3 ms·

At the end of the day I do not believe this is a national matter in the first place, No where in the Constitution does congress have the authority to regulate

At the end of the day I do not believe this is a national matter in the first place, No where in the Constitution does congress have the authority to regulate drinking water in the first place, outside the bastardization of the commerce clause So it should be left up to state regulators to set what they feel are the best for their states. EPA could play a role in ensuring One state does not pollute another state, but there are and should be limits on what is a "federal issue" even if people today seem to think everything should be under the umbrella of the federal government.

pierat 3y ago
You ignored my other comment regarding how clean water is indeed a Constitutionally mandated power. Having a safe and secure access and usage of water is definitely part of the "general welfare" within Art 1 Sec 8. And no, water doesn't have to be explicitly listed. "General welfare" is a much wider term, that can encompass more and more, as minimum humanity standards increase. "General welfare" is also a way that the EPA can run, and actually mandate strong changes to reverse massive pollution, and act strongly against climate change. Having high humidity and heat can and will make areas unlivable for humans. (And I do agree that the commerce clause being used everywhere is a load of garbage in much of its applications.) Given that in Article 1 Section 8 is the following: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" highlight: "provide for the common Defense and general Welfare"
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  I already address the wrong interpretation of General Welfare here [1] it is a common tactic by Authoritarians to expand the scope of the federal government to be unlimited, when clearly the purpose of the constitution was to limit the government, If your understanding of that clause is correct then there is no reason to go on and list other powers as literally everything is included in "General Welfare" and the US Federal Governments power is unlimited. That is not the case >>"General welfare" is a much wider term, that can encompass more and more, as minimum humanity standards increase. Ahh your a living document believer, that we should reinterpret the constitution under the lens of how words are used in common usage today, not the original intent of the provisions. I am an orginalist so no I do not agree that General Welfare powers expand as humanities standards increase [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36620213 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36620213
  - pierat 3y ago
    You were also quoting what amounts to 1700's blog articles (Federalist) as evidence of an originalist thought. And I plainly read what was said in the constitution. You seem to be the one re-interpreting the document based on your own world-view.

pierat 3y ago

You ignored my other comment regarding how clean water is indeed a Constitutionally mandated power. Having a safe and secure access and usage of water is definitely part of the "general welfare" within Art 1 Sec 8. And no, water doesn't have to be explicitly listed. "General welfare" is a much wider term, that can encompass more and more, as minimum humanity standards increase. "General welfare" is also a way that the EPA can run, and actually mandate strong changes to reverse massive pollution, and act strongly against climate change. Having high humidity and heat can and will make areas unlivable for humans. (And I do agree that the commerce clause being used everywhere is a load of garbage in much of its applications.) Given that in Article 1 Section 8 is the following: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" highlight: "provide for the common Defense and general Welfare"

phpisthebest 3y ago
I already address the wrong interpretation of General Welfare here [1] it is a common tactic by Authoritarians to expand the scope of the federal government to be unlimited, when clearly the purpose of the constitution was to limit the government, If your understanding of that clause is correct then there is no reason to go on and list other powers as literally everything is included in "General Welfare" and the US Federal Governments power is unlimited. That is not the case >>"General welfare" is a much wider term, that can encompass more and more, as minimum humanity standards increase. Ahh your a living document believer, that we should reinterpret the constitution under the lens of how words are used in common usage today, not the original intent of the provisions. I am an orginalist so no I do not agree that General Welfare powers expand as humanities standards increase [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36620213 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36620213
- pierat 3y ago
  You were also quoting what amounts to 1700's blog articles (Federalist) as evidence of an originalist thought. And I plainly read what was said in the constitution. You seem to be the one re-interpreting the document based on your own world-view.