Originally Posted by PaulS
Where are the environmentalists in the rep. party?
They don't get the attention that the press gives to the "drill baby drill" Republicans, who, by the way, propose doing so in environmentally safe ways. I would hope that environmentalists, Democrat or Republican, would advance their agendas at the State and local level. That would be the most effective, non-argumentative, constitutional way. Where are the constitutionalists in the Democrat party?
Teddy R. would have been laughed at for expanding the national park system.
T. R. was, actually, the first progressive president. He put the bull in the bully pulpit and expanded the power of the executive branch beyond constitutional intention. His purpose, of course as a good progressive, was for the benefit of the American people. The difference between the Constitution and good intention is that the constitutional system of checks and balances and limited powers granted to the central government, if followed as intended, garantees actual "power to the people" and individual freedom. On the other hand, disregarding the constitutional system and its garantees in favor of someone's good intention creates the precedence and pathway to the growth of government by good intention that can and will eventually lead from a soft tyranny to harsher despotism, and to many good intentions along the way that do not turn out as good in consequence as the teeny little original intention. The Federal Gvt. now owns 25% of the land in the U.S. Much of it as national parks preserved "for the people." So what percent of our population has actually gone to the vast Arctic National wildlife Reserve or to the large holdings in Idaho, or even the more popular parks? States that depend on tourism as an important part of their budgets do a better job of advertising and attracting visitors than the Federal Gvt. Alaska could better manage its large land reserves more productively, especially for its citizens, than the Federal Gvt.
If Nixon today proposed the clean water act or the EPA, he would have been out early in the primaries. The protection of the ozone, (Reagan), or cap and trade (Bush) were all great Repub. ideas. Now it is all drill baby drill and a strange obsession w/coal.
Again, beside the problem of regulatory agencies such as the EPA not being constitutional in the way they function, is that they eventually go way beyond what they were conceived of to do. And they do so against the will of the people. Not only does the Federal Gvt. own more land than anybody, it regulates the land it doesn't own as if it did. The EPA, under the guise of "protecting the environment," can regulate land owners use of their own land. It has shut down private usage to supposedly preserve species (though thousands of species die or are born constantly). It's most current attempt (that we know of) is to claim ditches alongside of or on private property are waterways and must conform to its regualtory power. When congress (supposedly the will of the people) voted against cap and trade, Obama decided to skirt that will by having the EPA mandate a cap and trade. There is a plethora of examples of regulatory agencies making it difficult or impossible for the people to own their own lives. Keep in mind that if the government has the power to regulate and tax something it virtually owns it. It will have more power over that thing than the individual that has the deed.
We're at this site b/c we love the outdoors, yet if someone proposes a law to help protect it, he gets bricks thrown at him.
Argument and disagreement described as throwing bricks is an attempt to discredit or squelch that disagreement. The sophistry of getting along for the good of all despite constitutional means is the destruction of that constitution and a path to soft, or, eventually, harsh despotism.
hyper-partisan Democrat party? When polls ask people that, they always seem to view the Repubs as more partisan.
|