7 ms·

Why are we wanting, or even allowing, the Executive to unilaterally set pollution standards? The right way to do this in the American system is for Congress to

Why are we wanting, or even allowing, the Executive to unilaterally set pollution standards? The right way to do this in the American system is for Congress to enshrine the regulations as laws. Then the President does what Congress says. If we're trying to end-run around Congress's prerogative and responsibility to write the laws, then we shouldn't be surprised when regulations are changed by the caprice of the Executive, as they did with both Obama and now Trump.

zionic 7y ago
I agree 100%, but that would require we have progress instead of congress.
jasonjayr 7y ago
IIRC the Executive gets to do this because the EPA is part of the executive branch. Can congress setup an agency that is outside of the control of the executive?
- CWuestefeld 7y ago
  The EPA implements the regulations as described by Congress. Right now, Congress has been very fuzzy about specifics, leaving it to the Executive to fill in the details. Phrased differently, Congress has explicitly given the EPA (under the direction of the President!) a great deal of latitude, and Presidents are using that latitude in both directions. But if Congress has set it up that way, we shouldn't be surprised that this is what happens. The correct fix is to get Congress to provide clearer specs. I suspect that the reason they don't, is that when they're less specific, they are less vulnerable to scrutiny by any given demographic. If they just say "we did something", then maybe both the Sierra Club and the farmers will be happy. But the more specific they are, the more it's going to piss off one or more blocks of voters. So they punt, abdicating their powers. And the result is that things can change as the wind blows. We should not be vesting so much power in the President.
40acres 7y ago
I'm not exactly sure when it started but I've been amazed at how weak Congress is. Presidents are basically conducting war without Congressional approval, signing 'trade deals', vast executive orders, etc. all while Congress twiddle their thumbs. The judiciary and executive have way more power than Congress right now.
- sp332 7y ago
  They do have Congressional approval. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milit... and continuing funding.
  - 40acres 7y ago
    AUMF doesnt authorize any of the operations going on in Africa. From the ouster of the Libyan leader which has led to a brutal civil war to operations in the Sahel region fighting various smaller terrorist groups.
bediger4000 7y ago
This is slightly disingenuous, given McConnell/the Republican party's boycott of any Obama-related laws. Obama executive actions are somewhat different than Trump executive actions, in that Congress was essentially thumbing their collective nose at Obama, while Trump could easily piece together votes for legislation, but is choosing not too. So it's not exactly "both sides" here.
chewbacha 7y ago
From what I understand, it's possible he did violate the law when they systematically denied and ignored all the science related to it. There are already multiple lawsuits alleging this. My understanding is that the EPA's mandate requires scientific input in the rational decision making. I think it's _ok_ for congress to grant some power to set rules, so long as there is appropriate checks and balances. However, we have seen in the past few days that the GOP does not want to enforce the checks and balances anymore.
- CWuestefeld 7y ago
  we have seen in the past few days that the GOP does not want to enforce the checks and balances anymore. There's more than enough blame to completely cover both sides of the aisle, on any number of issues.
  - sp332 7y ago
    Holding Democrats accountable doesn't mean pretending both sides are equally bad.
    - CWuestefeld 7y ago
      They're both so bad that I don't see any point in drawing a distinction. For practical purposes, yes, they're equally bad.
sp332 7y ago
Congress doesn't have direct enforcement ability, so they empower independent agencies in the executive to enforce statutes. The Environmental Protection Agency can only act under statutes, which are the authority of laws passed by Congress. Congress must approve the statute and they also have the power to authorize or prohibit certain actions, which the EPA has to implement and enforce. Appropriations statutes authorize how much money the agency can spend each year to carry out the approved statutes. The Environmental Protection Agency has the power to issue regulations. A regulation is a standard or rule written by the agency to interpret the statute, apply it in situations and enforce it. Congress allows the EPA to write regulations in order to solve a problem, but the agency must include a rationale of why the regulations need to be implemented. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Pr...
crispyambulance 7y ago
> ...we shouldn't be surprised when regulations are changed by the caprice of the Executive, as they did with both Obama and now Trump. You're right about that. But to be fair, Obama issued a bunch of executive orders because he literally got ZERO cooperation from republicans in his second term. These orders are reversible but it's all he had to work with. I can appreciate that. In the global long term, I don't think we can rely on nation-states to do right by the environment. The only way we will learn and, if we're lucky, adapt, is when things become drastic and horrifying.

zionic 7y ago

I agree 100%, but that would require we have progress instead of congress.

jasonjayr 7y ago

IIRC the Executive gets to do this because the EPA is part of the executive branch. Can congress setup an agency that is outside of the control of the executive?

CWuestefeld 7y ago
The EPA implements the regulations as described by Congress. Right now, Congress has been very fuzzy about specifics, leaving it to the Executive to fill in the details. Phrased differently, Congress has explicitly given the EPA (under the direction of the President!) a great deal of latitude, and Presidents are using that latitude in both directions. But if Congress has set it up that way, we shouldn't be surprised that this is what happens. The correct fix is to get Congress to provide clearer specs. I suspect that the reason they don't, is that when they're less specific, they are less vulnerable to scrutiny by any given demographic. If they just say "we did something", then maybe both the Sierra Club and the farmers will be happy. But the more specific they are, the more it's going to piss off one or more blocks of voters. So they punt, abdicating their powers. And the result is that things can change as the wind blows. We should not be vesting so much power in the President.

40acres 7y ago

I'm not exactly sure when it started but I've been amazed at how weak Congress is. Presidents are basically conducting war without Congressional approval, signing 'trade deals', vast executive orders, etc. all while Congress twiddle their thumbs. The judiciary and executive have way more power than Congress right now.

sp332 7y ago
They do have Congressional approval. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milit... and continuing funding.
- 40acres 7y ago
  AUMF doesnt authorize any of the operations going on in Africa. From the ouster of the Libyan leader which has led to a brutal civil war to operations in the Sahel region fighting various smaller terrorist groups.

bediger4000 7y ago

This is slightly disingenuous, given McConnell/the Republican party's boycott of any Obama-related laws. Obama executive actions are somewhat different than Trump executive actions, in that Congress was essentially thumbing their collective nose at Obama, while Trump could easily piece together votes for legislation, but is choosing not too. So it's not exactly "both sides" here.

chewbacha 7y ago

From what I understand, it's possible he did violate the law when they systematically denied and ignored all the science related to it. There are already multiple lawsuits alleging this. My understanding is that the EPA's mandate requires scientific input in the rational decision making. I think it's _ok_ for congress to grant some power to set rules, so long as there is appropriate checks and balances. However, we have seen in the past few days that the GOP does not want to enforce the checks and balances anymore.

CWuestefeld 7y ago
we have seen in the past few days that the GOP does not want to enforce the checks and balances anymore. There's more than enough blame to completely cover both sides of the aisle, on any number of issues.
- sp332 7y ago
  Holding Democrats accountable doesn't mean pretending both sides are equally bad.
  - CWuestefeld 7y ago
    They're both so bad that I don't see any point in drawing a distinction. For practical purposes, yes, they're equally bad.

sp332 7y ago

Congress doesn't have direct enforcement ability, so they empower independent agencies in the executive to enforce statutes. The Environmental Protection Agency can only act under statutes, which are the authority of laws passed by Congress. Congress must approve the statute and they also have the power to authorize or prohibit certain actions, which the EPA has to implement and enforce. Appropriations statutes authorize how much money the agency can spend each year to carry out the approved statutes. The Environmental Protection Agency has the power to issue regulations. A regulation is a standard or rule written by the agency to interpret the statute, apply it in situations and enforce it. Congress allows the EPA to write regulations in order to solve a problem, but the agency must include a rationale of why the regulations need to be implemented. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Pr...

crispyambulance 7y ago

> ...we shouldn't be surprised when regulations are changed by the caprice of the Executive, as they did with both Obama and now Trump. You're right about that. But to be fair, Obama issued a bunch of executive orders because he literally got ZERO cooperation from republicans in his second term. These orders are reversible but it's all he had to work with. I can appreciate that. In the global long term, I don't think we can rely on nation-states to do right by the environment. The only way we will learn and, if we're lucky, adapt, is when things become drastic and horrifying.