free-Market Environmental Law Clinic, which estimated the cost of the EPA's mandate at about $225 million.

"If the county is forced to spend that much money on a single watershed, it will mean not one of the other 29 watersheds in the county will receive funds for their restoration, including the eight watersheds in the OWC's territory," says the law clinic, on its Web site.

The suit says a small portion of Accotink Creek, with about 120 miles of shoreline, is "impaired," under the EPA rules, because soil along an 8.1-mile stretch has eroded and, when it rains, the soil runs off into the creek.

"To address this problem, Fairfax County would normally place rock against those parts of the stream bank that erode the most, and take other actions that fit within its budget," says an analysis of the case by the American Tradition Institute. "Virginia and Fairfax County have been working together to address Accotink Creek, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has rejected those efforts and in their place adopted a new water quantity standard that limits the total amount of water that can be discharged into the stream each day."

That "standard" is what is being challenged by OWC.

Trampling the sovereignty of the state

"The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that this kind of coercive federal mandate on a local government is simply not allowed," said Dr. David W. Schnare, Director of the FME Law Clinic.

"Because Fairfax County and the Commonwealth of Virginia refused to raise this constitutional challenge in their recent suit against EPA, the citizens directly harmed by EPA are the only ones left to protect the rights and privileges of the Commonwealth and FME Law is representing their interests," he said. "Without that assistance, the serious problems in 29 watersheds will go unaddressed while EPA asks Fairfax County to empty its coffers in a vain effort to fix a problem of minor significance."

In its suit, the OWC claims the Clean Water Act gives EPA the authority to regulate sediments flowing into streams via pipes or point sources, but gives states and local governments the power to manage non-point sources.

"This is the kind of coercive commandeering the Constitution does not authorize - commandeering that tramples the sovereignty of the state and local governments," the complaint says.

 
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cuccinelli-epa-lawsuit-virginia/2013/01...

Seems the courts think it was a pretty good piece.

But hey what did the founding fathers like Jefferson know about states rights and the importance of them and controlling the Federal authority. I mean it is not like they fought a war and created a nation under a declaration of independence to escape an overbearing over reaching govt. I mean really what is that piece of paper they wrote setting up the limits and checks and balances of govt and ensuring private citizens and states rights  unencumbered by excessive govt even worth nowadays. Really do you think a 200 year old document is really even relevant anymore?

eyexer Said:
 

gst Said:

eyexer Said:
 

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said

What does that have to do with conserving some of ND gabe?  So because some group talked to another group, that means we are responsible for spanking them?  I think that's what you are saying.  Are you saying this just for your personal gain gabe?

You seem to have NO problem telling our state how to manage itself so what is your deal with others having their opinion? 

If you really can not see the possible negative consequences of inviting orgs like the ones filing these lawsuits and collaborating with th EPA on how our state should manage our state  into our state west I am not going to invest further time into explaining it to you.

And west I support BOTH yours and my ability to have a say in telling our state to manage itself, I simply do not think out of state orgs should. Pretty simple really.

Try dropping the personal crap EVERY post west and actually discuss an issue for once.

You will not allow it gabe with your self serving, arrogant, and condescending nature.  Many have tried.  I don't know why you even bother to ask people to "discuss" with you anymore?

West, I have to break it to you, it really won;t "bother" me much if you don;t "bother" anymore!

Yet you STILL can't help responding!hahahaha  Get over yourself there almighty and just one time realize that other people have interests that are not the same as yours and they just might want to protect those interests.  This really has become a case of you vs. the sportsman and I'm convinced that more and more are seeing it that way.  Like I have said before, thank god the majority of the farmers/ranchers in this state don't think like you!

I've said this numerous times and I'll stick to it.  This measure is all about hunting access.  Farmers have tied up the land and this is the result.  And now they're screaming the loudest.  They only have themselves to blame if this measure passes.

So flood control for Fargo is about hunting access? Cause that is what their selling this measure as. But then how else would you get a high percentage of Fargo citizens ot vote for their share of the oil and gas tax revenues!

that's what happens when you try to play mind games, people think your talking about something other than what your talking about.  

johnr Said:

WormWiggler Said:

Stop the Insanity

johnr Said:

gst Said:
It's all good, try reading this and let us know what you think.

http://www.naturalnews.com/036700_Tenth_Amendment_EPA_rainwater.html#

(NaturalNews) The Tenth Amendment has been described by some constitutional scholars and experts as the Bill of Rights' catch-all amendment, in that it was written into the nation's founding document as a way to remind future federal lawmakers and officials that unless the Constitution explicitly allows it or bans it, states - as sovereign entities - are free to do as they please.

It was Thomas Jefferson who said, in 1798, "Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government . . . whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

In other words, the federal government's powers are few and defined; state, by comparison, was supposed to be numerous and plentiful.

But that was then. It certainly isn't that way these days, as states have increasingly fallen under the control over a growing federal Leviathan and its multitude of bloated bureaucracies.

Well, the time seems to have come when states - some of them at least - appear to have had enough. Take Virginia.

A group from the Commonwealth has filed suit in federal court alleging that one of the crown jewels of federal bureaucracy - the Environmental Protection Agency - has stepped way over the central government's constitutionally limited powers with new rules governing, of all things, rain water run-off.

According to the complaint filed by the Occoquan Watershed Coalition, the EPA violated the Tenth Amendment by imposing a "coercive ... unfunded mandate" on a watershed, "to implement a federal program - one not imposed by or under Virginia Law."

New standards equals hundreds of millions of dollars

The group says the EPA's rules unconstitutionally force Virginia to control the amount of rainwater allowed to flow into a stream in Fairfax County. The mandate seeks to protect benthic organisms - the benthic zone is the lowest area of a body of water, along the bottom - that the EPA says are killed off by the sediment-

Neat

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

You are a tricky fella worm, I bet your mom had to put the cookie jar up real high.

WormWiggler's picture
WormWiggler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 8/29/09

gst Said:
I know, I know, it is just to hard to resist the temptation to click on the link isn;t it.

WormWiggler Said:
So back in the 80s, how many days did you guys yell "Tastes Great, Less Filling"?

Well, I like the topic but you guys get so over top ranting at one another that it all becomes like a room full of crying babies to me.

                                                                                                                         

WormWiggler's picture
WormWiggler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 8/29/09

gst Said:
You are a tricky fella worm, I bet your mom had to put the cookie jar up real high.

I recently bought stock in a company that makes the little roller in computer mouses and I want to make sure they make their first quarter numbers.

                                                                                                                         

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

Fritz I am not in favor of tearing apart the Corp farming law, have said that repeatedly, what I would like to see is a return to the original law as it was passed, not what the ag org morfed it into!

The problem is that since your group is not willing to go back to reasoned rules, Cook is going to force the issue in court and that sums up the situation not being ME but your own greed that is going to rewrite the law.

I do not want Cargill or ADM or Cloverdale to be in the actual business of raising products in our state. I do however recognize that there is likely not anything we can do legally if they pushed it to avoid that.

Now how about this suggest they go back to the old law, remove the board, and move forward. But my guess you and gst want it all and are to blind to other states that had almost identical laws getting booted to think a bit out of the box.

You can stand on your soap box  and cry but it is not going to come out well for the states law in courts outside of ND and that is where this is at now!

Hey gst no explanation on the question I gave you. No guts to answer it?

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

Ron,

Cook isn't going to challenge or at least not until after the Clean Water Wildlife and Parks Petition passes.

That would be putting the cart before the horse.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

WormWiggler Said:

gst Said:
I know, I know, it is just to hard to resist the temptation to click on the link isn;t it.

WormWiggler Said:
So back in the 80s, how many days did you guys yell "Tastes Great, Less Filling"?

Well, I like the topic but you guys get so over top ranting at one another that it all becomes like a room full of crying babies to me.

I can see where it comes of like that a bit when one is forced to constantly address the accusations and claims made against ones self that are flat bold face lies.

Beleive me, I would very much rather have a discussion without all the bullshit and actually discuss something on it's merits or lack of them.

I mean these are not little issues like are crank baits more productive than spinners or ice pirates or any number of other topics on here.

These discussions often go right back to the core of the foundation of the country and the impacts on our state govt.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

WormWiggler Said:

gst Said:
You are a tricky fella worm, I bet your mom had to put the cookie jar up real high.

I recently bought stock in a company that makes the little roller in computer mouses and I want to make sure they make their first quarter numbers.

Man that's old tech, touchscreen baby!

Pages