If the EPA has never been authorized by Congress, then why has Congress been funding it for so many years??????? This should enable millions of lawsuits!!!!
Congress should not be funding it. The Executive branch, who created it, should be funding it from what has been allocated to the Executive branch from Congress.
@@micheleholmes9692 Is a rebel a person or persons who acts on known fabricated evidence? To the best of my knowledge, if one wants to know Jesus, he/she could get a head start by going to church.
They were enforcing regulations which is what they were created (by executive order) and funded (by the congress) to do. Now every decision will have to be made by a judge....lol. Enjoy your lead paint.
@@Homesteader-o8i Ummm ... sort of. Needs more backstory ... Executive orders is NOT how entire new agencies with ANY regulatory power are created ... officially. CONGRESS does that ... officially. In the case of the EPA, Nixon had created what can best be described as a "quick reaction task force" via Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970. He basically threw together 300 to 500 employees into temporary office space, all funded with "re-allocated" (misappropriated) funds from other formally established (by Congress) and funded (by Congress) agencies to expeditiously address growing bipartisan concerns over high-profile environmental disasters occurring at the time, such as the Cuyahoga River fire in 1969 and the Santa Barbara oil spill in 1969. At the same time, he was working with Congress to legitimize and, therefore, fund the EPA. Congress obliged by passing a series of environmental laws that gave the EPA authority and resources to carry out the specified missions. These laws included ... Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (aka, Clean Water Act) Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974. Strangely enough, NONE of these environmental laws OFFICIALLY established the EPA. It's more like the EPA was "implicitly established" or "congressionally authorized" by these environmental laws. Nixon didn't care at that point because the EPA had what it needed from Congress regarding authority and funding to do what it needed to. There are several other quasi-official agencies formed in a similar manner, which include ... Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) So, Boebert is technically right, but functionally wrong being that no one seems to have made a big issue about it previously. As for SCOTUS scuttling Chevron, judges are already involved in other business affairs now, including bankruptcy and asset recovery. They can easily handle lead paint issues ... though, not quickly. So, I wouldn't be surprised if judges simply delegate certain items back to the EPA on a case-by-case basis. After all, who will stop those judges from doing that other than SCOTUS? ... and SCOTUS has plenty of other much bigger fish to fry.
@eddaniels3404-You appear to have missed the ENTIRE point of the SCOTUS ruling that scuttled Chevron. Those "mandates" you are referring to included many that the EPA came up with on its own to align with whichever POTUS was in office at the time. Meaning they were NOT mandates from CONGRESS. Instead, they were mandates from POTUS SCOTUS simply ruled that the EPA is to enforce mandates specified in laws from Congress. Full stop. If Congress doesn't specify a mandate that the EPA (POTUS) thinks should exist, then they need to work with Congress to pass new laws that specify those mandates. Why is any of this so hard to understand?
He sounds pretty educated to me. I believe an investigation would reveal not only that, but also that Boebert doesn’t know what the hell she is talking about.
If EPA has never been authorized by the Congress, why the hell are we subject to its rulings or edicts? How can they extort money from taxpayers? This is all the more Indicative of the need for Responsible Leadership.
This is the dirty little secret behind why these agencies were created-to govern and tax ( fees) without going through congress hence without representation.
@@whatthephuck4588 this is exactly how democracy fails. Because the power we're supposed to have gets delegated out to unelected agencies that are exposed to zero consequences, monetary or otherwise
@@richb.4374 Deleting DEF Systems can be a violation of local laws. Any reputable performance shop would know that and know what laws apply to their area.
Even in her home state, they went after PFI speed who has a huge youtube presence and has been in the industry atleast 15+ years. They were trying to strong arm him and pay huge fines or else. He has spoken about it at length on his channel and at the PRI show
Many of these agencies have gone rogue because the house and senate are derelict in their oversite duty. If congress wanted to fix these problems, they'd refund these
Initially, there were several laws.passed that were administered under several different executive branch departments: public health, agriculture etc. Congress then authorized the creation of a commission (called something else) Republican President Richard Nixon.brought all of the authorizations under that one roof in 1972. Congress subsequently passed supporting legislation. So the idea that EPA was never authorized by Congress is false.
@@pmclaughlin4111Nixon did it by executive order and gave EPA law enforcement authority, which congress never specified. That's the point she idiotically tried to make. The president invented a law enforcement agency via executive order. And then EPA tried to write new laws for it to enforce. The SC was right to rule against that. Boehbert isn't smart enough to properly articulate the issue.
@@jhansen6180 Constitutionally they are supposed to be established and authorized by congress. The president is simply meant to dictate policies for agencies to approach enforcing the laws made by congress, but agencies' authority is from congress. Seriously, nobody understands the separation of powers.
@@johnathansaegal3156 EPA was not approved by Congress. Congress approved the NEPA in 1970. The NEPA is a group of laws dealing with the environment. The agency called the EPA was established by president Nixon as a way to enforce NEPA.
To answer the question, they will not repeal regulations that they made in the past because of the repeal of Chevron deference ruling. It will take many many law suits to get that done.
@@frankhubbardiv8711 what you just said not only makes no sense, but if she did "understand" she wouldn't have gotten so many things blatantly wrong in her statements.
@@frankhubbardiv8711 No, that is not what it means. As I wrote, it only means that now when challenged in a lawsuit, an agency can no longer tell a judge that he's not allowed to review the agency's decisions for legality. Before, a court had to give deference to the "experts" at an agency and virtually wasn't allowed to say a rule of theirs is illegal. It kind of gave the executive branch agencies immunity from oversight by the judicial branch, i.e. lawsuits brought against them by the public.
I don't get why Republicans have a hard time reading. Despite overturning Chevron, the Supreme Court emphasized that the ruling does not invalidate prior cases decided under the Chevron framework. The specific holdings of those cases, including the Clean Air Act holding of Chevron itself, remain valid under the principle of stare decisis. They regulations in place will stay in place.
If one ever "doubts their intelligence" its for a reason - Id call it deep seeded guilt for believing the nonsense of a Biden regime. Reassure yourself all you want still wont make amends for everyone unconstitutional action against America's republic that the Biden regime has created that has been known by those with actual political intelligence
@@You_CantHandleTheTruth By definition, bureaucrats are spending US tax payer funds. I take it that you do not appreciate government and/or bureaucrats much, but let us just assume that some of them actually provide some valuable service to the citizens. Some reductions here and there, sure - it is always healthy to look for and remove bloated bureaucracy, but please do not stigmatize all bureaucrats.
It would be helpful if you would actually try to correct the OP instead of just repeating 'DO YOU?'. From what I have read, the EPA has not lost ANY of their power to execute on the current set of legislation/rules. However, the SC decision has reduced their powers on INTERPRETING ambigious legislation. Thus, the EPA has lost the power to 'define the fine print' in environmental legislation - from now on this power is left to the courts. The EPA has *not* lost all of their power. And arguing for it's complete removal (as Boebert does) is assuming that it does in no way provide any value to US citizens, which I believe is founded in ignorance and/or a desire to appeal to a broader audience.
SCOTUS didn’t deem these regulations unconstitutional, they just repealed a doctrine that said SCOTUS would give deference to federal agencies when interpreting laws. Essentially, for decades, agencies were able to "fill in the gaps" on vague laws passed bg congress and courts would defer to the interpretation of the agencies. NOW, courts no longer need to defer to agencies and may make determinations about whether agency policies align with the law as written. ...so yes, Boebert did not understand the ruling.
No where in the Constitution are there provisions for the Federal Government to establish agencies to make laws nor regulate anything. There is a commerce clause that provides for Congress ,not the Executive Branch, authority to regulate commerce BETWEEN the states. Far too much government overreach.
@@Macias78fulcongress answers to the constitution not the other way around. Constitution expressly says what congress’s authority is, nowhere in the constitution does it say Congress can create all these bureaucratic agencies to enforce regulations. At best these agencies were created by an overly liberal interpretation of the commerce clause….it is insane
In order to make the laws work on a day-to-day level, Congress authorizes certain government agencies - including EPA - to create regulations. Does she really think that Congress has unknowingly been funding the EPA? Just negotiating how much to give them every year while all the while not having to do so? Boebert is an idiot.
So... you can delete this message. the main point of this is that hoebert didnt understand what the ruling was in the first place... The ruling was allowing the courts tp interpret the language that is used in the new legislations, not that they cant make anymore. She had no idea what she was talking about the entire time. Please delete your message, I dont want anymore reason for the dems to not vote republican.
Boebert is a dope. She doesn't understand the recent SCOTUS ruling striking down Chevron deference. It doesn't require that agencies suddenly start "rolling back rules" as Boebert ridiculously interprets it here. It just means that if a rule of an agency like EPA is challenged in court, the judges DO get to decide if it passes legal muster and are no longer bound by the Chevron deference of having to defer to the judgment of the agency on the legality of their own rules.
@@Sarah-im3lp It is my understanding They as a regulatory Agency Are no longer able to interpret rules as they see fit under Chevron Deference and Inforce them as if they where law If you think otherwise then please in lighten the rest of us?
This is D.E.I. working your tax dollars; that dude being hired is a direct result of D.E.I.: DIVISION, EMPOWERMENT, and INDOCTRINATION. This dude must think so highly of himself to argue with a duly elected Congresswoman. He didn't answer her question, he just wanted to argue. He's gotta' go, along with many D.E.I. hires.
This is such a silly statement. He did not use the f word. Also, what law would be applied for indicting him for anything? I understand that you do not sympathize with him and/or the work that he is set to do, but I suggest you express that in a different form than suggesting he is breaking the law in his statement for the committee.
Chevron being struck down, takes away any abilities of the EPA to make rules, so the fact that he says the EPA is going to continue to male rules, mean he doesn't understand the ruling.
You're wrong, she's right. She's just not wording it well. EPA has been overstepping and attempting to restrict things like gas cars when it doesn't have legislative power.
@@kristintopol1724 😂! What did the ruling say? You Trump supporters are always making excuses for comments your leaders make. “She said it wrong.” Are you out of your mind? She was reading from her iPad!! Those were prepared statements by her team!
So many commentors have absolutely no idea of how the Executive branch agencies operate. The EPA was enacted by Nixon in 1970 and authorized by both the House and the Senate. Both the House and the Senate have oversight committees that ensure that the regulations enacted by the EPA, or any other agency, comply with the laws passed by Congress or updated over the years. The House also funds all the agencies, so if they don't like how the agencies are fulfilling the law, they can seek changes in how the agencies carry out the law. So Congres has been overseeing and funding the EPA to fulfill its legislation for 54 years. Congress proposes and passes legislation. The President signs it and it becomes law. The Executive branch (headed by the President) is charged with enacting the laws. Over the years the Executive branch has established agencies with Congressional approval to carry out the laws with Congressional approval. Congress has oversight over all agencies. This is 6th grade Government class material, so maybe most of the commetators are in 5th grade or lower, I hope! Edit: All of the above is so easy to verify thru Google or any other browser.
I just googled the EPA and Congress and is was not ratified by the whole of the US Congress. It was an executive order by Nixon, passed in the House and Senate committees but never taken to the floor for a vote. So technically no Congress did not authorize the EPA through law. Committee’s don’t pass laws, they do oversight and recommendations, and are the first congressional set of eyes to see new legislation to see if it viable and constitutional.
And it does sound nice and neat like that (and well written by the way)- on paper. I seem to remember some other way of running things that seemed good on paper (unless you studied the humanities), but once out in the real world and after human nature is added to the mix, it goes bad in ways more terrible than ever seen before. In this case, simple laziness is the simple human failing. After congress started deferring some of their duties and power to unelected bureaucrats (“interpreting” laws passed by congress and making “rules”) bureaucrats who are unaccountable to the voters and can only really get fired by their friends and not the people, that is where this whole thing came from, and why it had to be stopped.
Rules that by the way have real legal and financial influences on the American citizenry. i.e. having to abandon the $50k you sunk into a plot of land along with your plans to build your dream home because one pink bellied finch (or some such), which is “endangered” was discovered living on the far corner of the property, and thanks to EPA “rules” (that once again unconstitutionally carry the weight of law) it cannot even be relocated (which is also stupid - animals are adaptable as their world is more real than ours by far). Yeah. BS like that Also don’t get me started on waterways. Makes the finch kind of stuff look like child’s play in comparison with how they (seemingly) maliciously attack citizens for no apparent reasonable reason other than they can. Everybody who has ever built anything knows to run in fear of the EPA and that absolutely should not be the case. They have no fear of the people they ruthlessly and arbitrarily go after because they don’t have to worry about reelection. They are appointed. This is a huge problem, especially if the “rules” they make, near enough as makes no matter, carry the weight of law.
Apparently you didn't read the ruling by scotus it found that for the last 70 years the process you just laid out has been unconstitutional and if Congress wants it to remain as it was it needs to write law laying it out in that manner. The legal authority of these agencies is to record not enforce they are not a law enforcement body or a legislator that determines law any fines they have written were written without legal authority to do so only.
It's too bad Forbes didn't show the rest of the hearing where there is a better explanation of the SC ruling that Boebert either glossed over or, more likely, didn't understand that blew her logic out of the water. She was probably out of the room by that time, trying to see how many likes she got online.
The EPA was supposed to come up with suggestions and policies that were to be given to legislation to move through the process. The congress was also supposed to have oversight and control funding for it like any other government agency or entity. That is what keeps the balance of power in check or balanced. This is the problem with many areas in our government. Who can reign in the federal government and protect the peoples rights and freedoms if they answer to no one. The Chevron doctrine has been monumentally abused as designed. She is right and he is wrong but Tyrants refuse to give up power, it must be taken from them.
Lauren is absolutely right, this guy has no clue that they never even had the power in the 1st place to make-up rules, statutes and laws. Now the scotus has stopped all the BS. Thank you lauren. Excellent job 👏 👍 👌
Committee hearings allowed for enabling legislation to proceed to a floor vote which never happened. No bill creating the EPA was ever passed by either house and as such, no bill could have been signed into law by a president.
@@946towguy2 : Congress enacted the Reorganisation Acts Amendment in 1984 (signed by Reagan), to strengthen the EPA's standing. And the Chevron Deference was the brain child of the Reagan administration as well. It's small-government conservatives that wanted strong agencies, to undermine Laws on Environmental Protection (Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, etc.), because trying to repeal them in Congress would have caused a political shitstorm that would have ended their reign.
@@jcnash02They still don't have the authority to create laws, or rules. They also can't punish people for rules that they created themselves and ruin their lives.
@@saltygenx2743 not just the EPA, you are as well 😀 Have fun eating e-coli lettuce that could have been stopped or drinking water contaminated by big industry
@@luvitluvitbaby No fcrazyflood hates the unreasonable directives of the EPA. We can still have clean water and clean air without the draconian administration.
The EPA doesn't have a specific "authorization" from Congress. It was created by Nixon when he re-shuffled some executive branch agencies and condensed them into the EPA. Congress then had the ability to say yes, no, or nothing. They chose to say nothing and that allowed the EPA to come into being. Post-Chevron the EPA must now follow the authorizations in Clean Air Act (CAA), Clean Water Act (CWA), Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Anything outside of this and the EPA can't do it.
Imagine subtracting more funds from an agency already has 20% of their budget cut. I urge you to do a little research before asking to defund an agency that literally ensures your state and country doesn’t do things such as mix waste water with drinking water
@bcba_lace4916 If they did their job, it would be okay; but when they, unelected bureaucrats, use their positions to bankrupt farmers, 20% is the least they need to be cut!
@KD0AFK33 Unfortunately, it's just to get control of the land and has nothing to do with the environment. Sheeple think that their government always has their best interest in mind. We can't even vote these people out of their positions!
The SC decision has removed the ability of the EPA to interpretate ambigious legislation. Thus, the EPA has lost the power to 'define the fine print' in environmental legislation. From now on this privilege is given to the courts. Arguing for it's complete removal (as Boebert does) is assuming that it does in no way provide any value to US citizens, which I believe is founded in ignorance and/or a desire to appeal to a broader audience.
Yeah, she could've attended civics lessons, learn about the basics of government, you know... how Congress works and whatnot. And how the EPA was established by her own party (Nixon), and how her own party increased the power of the EPA (Reagan).
First, the EPA was established by Nixon, a republican president, by executive order which the House and Senate later ratified through committee. Moreover, Congress passes an annual budget which includes funding for the EPA. Thus, Boebert’s statement that the EPA was never authorized by Congress is factually incorrect. Second, in Loper Bright, SCOTUS did not hold that the EPA or its regulations are unconstitutional. The Chevron doctrine required courts to defer to agency interpretation of ambiguous statutes so long as there was a rational basis for the interpretation. In Loper Bright, the Court ruled that courts must exercise their independent judgment when interpreting statutes and not defer to agency interpretations. No EPA regs were deemed unconstitutional in Loper Bright. Believe what comes out of Boebert’s mouth as you want. But, as a wiseman once said, you should never believe something to be true simply because you want to believe it. Also, if want to drink poisoned water and breathe poisoned air, by all means eliminate the EPA. The billionaire class will greatly appreciate your support for its elimination.
All of them Standard boilerplate language includes instructions to the executive to execute laws passed by congress (It's also part of the Constitution but most people can't understand the "fancy language")
Which detailed laws have they passed for anything. I read somewhere the clean waterways act was supposed to clean up the waterways by 1985, but that hasnt happened yet. Can any environmental group now sue to stop any dumping of any harmful chemical into any waterway because itnis in controvention of the clean water act?
Simple, is it a law, written through the legislative process, or is it a rule, made by unelected officials? If it is important, the legislature will make it law.
the rules are literally created around the template that congress gives them. Thats literally how it works congress tells federal agencies how to operate through legislation
The epa was creating laws without congress, and enforcing them on people & companies. The crossing she references deemed that practice unconstitutional.
@@frankhubbardiv8711 Much like the ATF and its attempt at lawmaking on bump-stocks and braces. They never had the power to make those rulings in the first place and kept overstepping their boundaries. More so that they were created by Nixon but were independent so all 3 branches kinda looking in their direction like "who gave you your job cause you lookin' real unfamiliar, now".
ummmm. I like her but.... Environmental Protection Act of 1970 established that federal agencies have authority and mandate for environmental concerns... but Nixon just created the agency by a EO out of no where without of consent of congress... she is absolutely right. I'm am really shocked.... I'm researching this as I'm writing this response... holy cow. this is bananas. Ah but "5 U.S. Code § 903 - Reorganization plans" covers that authority to move create and disassemble agencies under presidential authority. Actually I say we keep the EPA created this way and let Trump come in break apart agencies, and reduce headcount. I like this presidential authority over execuvtive agencies... "Reogranization Plans" hell yeah.
A month ago trump got the oil companies together and said... give me a billion dollars and you can do what ever you want. I think the EPA would make safer regulations than a president that only cares about his own pocket instead of what's good for the country. Trump will take money from anyone and could care less about what it would do to us or our country. The superme court just gave him that right and we can't even investigate him. Talk about legalizing corruption.
You're not quite right. The EPA is an accumulation of several agencies, that existed before under several Departments (eg. pollution control and pesticide programs), with the primary predecessor being the Environmental Health divisions of the US Public health service. And it derived its regulatory authority from several laws, such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Toxic Substances Conrol Act, etc. And when the EPA's legality was in question, Congress responded by enacting the Reorganisation Acts Amendment from 1984 (signed by Pres. Reagan), to strengthen the EPA's standing. And fun fact: the Chevron Deference was the brain child of the Reagan administration as well. It's small-government conservatives that wanted strong agencies, to undermine Laws on Environmental Protection (Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, etc.), because trying to repeal them in Congress would have caused a political shitstorm that would have ended their reign. People then still remembered stinking cars and factories and the resulting lung diseases, or factories legally poisoning water ways and soil.
@@bikkiikun thanks for providing this. My research time for this is minimal, but I'd be pleased to see someone quote those acts of legislation you have with exact "chapter and verse" showing where or not authority was or wasn't granted. I think she must be wrong to make such a bold statement, but your post suggests less clarity, and stating there was this 1984 act to me makes it less clear.
@@mrwayneright : I suggest the Wikipedia Articles on the EPA and the Reorganisation Plan No.3 of 1970 as starting point, from there you'll find links to the actual laws. If you want to dig deeper, I suggest Title 5 of the United States Code. There you'll find the rules on how government agencies work. How they are created, what they can and cannot do and congressional oversight. And yes, that's a lot of reading... not something that the Twitter faction of the NSDA... Republican party is capable of. Nor something they'd even want to do.
@@mrwayneright even though the EPA was federalized by an EO, it was ratified by congress and continued to be proven with funds provided by congress. Ms. GED doesnt understand basic civil procedures (basically, shes just lying to the public who works too much to actually look up what shes saying)
@@edg3048 Not a properly funded group. If the EPA is self funded and producing workable solutions is one thing. Providing NO solutions is causing environmental damage. Look at what our lzrge cities are causing@!@
@@oatmeal1503 Absolute nonsense. How do you come to this conclusion? The man laughed in Boeberts face because SHE is clueless. She shows zero understanding of the facts of the ruling and reminds everyone of how unqualified she is. C’mon man. Pay attention.
@Carini76 his laugh was that of an arrogant bureaucrat who acts on authority he doesn't have & never has had. I remember a time when the EPA had no enforcement authority at all & don't remember Congress ever actually giving them the power they seem to have assumed of their own accord. Nixon created the EPA to recommend changes, not to enforce them.
@@bjdog42 The EPA's criminal enforcement program focuses on criminal conduct that threatens people's health and the environment. It was established in 1982 and granted full law enforcement authority by congress in 1988. They enforce the nations laws by investigating cases, collecting evidence, conducting forensic analyses and providing legal guidance to assist with prosecutions. The arrogance in this clip comes from Boebert. He did his best to control his laughter because her line of questioning was so ridiculous. He wasn’t the only one laughing at her. You should too.
What was confusing about this? Congress has oversight authority over appointed agencies. It is part of the separation or powers and checks and balances. Any regulations created by these agencies are not law. Only the congressional branch can create laws. The Executive branch is responsible for executing those laws. The EPA falls under the executive branch and is led appointees, not elected officials. The constitution is clear about this.
Wow. Boebert has no idea what that decision meant. And didn’t understand the Chevron doctrine. Exposed herself as an idiot again. The decision just didn’t do anything close to that.
Actually she does know what she's talking about. The EPA was never voted on and authorized by congress. Research it. Now, do you know what you're talking about? Probably NOT!!
I've noticed a pattern of Administrator Regan interrupting and being extremely condescending towards female members of congress in particular. Why do none of the champions of women's rights on the left seem to have any issue with that 🤔
i would be condescending towards a person whose education is a GED certificate who doesnt know what they're talking about. This is why typically lawyers get into politics and not high school drop outs
You got any examples other than Boebert and MTG? Because there just might be a characteristic other than gender to explain his condescending attitude towards those two.
Supreme Court doesn't oversee the EPA. That's what this guy is saying. If Congress never passed any authority or laws to the EPA then the EPA has no authority to make rules. She's correct.
@@KuroJun666 President Nixon by Executive Order in 1970, not authorized by Congress. They have been making shit up as they have gone along for 54 years. That all stopped 2 Fridays ago at 10am, Congress holds Article 2 power over all agencies. In essence, they were never approved by Article 2 power, and every single rule they have ever written is unconstitutional. The courts will decide and the agencies can no longer refer to themselves for expert opinions.
@@KuroJun666 She is correct. Nixon created the EPA by executive order using discretionary funds. They were basically a think tank which advised the President how to direct various agencies to help protect the environment. A request was sent to congress to pass enabling legislation to make the agency official, but it was never passed.
@@946towguy2 the authority and responsibility were both affirmed and expanded by environmental laws passed by congress. I think it’s quite clear what she’s asking, and what she is trying to prove. In any case, she is wrong.
Look in Article 2, section 2. Pay specific attention to paragraph 2, then 3, and 1 probably the least applicable. For the last 50-60 years Congress has had something of a deal with the presidents office to establish the department and agencies, but they leave most of the regulatory details up to those agencies as long as they get public input through open agency hearings and publishing proposals in the Federal register. The Chevron decisions seems to imply the courts want to see it go back to more detailed Congressional legislation.
@@crosslink1493 Well, just as soon as someone can show me where literally ANY bureaucracy has been granted Article 1 (literally the first sentence) authority under the constitution, then their scribblings will carry the weight of law... But until such time, there is literally nothing, anywhere, written by any bureaucracy that carries the weight of law. Their one, and only, charge under the constitution is to carry out the laws of the congress as written, not "interpret" and most certainly not add/amend what has been written by the congress to fit the whims of political tides.
@@nobodyuknow4911 exactly, the people who defend this are probably part of the problem - public servants grifting off this corrupt and unconstitutional abomination of a system. Seems far too many "citizens" are lazy opportunistic self-dealers who only care about laws and regulations when they can be exploited to serve their own personal and financial interests. And that's not how its supposed to be. That isn't how it was EVER supposed to be. The government of the US as planned and meticulously crafted by our Founders, is a minarchy - the so-called "Night Watchman" state...not Leviathan that it is today.
He was remarkably patient with a legislator who was ignorant of the implications of the ruling. Boebert is as misinformed about this as she was about public urination in Washington DC.
If the EPA has never been authorized by Congress, then why has Congress been funding it for so many years???????
This should enable millions of lawsuits!!!!
Congress should not be funding it. The Executive branch, who created it, should be funding it from what has been allocated to the Executive branch from Congress.
Congress and the Senate approved the EPA in the summer of 1970 , Boebert is lying again!
@@roddneyfett444 Who cares who funds it, it needs to be done!
Kickbacks
Actually is was authorized by congress in 1970 after being proposed by REPUBLICAN president Richard Nixon. Time you took reading lessons
I genuinely cannot imagine the kind of person who would vote for her
And you believe anything the Left says.
Maybe Congress should actually pass a budget instead of a continuing resolution
@@micheleholmes9692 Is a rebel a person or persons who acts on known fabricated evidence? To the best of my knowledge, if one wants to know Jesus, he/she could get a head start by going to church.
@@JackeryThompson-lq8zk its clear you do not know jesus
@@yoitscharms If you think knowing Jesus is admitting defeat, you don't either.
bingo. Stop giving them money
@JackeryThompson-lq8zk never said any of that , but , okay
she doesn't understand the bullet points she was given to say ...smh
“Authorition” isn’t a word. Her question was so confusing because she doesn’t understand what the hell the courts ruled on
She is trying to be smart, and also outsmart someone, and both things are impossible.
They are Forcing Mandates Not Laws. 😢
They were enforcing regulations which is what they were created (by executive order) and funded (by the congress) to do.
Now every decision will have to be made by a judge....lol.
Enjoy your lead paint.
Kind of like presidential immunity, huh?
@@Homesteader-o8i Ummm ... sort of. Needs more backstory ...
Executive orders is NOT how entire new agencies with ANY regulatory power are created ... officially. CONGRESS does that ... officially.
In the case of the EPA, Nixon had created what can best be described as a "quick reaction task force" via Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970. He basically threw together 300 to 500 employees into temporary office space, all funded with "re-allocated" (misappropriated) funds from other formally established (by Congress) and funded (by Congress) agencies to expeditiously address growing bipartisan concerns over high-profile environmental disasters occurring at the time, such as the Cuyahoga River fire in 1969 and the Santa Barbara oil spill in 1969.
At the same time, he was working with Congress to legitimize and, therefore, fund the EPA. Congress obliged by passing a series of environmental laws that gave the EPA authority and resources to carry out the specified missions. These laws included ...
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (aka, Clean Water Act)
Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974.
Strangely enough, NONE of these environmental laws OFFICIALLY established the EPA. It's more like the EPA was "implicitly established" or "congressionally authorized" by these environmental laws. Nixon didn't care at that point because the EPA had what it needed from Congress regarding authority and funding to do what it needed to.
There are several other quasi-official agencies formed in a similar manner, which include ...
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
So, Boebert is technically right, but functionally wrong being that no one seems to have made a big issue about it previously.
As for SCOTUS scuttling Chevron, judges are already involved in other business affairs now, including bankruptcy and asset recovery. They can easily handle lead paint issues ... though, not quickly. So, I wouldn't be surprised if judges simply delegate certain items back to the EPA on a case-by-case basis. After all, who will stop those judges from doing that other than SCOTUS? ... and SCOTUS has plenty of other much bigger fish to fry.
@@paulm518 You mad bro?
@eddaniels3404-You appear to have missed the ENTIRE point of the SCOTUS ruling that scuttled Chevron. Those "mandates" you are referring to included many that the EPA came up with on its own to align with whichever POTUS was in office at the time. Meaning they were NOT mandates from CONGRESS. Instead, they were mandates from POTUS
SCOTUS simply ruled that the EPA is to enforce mandates specified in laws from Congress. Full stop. If Congress doesn't specify a mandate that the EPA (POTUS) thinks should exist, then they need to work with Congress to pass new laws that specify those mandates.
Why is any of this so hard to understand?
Mr Regan, you ar patient. I would be embarrassed if she were on our high school debate team.
The way he speaks and his mannerisms speak volumes about his education.
And the takeaway is that he has quite a bit more than her.
He doesn't get the chance to respond. Forced to listen to this irrational diatribe from LB.
@@zentherewasone Authoritation.
He sounds pretty educated to me. I believe an investigation would reveal not only that, but also that Boebert doesn’t know what the hell she is talking about.
@@Carini76Which one? Authoritarians need some power to become potent and neither of those people qualifies.
If EPA has never been authorized by the Congress, why the hell are we subject to its rulings or edicts? How can they extort money from taxpayers? This is all the more Indicative of the need for Responsible Leadership.
This is the dirty little secret behind why these agencies were created-to govern and tax ( fees) without going through congress hence without representation.
In December 1970, Congress authorized the creation of a new federal agency to tackle environmental issues, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
@@randyeilers4061creating it is different than having the power to write laws. Congress has no jurisdiction to part out it's responsibilties.
@@whatthephuck4588 this is exactly how democracy fails. Because the power we're supposed to have gets delegated out to unelected agencies that are exposed to zero consequences, monetary or otherwise
....same can be said about the ATF.
What about the EPA raiding automotive performance shops then fining them into closure
And fining diesel performance shops for deleting DEF systems when they never had the legal authority to do so.
Even making us smog our cars and crushing those cars that can't meet imposed standards is now suspect.
And banning 2-stroke dirtbikes .
@@richb.4374 Deleting DEF Systems can be a violation of local laws. Any reputable performance shop would know that and know what laws apply to their area.
Even in her home state, they went after PFI speed who has a huge youtube presence and has been in the industry atleast 15+ years. They were trying to strong arm him and pay huge fines or else. He has spoken about it at length on his channel and at the PRI show
The EPA is so large they are legislating.
Many of these agencies have gone rogue because the house and senate are derelict in their oversite duty. If congress wanted to fix these problems, they'd refund these
The EPA is tiny compared to other agencies, with a budget of around $6 billion! DHS is around $80 billion, Transportation is $145 Billion, etc...!
The FBI and ATF too and there work is not making rules but enforce the ones approved by congress. God bless America.
@@Zavala-z9g Unfortunately these agencies are so large they are not only legislating but fighting in court against legal legislation.
@@Dan-sc7us The budget of the EPA is indeed smaller than other agencies. However their fees fines and penalties dwarf the other agencies.
I am old and I never knew EPA wasn't authorized by congress.
Initially, there were several laws.passed that were administered under several different executive branch departments: public health, agriculture etc. Congress then authorized the creation of a commission (called something else) Republican President Richard Nixon.brought all of the authorizations under that one roof in 1972. Congress subsequently passed supporting legislation. So the idea that EPA was never authorized by Congress is false.
@@pmclaughlin4111Nixon did it by executive order and gave EPA law enforcement authority, which congress never specified. That's the point she idiotically tried to make. The president invented a law enforcement agency via executive order. And then EPA tried to write new laws for it to enforce. The SC was right to rule against that. Boehbert isn't smart enough to properly articulate the issue.
Few of them are smart...agree
Most federal agencies operate under the authorization of the executive branch.
@@jhansen6180 Constitutionally they are supposed to be established and authorized by congress. The president is simply meant to dictate policies for agencies to approach enforcing the laws made by congress, but agencies' authority is from congress. Seriously, nobody understands the separation of powers.
it's like talking to a brick wall
it always is
It is a brick wall.
It seemed to me to be more like a brick wall talking to garden in front of it.
@@johnathansaegal3156 EPA was not approved by Congress. Congress approved the NEPA in 1970. The NEPA is a group of laws dealing with the environment. The agency called the EPA was established by president Nixon as a way to enforce NEPA.
Well at least the Brick Wall got her nails nice and pretty.
To answer the question, they will not repeal regulations that they made in the past because of the repeal of Chevron deference ruling. It will take many many law suits to get that done.
Exactly, something that dopey Boebert doesn't understand.
@beastslayer3228 she did understand, that's why she was pushing him, and pointing out that the epa was going to be acting unlawfully now.
@@frankhubbardiv8711 what you just said not only makes no sense, but if she did "understand" she wouldn't have gotten so many things blatantly wrong in her statements.
@@frankhubbardiv8711 No, that is not what it means. As I wrote, it only means that now when challenged in a lawsuit, an agency can no longer tell a judge that he's not allowed to review the agency's decisions for legality. Before, a court had to give deference to the "experts" at an agency and virtually wasn't allowed to say a rule of theirs is illegal. It kind of gave the executive branch agencies immunity from oversight by the judicial branch, i.e. lawsuits brought against them by the public.
I don't get why Republicans have a hard time reading. Despite overturning Chevron, the Supreme Court emphasized that the ruling does not invalidate prior cases decided under the Chevron framework. The specific holdings of those cases, including the Clean Air Act holding of Chevron itself, remain valid under the principle of stare decisis. They regulations in place will stay in place.
I like to visit Forbes when I'm doubting my intelligence. Reading through the comments always provides reassurance. Thank you for the esteem boost.
You be very welcomes!
I lost hope… until coming upon this beautiful little jab.
The best part by far being its “obscure” 😉 association with any given ’side’ 😂
Thanks 🙏🏻
If one ever "doubts their intelligence" its for a reason - Id call it deep seeded guilt for believing the nonsense of a Biden regime. Reassure yourself all you want still wont make amends for everyone unconstitutional action against America's republic that the Biden regime has created that has been known by those with actual political intelligence
You're not very bright. This is your wakeup call.
@@CypressItaliansooo… they should be …. Awakened? I think that’s the right word. You know… if they Woke up 😏
The arrogance of this unelected bureaucrat is sickening !
Arrogance? Authoritation is not even a word ...
Lauren was elected, what are talking about?
@@KD0AFK33she was grilling the Biden crony that doesn't know where his agency began.
The people can stop the EPA whenever they choose to.
@@markedgette5463 why would we want to?
whats the point of the legal system if nobody ever answers questions when testifying and nothing changes
The House floor isn’t a courtroom. Congressman are legislators not judiciary.
@@33greenleaf true but it sure would be nice to compel a witness to answer the questions as asked.
@@phillipalder9045 I agree
Relying on integrity ended in the 60's at best
lately no one seems to answer CONGRESS QUESTIONS OR SUBPOENAS ID THEY ARE DEMS..
Wow, another unelected bureaucrat spending US TAX PAYER FUNDS.
Do you want to elect every government official.
No, people Voted for her. 😂
@@derekcoaker6579 I was talking about the EPA Admin.
@@You_CantHandleTheTruth By definition, bureaucrats are spending US tax payer funds. I take it that you do not appreciate government and/or bureaucrats much, but let us just assume that some of them actually provide some valuable service to the citizens. Some reductions here and there, sure - it is always healthy to look for and remove bloated bureaucracy, but please do not stigmatize all bureaucrats.
They just can't grasp the fact that they have lost ALL of their power.
Do you understand the Supreme Court’s decision?
@@earlyriser03do you?
@@saw31489 I do, and it’s not whatever Beetlejuice Bobo is screeching about.
Do YOU?
It would be helpful if you would actually try to correct the OP instead of just repeating 'DO YOU?'. From what I have read, the EPA has not lost ANY of their power to execute on the current set of legislation/rules. However, the SC decision has reduced their powers on INTERPRETING ambigious legislation. Thus, the EPA has lost the power to 'define the fine print' in environmental legislation - from now on this power is left to the courts. The EPA has *not* lost all of their power. And arguing for it's complete removal (as Boebert does) is assuming that it does in no way provide any value to US citizens, which I believe is founded in ignorance and/or a desire to appeal to a broader audience.
@@trondsteensns8670 pay attention. The person that replied to me wasn’t the OP.
SCOTUS didn’t deem these regulations unconstitutional, they just repealed a doctrine that said SCOTUS would give deference to federal agencies when interpreting laws. Essentially, for decades, agencies were able to "fill in the gaps" on vague laws passed bg congress and courts would defer to the interpretation of the agencies. NOW, courts no longer need to defer to agencies and may make determinations about whether agency policies align with the law as written.
...so yes, Boebert did not understand the ruling.
No where in the Constitution are there provisions for the Federal Government to establish agencies to make laws nor regulate anything. There is a commerce clause that provides for Congress ,not the Executive Branch, authority to regulate commerce BETWEEN the states. Far too much government overreach.
It most certainly does. The authority is within the law or laws passed by congress that crerate the agency.
@@Macias78fulcongress answers to the constitution not the other way around. Constitution expressly says what congress’s authority is, nowhere in the constitution does it say Congress can create all these bureaucratic agencies to enforce regulations. At best these agencies were created by an overly liberal interpretation of the commerce clause….it is insane
100% correct
We don’t need the EPA or ATF.
There are a LOT of alphabet agency shuttering.
The rivers were on fire.
@@ḵulagaaw where?
Do you want clean drinking water? Safe roads? ...
@@basengelblik5199 yet some places do not have clean drinking water and safe roads? When has that been a thing?
SHUT IT ALL DOWN NOW!!!!!
And replace it with what? You?
My energy here in CA is neither reliable or affordable :(
I believe congress may need to step in and have them cease all activities until they can go through a full review
You should know what you are talking about before you post. This is a huge problem with social media.
Defund the EPA
In order to make the laws work on a day-to-day level, Congress authorizes certain government agencies - including EPA - to create regulations. Does she really think that Congress has unknowingly been funding the EPA? Just negotiating how much to give them every year while all the while not having to do so? Boebert is an idiot.
@@peterwookie7779 Lauren is all bark no bite
Well if they continue to act against the rulling Then we are not under any obligation to comply With their rules
So... you can delete this message. the main point of this is that hoebert didnt understand what the ruling was in the first place... The ruling was allowing the courts tp interpret the language that is used in the new legislations, not that they cant make anymore. She had no idea what she was talking about the entire time. Please delete your message, I dont want anymore reason for the dems to not vote republican.
Boebert is a dope. She doesn't understand the recent SCOTUS ruling striking down Chevron deference. It doesn't require that agencies suddenly start "rolling back rules" as Boebert ridiculously interprets it here. It just means that if a rule of an agency like EPA is challenged in court, the judges DO get to decide if it passes legal muster and are no longer bound by the Chevron deference of having to defer to the judgment of the agency on the legality of their own rules.
This is why the 1A and 2A are so important to our liberty.
LOL! You obviously don't understand the ruling, just like Bobo!!
@@Sarah-im3lp It is my understanding They as a regulatory Agency Are no longer able to interpret rules as they see fit under Chevron Deference and Inforce them as if they where law If you think otherwise then please in lighten the rest of us?
This dude just said f you.He needs to be tried and held accountable
This is D.E.I. working your tax dollars; that dude being hired is a direct result of D.E.I.: DIVISION, EMPOWERMENT, and INDOCTRINATION. This dude must think so highly of himself to argue with a duly elected Congresswoman. He didn't answer her question, he just wanted to argue. He's gotta' go, along with many D.E.I. hires.
For what exactly??
Saying he wont follow law ........
@@JhonVargas-h8o where did he ever say that exactly?
This is such a silly statement. He did not use the f word. Also, what law would be applied for indicting him for anything? I understand that you do not sympathize with him and/or the work that he is set to do, but I suggest you express that in a different form than suggesting he is breaking the law in his statement for the committee.
Love the new look
I think I love her!😍🥰💕👍💪🇺🇸🤣
He didn't understand 90% of what she said.
She didn't understand 100% of what he said and neither did you.
He was being condescending and Bobert didnt handle it well
He was a diversity hire
He doesnt understand 90% of the English language or simple math.
@@ksbans1oh, he understands. He's being extremely obtuse.
So, clean water and air is a bad thing?
The part was cut out where Boebert was corrected. Not surprised!
Disband the 3 letter agencies.
@@AeroGuy07 and have no clean water or air. Great idea!
@ajlsrv5490 so clean air and water didn't exist before government? How did the human race survive without government telling them what to do?
@@AeroGuy07 do you have any idea how bad our air and water pollution were before the EPA?! Ever hear of acid rain? Look it up. People are dumb.
@@ajlsrv5490 Wrong, we can still have clean air and water with the EPA being more reasonable.
@@timotb1 he didn’t call for the EPA to be more reasonable. He called for it to be disbanded.
Thank You !
Chevron being struck down, takes away any abilities of the EPA to make rules, so the fact that he says the EPA is going to continue to male rules, mean he doesn't understand the ruling.
She is utterly clueless! She doesn’t even know the ruling! This is why you need at least a high school diploma to patronage in grown up activities
You're wrong, she's right. She's just not wording it well. EPA has been overstepping and attempting to restrict things like gas cars when it doesn't have legislative power.
@@kristintopol1724 😂! What did the ruling say? You Trump supporters are always making excuses for comments your leaders make. “She said it wrong.” Are you out of your mind? She was reading from her iPad!! Those were prepared statements by her team!
So many commentors have absolutely no idea of how the Executive branch agencies operate. The EPA was enacted by Nixon in 1970 and authorized by both the House and the Senate. Both the House and the Senate have oversight committees that ensure that the regulations enacted by the EPA, or any other agency, comply with the laws passed by Congress or updated over the years. The House also funds all the agencies, so if they don't like how the agencies are fulfilling the law, they can seek changes in how the agencies carry out the law. So Congres has been overseeing and funding the EPA to fulfill its legislation for 54 years.
Congress proposes and passes legislation. The President signs it and it becomes law. The Executive branch (headed by the President) is charged with enacting the laws. Over the years the Executive branch has established agencies with Congressional approval to carry out the laws with Congressional approval. Congress has oversight over all agencies.
This is 6th grade Government class material, so maybe most of the commetators are in 5th grade or lower, I hope!
Edit: All of the above is so easy to verify thru Google or any other browser.
I just googled the EPA and Congress and is was not ratified by the whole of the US Congress. It was an executive order by Nixon, passed in the House and Senate committees but never taken to the floor for a vote. So technically no Congress did not authorize the EPA through law. Committee’s don’t pass laws, they do oversight and recommendations, and are the first congressional set of eyes to see new legislation to see if it viable and constitutional.
In a nutshell, all of the three letter agencies exist so both houses of congress can pass the buck
And it does sound nice and neat like that (and well written by the way)- on paper. I seem to remember some other way of running things that seemed good on paper (unless you studied the humanities), but once out in the real world and after human nature is added to the mix, it goes bad in ways more terrible than ever seen before. In this case, simple laziness is the simple human failing. After congress started deferring some of their duties and power to unelected bureaucrats (“interpreting” laws passed by congress and making “rules”) bureaucrats who are unaccountable to the voters and can only really get fired by their friends and not the people, that is where this whole thing came from, and why it had to be stopped.
Rules that by the way have real legal and financial influences on the American citizenry. i.e. having to abandon the $50k you sunk into a plot of land along with your plans to build your dream home because one pink bellied finch (or some such), which is “endangered” was discovered living on the far corner of the property, and thanks to EPA “rules” (that once again unconstitutionally carry the weight of law) it cannot even be relocated (which is also stupid - animals are adaptable as their world is more real than ours by far).
Yeah. BS like that
Also don’t get me started on waterways. Makes the finch kind of stuff look like child’s play in comparison with how they (seemingly) maliciously attack citizens for no apparent reasonable reason other than they can. Everybody who has ever built anything knows to run in fear of the EPA and that absolutely should not be the case.
They have no fear of the people they ruthlessly and arbitrarily go after because they don’t have to worry about reelection. They are appointed. This is a huge problem, especially if the “rules” they make, near enough as makes no matter, carry the weight of law.
Apparently you didn't read the ruling by scotus it found that for the last 70 years the process you just laid out has been unconstitutional and if Congress wants it to remain as it was it needs to write law laying it out in that manner. The legal authority of these agencies is to record not enforce they are not a law enforcement body or a legislator that determines law any fines they have written were written without legal authority to do so only.
That dude cant even spell, CONSTITUTION... What a 🤡!!!!!!
It's too bad Forbes didn't show the rest of the hearing where there is a better explanation of the SC ruling that Boebert either glossed over or, more likely, didn't understand that blew her logic out of the water. She was probably out of the room by that time, trying to see how many likes she got online.
This is a good example of why the executive regulatory branch should be 100% eliminated.
The EPA was supposed to come up with suggestions and policies that were to be given to legislation to move through the process. The congress was also supposed to have oversight and control funding for it like any other government agency or entity. That is what keeps the balance of power in check or balanced.
This is the problem with many areas in our government. Who can reign in the federal government and protect the peoples rights and freedoms if they answer to no one.
The Chevron doctrine has been monumentally abused as designed. She is right and he is wrong but Tyrants refuse to give up power, it must be taken from them.
Lauren is absolutely right, this guy has no clue that they never even had the power in the 1st place to make-up rules, statutes and laws. Now the scotus has stopped all the BS. Thank you lauren. Excellent job 👏 👍 👌
Lol, nice satire
Correct
So NO More: Mud puddle swamp land?
Boebert. Always loud and wrong. 🤦🏾♂️
At the end... She went 47 seconds over! 😭 Sounded like he might cry about it. Lort! Like dealing with a child! 😂
The order establishing the EPA was ratified by committee hearings in the House and Senate. So it wasn't ratified by the whole Congress.
Committee hearings allowed for enabling legislation to proceed to a floor vote which never happened. No bill creating the EPA was ever passed by either house and as such, no bill could have been signed into law by a president.
@@946towguy2 : Congress enacted the Reorganisation Acts Amendment in 1984 (signed by Reagan), to strengthen the EPA's standing. And the Chevron Deference was the brain child of the Reagan administration as well. It's small-government conservatives that wanted strong agencies, to undermine Laws on Environmental Protection (Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, etc.), because trying to repeal them in Congress would have caused a political shitstorm that would have ended their reign.
That’s not true. The EPA was delegated significant authority in the Clean Air Act among others.
@@946towguy2this is false.
@@jcnash02They still don't have the authority to create laws, or rules. They also can't punish people for rules that they created themselves and ruin their lives.
It is obvious the executive branch is going to ignore the Chevron Regulations ruling.
It's obvious you don't understand the Chevron ruling.
@@s51curtisthe Chevron doctrine was overturned, in other words....the EPA is screwed.
It's obvious that 2 supreme court justices are going to continue to ignore rules about reclusal and corruption
@@saltygenx2743 not just the EPA, you are as well 😀 Have fun eating e-coli lettuce that could have been stopped or drinking water contaminated by big industry
Do you not want clean air and water? You want companies to be able to dump chemical in your back yard?@saltygenx2743
Mr’ Raskin is a sorry excuse of a politician ! VOTE HIM OUT PLEASE PEOPLE
I hate the EPA
You hate clean air and water too. 😂😂😂
@luvitluvitbaby ya that's what the EPA does.......
@@luvitluvitbaby No fcrazyflood hates the unreasonable directives of the EPA. We can still have clean water and clean air without the draconian administration.
Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, Ohio caught fire in June 1969, now that’s my type of county
@@fcrazyflood I think you mean you hate the overreach of the EPA. Take the modern 5 gallon gas can spout for example.
The EPA doesn't have a specific "authorization" from Congress. It was created by Nixon when he re-shuffled some executive branch agencies and condensed them into the EPA. Congress then had the ability to say yes, no, or nothing. They chose to say nothing and that allowed the EPA to come into being. Post-Chevron the EPA must now follow the authorizations in Clean Air Act (CAA), Clean Water Act (CWA), Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Anything outside of this and the EPA can't do it.
If epa has no legislative authority why do they still get tax dollars
DEFUND THE EPA!!!
@@AZLorie-kl5ow why?
Imagine subtracting more funds from an agency already has 20% of their budget cut. I urge you to do a little research before asking to defund an agency that literally ensures your state and country doesn’t do things such as mix waste water with drinking water
@bcba_lace4916 If they did their job, it would be okay; but when they, unelected bureaucrats, use their positions to bankrupt farmers, 20% is the least they need to be cut!
@@AZLorie-kl5ow If farmers are polluting the environment and putting other's health at risk, they should be held accountable.
@KD0AFK33 Unfortunately, it's just to get control of the land and has nothing to do with the environment. Sheeple think that their government always has their best interest in mind. We can't even vote these people out of their positions!
The SC decision has removed the ability of the EPA to interpretate ambigious legislation. Thus, the EPA has lost the power to 'define the fine print' in environmental legislation. From now on this privilege is given to the courts. Arguing for it's complete removal (as Boebert does) is assuming that it does in no way provide any value to US citizens, which I believe is founded in ignorance and/or a desire to appeal to a broader audience.
DEI does not work.
What do you mean? Women shouldn’t be allowed in congress?
Nothing is ever done.
Yep. Just theater to make people feel like someone is looking out for them.
@@johnfrederick6640 nothing ever does get done when the premise of getting something done is nonsense.
Glad to see Micheal Che doing good.
Go get them, Ms Boebert!
She could have done a lot better in her questioning.
Yeah, she could've attended civics lessons, learn about the basics of government, you know... how Congress works and whatnot. And how the EPA was established by her own party (Nixon), and how her own party increased the power of the EPA (Reagan).
I was thinking the same thing.
Rhetorically she seemed out of her depth, but her logic circuits are fully intact...
@@dcstrng1 : Considering there is some logic, if you feed it non-sense conclusions will be non-sensical as well.
That's an understatement on par with "Wow, that atomic bomb kinda had a little oops. Sorry, Nagasaki".
First, the EPA was established by Nixon, a republican president, by executive order which the House and Senate later ratified through committee. Moreover, Congress passes an annual budget which includes funding for the EPA. Thus, Boebert’s statement that the EPA was never authorized by Congress is factually incorrect.
Second, in Loper Bright, SCOTUS did not hold that the EPA or its regulations are unconstitutional. The Chevron doctrine required courts to defer to agency interpretation of ambiguous statutes so long as there was a rational basis for the interpretation. In Loper Bright, the Court ruled that courts must exercise their independent judgment when interpreting statutes and not defer to agency interpretations. No EPA regs were deemed unconstitutional in Loper Bright.
Believe what comes out of Boebert’s mouth as you want. But, as a wiseman once said, you should never believe something to be true simply because you want to believe it.
Also, if want to drink poisoned water and breathe poisoned air, by all means eliminate the EPA. The billionaire class will greatly appreciate your support for its elimination.
he was expressing contempt
You're expressing ignorance. So what
He was exposing his ignorance and feigning contempt.
@@sandleman3006 He was demonstrating her ignorance and having a laugh at the same time (smile, chuckle)
It's hilarious how confused he is because she's not only wrong but isn't even close to the mark
Yeah. It's obvious that she was going of the analysis by CNN and MSNBC.
Great job Lauren, thanx for working for the people !!!!
Which detailed laws with consequences has Congress passed that allows the EPA to do anything?
All of them
Standard boilerplate language includes instructions to the executive to execute laws passed by congress
(It's also part of the Constitution but most people can't understand the "fancy language")
Yourself being one of them. 🙄
None. That's why the EPA has to do it on your behalf.
Which detailed laws have they passed for anything. I read somewhere the clean waterways act was supposed to clean up the waterways by 1985, but that hasnt happened yet. Can any environmental group now sue to stop any dumping of any harmful chemical into any waterway because itnis in controvention of the clean water act?
Simple, is it a law, written through the legislative process, or is it a rule, made by unelected officials? If it is important, the legislature will make it law.
the rules are literally created around the template that congress gives them.
Thats literally how it works
congress tells federal agencies how to operate through legislation
Boebert @ :20 ...."Authoritation...".......!???!??!?! that's not even a word!! good lord!!
Thank you
The EPA DOESNT PRODUCE ANYTHING…
Yeah it does. Its why your water doesnt kill you.
@@brandons9027 nah, prob more toxins in the water because of them
@@brandons9027 everything the Govrn. touches they make worse
It's why we can breath without suffocating or being poisoned!
@@Sarah-im3lp sure sure, and the FDA makes sure we are eating healthy food.
Whuuuut? Unconstitutional??? Whuuut?
The epa was creating laws without congress, and enforcing them on people & companies. The crossing she references deemed that practice unconstitutional.
Though now I'm thinking you were mocking him, and his posing dumb.
She's so clueless.
Yep and so are you@@TheDivegeek
@@frankhubbardiv8711 Much like the ATF and its attempt at lawmaking on bump-stocks and braces. They never had the power to make those rulings in the first place and kept overstepping their boundaries. More so that they were created by Nixon but were independent so all 3 branches kinda looking in their direction like "who gave you your job cause you lookin' real unfamiliar, now".
This woman is smart😮😮😮😮
ummmm. I like her but.... Environmental Protection Act of 1970 established that federal agencies have authority and mandate for environmental concerns... but Nixon just created the agency by a EO out of no where without of consent of congress... she is absolutely right. I'm am really shocked.... I'm researching this as I'm writing this response... holy cow. this is bananas. Ah but "5 U.S. Code § 903 - Reorganization plans" covers that authority to move create and disassemble agencies under presidential authority.
Actually I say we keep the EPA created this way and let Trump come in break apart agencies, and reduce headcount.
I like this presidential authority over execuvtive agencies... "Reogranization Plans" hell yeah.
A month ago trump got the oil companies together and said... give me a billion dollars and you can do what ever you want. I think the EPA would make safer regulations than a president that only cares about his own pocket instead of what's good for the country. Trump will take money from anyone and could care less about what it would do to us or our country. The superme court just gave him that right and we can't even investigate him. Talk about legalizing corruption.
You're not quite right. The EPA is an accumulation of several agencies, that existed before under several Departments (eg. pollution control and pesticide programs), with the primary predecessor being the Environmental Health divisions of the US Public health service. And it derived its regulatory authority from several laws, such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Toxic Substances Conrol Act, etc.
And when the EPA's legality was in question, Congress responded by enacting the Reorganisation Acts Amendment from 1984 (signed by Pres. Reagan), to strengthen the EPA's standing.
And fun fact: the Chevron Deference was the brain child of the Reagan administration as well. It's small-government conservatives that wanted strong agencies, to undermine Laws on Environmental Protection (Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, etc.), because trying to repeal them in Congress would have caused a political shitstorm that would have ended their reign.
People then still remembered stinking cars and factories and the resulting lung diseases, or factories legally poisoning water ways and soil.
@@bikkiikun thanks for providing this. My research time for this is minimal, but I'd be pleased to see someone quote those acts of legislation you have with exact "chapter and verse" showing where or not authority was or wasn't granted. I think she must be wrong to make such a bold statement, but your post suggests less clarity, and stating there was this 1984 act to me makes it less clear.
@@mrwayneright : I suggest the Wikipedia Articles on the EPA and the Reorganisation Plan No.3 of 1970 as starting point, from there you'll find links to the actual laws.
If you want to dig deeper, I suggest Title 5 of the United States Code. There you'll find the rules on how government agencies work. How they are created, what they can and cannot do and congressional oversight.
And yes, that's a lot of reading... not something that the Twitter faction of the NSDA... Republican party is capable of. Nor something they'd even want to do.
@@mrwayneright even though the EPA was federalized by an EO, it was ratified by congress and continued to be proven with funds provided by congress.
Ms. GED doesnt understand basic civil procedures (basically, shes just lying to the public who works too much to actually look up what shes saying)
Lauren Boebert is a HERO to HUMANITY... sending her 💕 and gratitude for fighting for our freedom & survival🙏. 😇
Watch the rest of the hearing where the ruling is explained better and makes her little sideshow funny, when her logic is proven wrong.
She is correct
Defund the EPA!!!!!!
This is misinformation. Boebert is totally wrong.
They chopped the part explaining WHY boebert is wrong.
Defund the air you breathe..
@@edg3048 Not a properly funded group. If the EPA is self funded and producing workable solutions is one thing.
Providing NO solutions is causing environmental damage. Look at what our lzrge cities are causing@!@
This EPA Commissioner, Michal Regan, seems to be clueless; he seems to not know much about his job.
@@oatmeal1503 Absolute nonsense. How do you come to this conclusion? The man laughed in Boeberts face because SHE is clueless. She shows zero understanding of the facts of the ruling and reminds everyone of how unqualified she is. C’mon man. Pay attention.
@Carini76 his laugh was that of an arrogant bureaucrat who acts on authority he doesn't have & never has had. I remember a time when the EPA had no enforcement authority at all & don't remember Congress ever actually giving them the power they seem to have assumed of their own accord. Nixon created the EPA to recommend changes, not to enforce them.
@@Carini76 It's ironic that you would babble about ignorance.
@@bjdog42 The EPA's criminal enforcement program focuses on criminal conduct that threatens people's health and the environment. It was established in 1982 and granted full law enforcement authority by congress in 1988. They enforce the nations laws by investigating cases, collecting evidence, conducting forensic analyses and providing legal guidance to assist with prosecutions.
The arrogance in this clip comes from Boebert. He did his best to control his laughter because her line of questioning was so ridiculous. He wasn’t the only one laughing at her. You should too.
@@mike-xn1qj Do your homework, Mike.
This man makes me sick
What the hell! Maybe we need to replace most Congress people!
Don’t know if that will work look at what the colleges are pushing and teaching those upcoming would be the next politicians
What was confusing about this? Congress has oversight authority over appointed agencies. It is part of the separation or powers and checks and balances. Any regulations created by these agencies are not law. Only the congressional branch can create laws. The Executive branch is responsible for executing those laws. The EPA falls under the executive branch and is led appointees, not elected officials.
The constitution is clear about this.
Boebert is a waste
I'm so glad Pookie Smoke Dawgg there is looking out for the environment.
She doesn't have any idea what she is talking about
Wow. Boebert has no idea what that decision meant. And didn’t understand the Chevron doctrine. Exposed herself as an idiot again. The decision just didn’t do anything close to that.
Wtf are you talking about?
@@fireeyes5399she clearly has no idea WTF she’s talking about
This is really hard to watch. Does she know what she's talking about?
Black?
Another DEI hire.
No, she doesn't have a clue.
Actually she does know what she's talking about. The EPA was never voted on and authorized by congress. Research it. Now, do you know what you're talking about? Probably NOT!!
No
What would you expect when she didn’t even pass public high school! 😂😂😂
Defund the EPA, ATF, FBI…
department of energy, department of education, irs, etc
@@12mikeg12AEC, DOJ, GOP . . . .
It is not affordable nothing is affordable
This isn't the 1970's anymore, either......
What we need is anarchy. Like the movie Purge. The gov't won't help us, they actually think corporations will lol.
You Go Girl!
I've noticed a pattern of Administrator Regan interrupting and being extremely condescending towards female members of congress in particular. Why do none of the champions of women's rights on the left seem to have any issue with that 🤔
Condescending towards a White female is particularly upsetting, huh Bubba?..
i would be condescending towards a person whose education is a GED certificate who doesnt know what they're talking about.
This is why typically lawyers get into politics and not high school drop outs
You got any examples other than Boebert and MTG? Because there just might be a characteristic other than gender to explain his condescending attitude towards those two.
I’m so over this lady and her idiotic speeches. She just loved to hear herself speak. She needs to just stop.🙄
What are you on about?
He didn't get the job because he was smart. 😂😂😂😂😂
Look at the diversion instead of actually acting on what is unconstitutional
How long has this man, been feeding at the public troft😮😮😮
I want law and order, not rules to law.
Oh your comment is going to send some 82 million into a frenzy!
Que!
Authoritation 😂😂😂😂🤡
There is NO SUCH THING as the "administrative branch" of our executive/ legislative/ judicial government.
Supreme Court doesn't oversee the EPA. That's what this guy is saying. If Congress never passed any authority or laws to the EPA then the EPA has no authority to make rules. She's correct.
Wait what? She’s saying that the EPA isn’t authorized by congress
@@KuroJun666 President Nixon by Executive Order in 1970, not authorized by Congress. They have been making shit up as they have gone along for 54 years. That all stopped 2 Fridays ago at 10am, Congress holds Article 2 power over all agencies. In essence, they were never approved by Article 2 power, and every single rule they have ever written is unconstitutional. The courts will decide and the agencies can no longer refer to themselves for expert opinions.
the court is but shes isnt, the court said congress wants to change the laws thats their business, but never step in to control the EPA, or disban it.
@@KuroJun666 She is correct. Nixon created the EPA by executive order using discretionary funds. They were basically a think tank which advised the President how to direct various agencies to help protect the environment. A request was sent to congress to pass enabling legislation to make the agency official, but it was never passed.
@@946towguy2 the authority and responsibility were both affirmed and expanded by environmental laws passed by congress. I think it’s quite clear what she’s asking, and what she is trying to prove. In any case, she is wrong.
We should start appointing people to a job on their qualifications and not on diversity.
What does his CV say?
Awesome exchange, the EPA has problems.
Uh oh. Better shut it down now.
Where in Article 1, Sections 8/9 is there any authority delegated to the Federal govt for the EPA to exist?
Look in Article 2, section 2. Pay specific attention to paragraph 2, then 3, and 1 probably the least applicable. For the last 50-60 years Congress has had something of a deal with the presidents office to establish the department and agencies, but they leave most of the regulatory details up to those agencies as long as they get public input through open agency hearings and publishing proposals in the Federal register. The Chevron decisions seems to imply the courts want to see it go back to more detailed Congressional legislation.
@@crosslink1493 Well, just as soon as someone can show me where literally ANY bureaucracy has been granted Article 1 (literally the first sentence) authority under the constitution, then their scribblings will carry the weight of law... But until such time, there is literally nothing, anywhere, written by any bureaucracy that carries the weight of law.
Their one, and only, charge under the constitution is to carry out the laws of the congress as written, not "interpret" and most certainly not add/amend what has been written by the congress to fit the whims of political tides.
Same for:
Alcohol
Tobacco
Firearms.
@@nobodyuknow4911 exactly, the people who defend this are probably part of the problem - public servants grifting off this corrupt and unconstitutional abomination of a system. Seems far too many "citizens" are lazy opportunistic self-dealers who only care about laws and regulations when they can be exploited to serve their own personal and financial interests. And that's not how its supposed to be. That isn't how it was EVER supposed to be. The government of the US as planned and meticulously crafted by our Founders, is a minarchy - the so-called "Night Watchman" state...not Leviathan that it is today.
Attagirl! Doing our state proud!
Boebert's out of her league.
How arrogant and disrespectful he was to her.
He was remarkably patient with a legislator who was ignorant of the implications of the ruling. Boebert is as misinformed about this as she was about public urination in Washington DC.
Non authorized as an agency but funded? How can that be?
Because it’s not true