Lol.. Someone has filled your head with all sorts of bullshit it isn't even funny.

First, no- the foreign minister of Iran does not know the US constitution (and it's definition of treason and the laws passed based on that definition) better than the republicans in the Senate do. The president can only enter into a treaty if the senate consents. This is elementary school civics. The administration can come to some executive agreement, but any future administration can nullify it at will because it is not a treaty. What the foreign minister referenced was a misinterpretation of international law which has a principle that agreements between the head of state are treated treaties in dispute resolution. However, this is not binding to the US because we are both not members of the international court of justice and we have an established process declaring what a valid treaty is.

Second, the treason crap you spewed is wrong on so many levels. First, treason is specifically defined by the Constitution so violations of the Logan act (a law) which do not involve levying war against the united states, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. will not be treason by any stretch of the imagination. Second, the logan act specifically involves unauthorized persons which members of the government are authorized. Further, the advice and consent portions of the constitution imply the senate has a specific right to give advice in foreign relations.

The sole reason no one is not being prosecuted for the letter is because violations of the law only exist in partisan political minds and not in reality or matters of law. Several of the president's strongest detractors could be taken out in one swoop if they were prosecuted for this but the justice department knows any attempts to prosecute will fail.

So are you surprized when Republican voters who shout constitution all the time turn out to have no idea what is in it or what it means ? Of course not, the senators they elect don't even know it !

I'm simply amazed at how ignorant people are about the constitution. Do they not teach this in school any more? When I was in school, we had government and civics coursed in a couple of different years (starting in 8th grade) and the last two runs (11th and 12th grades) were actually requirements to graduate.

I'm game with a constitutional amendment. I don't have any issue with agencies existing without one either. I do have issues with them creating law that was not passed by congress though.

If congress made a law saying that blue onions were illegal and the EPA was empowered to make regulations to enforce it, I have absolutely no problem with the EPA making regulations in order to faithfully execute the law. But when the EPA all the sudden decides white onions should be illegal also, they need congress to pass a law instead of pulling some inter agency manipulations and declaring them covered all the sudden under the blue onion law.

You have repeatedly stated things that are simply wrong when it comes to the Constitution. Either you're intentionally lying, or a complete fucking idiot. I understand.. you have your head buried so far up your conservative dogma's ass you can see it's tonsils, but you're just fucking wrong. It's people like you who are the reason these reports come out saying people in the US have an abysmal knowledge of history.

And because you say so is not a valid reason. Do you have anything of worth to offer or are you just offended because one of your shrines was attacked?

IF the EPA was unconstitutional, it'd already be gone with all the fucking raving sociopathic conservatives in office today.

Who said the EPA was unconstitutional? Do you often build strawmen just to punch down and pretend to insult people? I said there is no constitutional basis for it, there isn't. I did not say it violated anything in the constitution other than making law outside of constitutional process.

What it ultimately comes down to is: uneducated, ignorant, propaganda filled bullshit opinions mean absolutely nothing because the people with them choose to be stupid than a fucking rock and live outside reality.

Were you looking in a mirror when you wrote that? Because it seems like you had yourself in mind.

Nobody has ANY problem with that. Including senate democrats and the president and almost every scientific organisation in the USA who ALL oppose this bill... So why do they oppose the bill then ? Did it ever occur to you that maybe the bill isn't about what the republicans say it's about ?

I've never seen text of the bill that says it's about anything different. Do you have a secret copy that you could make publicly available so we all can share in this knowledge?

What it's ACTUALLY about is that the reps are desperate to prevent regulations around air pollution and climate change. The trouble is the scientific data to support such regulations are overwhelming. So they are trying to exclude huge swaths of completely legitimate science from consideration. Specifically any science that has any part of it's data covered by patient privilege. That would be just about every large public health study ever done.

So in short, secret science should be supported because you support the policies being made due to this secrete science? BTW, can you explain to me how something is still science if you or I cannot apply the scientific principle to it and recreate it? I mean it doesn't matter if the data doesn't exist or is patented or completely made up, repeatability is one of the most important and key parts of the scientific principle and without it, I'm not sure it's any better than a discussion of intelligent design.

What they want to do is to stop the EPA from using the exact same, perfectly legitimate, science that is used daily by biologists, pharmaceutical companies and more.

And how is this possible if the science is sound? You do not need all the science to make the case do you? I mean if joe's patented weather numbers and algorithm is not present, does the entire science fall apart?

Don't you find it odd that this is limited to the EPA while so many others use the same studies, including the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry ? Surely if the EPA cannot regulate something based on these studies then big pharma shouldn't be able to get a drug approved based on them, and the FDA shouldn't be allowing approvals based on studies like this.

No, I do not find it odd at all. The FDA and other agencies are not currently reinterpreting things as pollutants and purposing to install draconian regulations over principles congress has already rejected for various reasons. I guess we could say this is more of an attempt to stop a government agency from doing an end run around congress and defeating congress's will as demonstrated several times by refusing to install similar regulations or bind the country to treaties of the same.

Why are they legitimate science when Bayer uses them but NOT when the EPA uses them ? I'll tell you why: because Bayer is a campaign contributor and the EPA is somebody that pisses campaign contributors off.

Bayer is not a government agency imposing sweeping regulations that will impact not only the economy but personal income. But nonetheless, Bayer has to justify their products being marketed to the public before they can which means they will have to make something scientific available. But you do understand that you as a private person or private company is not the same thing as a government agency with the ability to arbitrarily make things illegal complete with penalties and taxes.

The science involved is all perfectly legitimate and in line with the scientific method. The "secret science" name is a propaganda term with no real truth to it intended to disguise what wall street's representatives are trying to really do.

This isn't about the science so much as about government accountability. I do not think anyone is suggesting the science is illegitimate, just that having access to prove real science is being used to create policy, to ban products, to threaten people with fines or jail, instead of political manipulations and ideology.

At the risk of godwining this, Germany had used science behind itself in it's Eugenics practices which ended with the holocaust. Granted, many people in the US supported the same science and some states even put it in practice to a degree, but that science was also already rejected by a number or people. Imagine if we ha the internet back then and people could actually refute that science before policies like sterilizing undesirable people or euthanizing the handicapped.

Maybe producing energy is not protected by the Constitution

It doesn't have to be. But our system is designed so that we are free to do as we please until a law prohibits it and there are limits to what laws and where this can be prohibited. In short, the government has to act constitutionally when prohibiting anything.

US law is based on British Common Law and Common Law in most cases rules for the mutual use and benefit from common resources as opposed to the singular benefit shown in old Spanish Law where shit flowed downhill and people just had to live with it

Look up the term constitution and come back to this.

The constitution was created to create a federal government. Each state was a country in it's own right and surrendered only as much sovereignty to the federal government as outlined within the constitution and with this surrender, the federal government was bound by the articles which constituted it. British Common Law and Common Law allowed the quartering of troops in times of peace, it allows unwarranted searches and seizures, it allowed private property to be taken for public good without compensation. That is bared in the US by the constitution.

So to say that if British Common Law and Common Law were superior to the US constitution despite the constitution actually saying it's the supreme law of the land, is like saying the first amendment can be void at will, that the 13th or even 14th amendment can be voided because common law allows it. And of course, this is just completely wrong. The government is bound by the constitution. Their actions can be separate and for or against the the mutual use and benefit from common resources as long as they do those actions constitutionally. Who benefits is ancillary to the point of whether or not congress did things correctly.

The civil war was entirely about slavery,

No, secession was entirely about slavery. The war never would have broke out if South Carolina hadn't attacked Fort Sumter. Had that not happened, an entirely different outcome was not only possible, but likely. Lincoln and the north was doing everything possible to remedy the situation without war. That failed when the south attacked a union fort.

The Marshall court allowed that the executive was allowed to have regulatory powers in order to implement the law (ie, the law is broad and the executive fills in the details).

And the Supreme Court also struck down several of these regulatory practices declaring the delegation of powers as implemented being excessive and unconstitutional. See Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 and Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935). and Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936)

The EPA is and has been operating outside the confines of the law in regard to executive authority. BTW, the executive authority and congressional delegation of powers which follow along reach only so far as implementing the laws as passed. What the EPA does is extend and recreate passed laws- especially with the Carbon emissions. Here we have a government agency who suddenly decided something that was never previously considered a pollutant (note, not a newly discovered substance or a derivative or a previously known pollutant) is now a pollutant and expanded their powers and the law to encompass something which it never has before all without any constitutional interaction of congress. Laws have been struck down for less not to mention the constant changing of the regulation being a post facto law in and of itself.

If congress had said, killing puppies was illegal and all the EPA did was ban any way you could kill a puppy, that would fall in line with the executive authority the marshal court saw. But what the EPA is doing is taking a law and saying whatever we can imagine to fall under this umbrella- even if it did not fall there previously or no one ever envisioned it being involve, the EPA can and will regulate it and change those regulations at their own will completely independent of congress or constitutional authority.

It is your reading comprehension that needs adjusting. The departments don't create the law. They enforce it. That is what I said. It was Congress that created the department as the Constitution allows.

lol.. perhaps I'm talking past you. please pay attention. The EPA creates law, regulation with the force of law. If congress had passed each and every regulation, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Again, it isn't the EPA creating the regulations. It is Congress. The EPA is merely enforcing the regulations that Congress created. If you want to know the specific act it is NEPA. I leave it as an exercise for you to look it up.

Wrong. You are either ignorant of reality or completely misconstruing the situation for some purpose I can not fathom. The entire debate surrounding this law which requires the EPA to use science in the open revolves around the EPA's ability to create regulation/law independent of congress and how this will limit that.

The rest of your post is totally nonsense repeating the same line you refused to understand... Namely that Congress created the EPA and Congress has the power to destroy it. But know the consequences when you do. Things like the Gulf spill will go unaddressed. The Freedom Enterprises MCHM spill would have no legal recourse. The impoundment failure in Tennessee would be common place. Not to mention Love Canal...

lol.. Congress has absolutely no constitutional authority to create a separate law making body and abdicate their power to it and bypass constitutional mandates on passing laws. It has nothing to do with anything you just mentioned as congress can actually pass laws the EPA is doing themselves.

You seem to have your head buried in the sand or something. The EPA is right now is creating regulation with the force of law along with penalties that will attack our energy production with absolutely no input from congress or constitutional law being passed by congress. If you look around, the battle cry of opposition to this open science law seems to be that without the secret science, the EPA wouldn't be able to do this. Congress may have the authority to pass the laws themselves, but not to direct an extra-constitutional law making body to bypass the constitution in their stead- and certainly not at the direction of the administration whomever that may be at any given point in time.

First, judicial decisions do not change the constitution, only amendments brought about in two specific ways can do that.

Second, the American civil war was not about slavery so much as it was about preserving the union. Granted, the constitutions underwent new interpretations at the time, but slavery ended with the passage of the 13th amendment.

Now, on to your meat or guts of your argument. Congress might have a role in regulating pollution between the states. But that still does not form the basis of the creation of a body within the government that can on their own, create law, proscribe fines and punishment, and even ban commerce or trade entirely all outside constitutional processes. It's simply not there. Congress has to make the laws, congress has to put the fines and imprisonment in place, congress have to ban the trade and they have to do it by voting in certain ways on bills, they have to get the president to not veto them or they need to vote in another way to go around the president.

Call me a nut all you want, it doesn't diminish the fact that the congress is supposed to be doing what the EPA is doing and while congress could establish the EPA and take their advice, there is absolutely no constitutional basis to abdicate their power to the EPA or even bypass constitutional process demanded of them.

There's a difference between "actually discredited, according to a reasonable person's opinion" and "'discredited' as an excuse for a biased person to ignore it." With this law, we're talking about the latter situation.

No we are not. The EPA or whatever is only has to show the credibility of their science used. If they show that yellow and blue make green, and I declare it makes orange, as long as they can reproduce the green claim, they can use it.

You cannot discredit something that can be proven through the scientific process. All you can do it show alternative results.

In particular, the Republican goal is to make the burden of proof for climate change so high -- by eliminating consideration of "non-reproducible" data, like all historical climate records -- that in order to be allowed to regulate greenhouse gas emissions the EPA would have to construct two full-scale artificial Earths, build a civilization's worth of polluting industry on one, and wait 100 years to see what happens.

Poppycock. I have no doubt that they are trying to make it more difficult to impose sweeping regulation but it's hardly to that point. It's quite simple really, use open sources and if you cannot, then don't bother imposing regulations. The EU has made most all their climate data open and anyone can grab it and do whatever they want with it. I really do not see the problem/.

Why do people keep saying shit like this?

because there isn't and your reading of the US constitution fails basic comprehension.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States ; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

While this general welfare clause has been expanded over the years, it still fails on several levels. The courts have only allowed the general welfare clause to be used with the taxing and spending powers of congress. No court and no competent constitutional authority has ever said it extends congress's powers to create departments that can make law independent of congress or constitutional processes nor have they used the clause to establish fines and/or imprisonment terms to anyone. There is simply no constitutional basis for it.

It's the Congress that created the EPA. It's the Congress that funds them. It's the Executive that controls them in accordance with the laws passed by... Wait for it... CONGRESS. All that based on the "General Welfare" clause of the Constitution.

And the general welfare clause would allow this to happen only if every single regulation, fine, or punishment was voted on, passed and signed by congress and the president. Do you see the disconnect here?

Can congress create a department of the second amendment, staff it with a bunch of people who create regulation saying you have to own at least 3 guns per person in the household, molest your children at least once in their life time, spin in circles twice before taking a piss all without congressional action? Can the EPA make any of these regulations? The answer is no to all because there is no constitutional authority for it. The only difference is how silly the regulations might be but the general welfare claim can be made just the same.

If congress had free reign over anything it could construe to be in the interest or general welfare, then why is Abortion out of their grasp? In order for your presumption to be true, they must be able to create a department of abortion that could impose a tax penalty or jail terms on everyone who performs or haves an abortion. But that simply is not possible because the general welfare clause does not do what you think it doe. It would however, allow congress to tax and spend money either encouraging or discouraging abortions.

Or maybe you are suggesting that control of commons should be relinquished to the corporations?

Maybe you should think a bit before posting. Perhaps study a bit on what you are posting about.

Wouldn't happen.

First, unless it is a prominently accepted safe additive, it would need to seek approval by the FDA in order to be marketed to the public in the first place.

http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumer...

Second, part of the FDA's role is to study food available to the public not only for human consumption but most animal consumption to maintain certain health guidelines. This is done by "FDA field investigators inspect food companies, examine food shipments from abroad, and collect samples. Laboratory scientists analyze samples."

So, basically a bunch of luddites on the payroll of major corporations are trying to ensure those corporations have access to whatever private data they need to discredit the science?

If the science can be discredited, should the federal government really be using it to impose burdensome regulations onto the public?

Look, I understand a lot of people think the EPA is god's gift or champion whatever they have done or are doing that you have been convinced needs to be done. But seriously, your argument is that bad science should survive scrutiny because if it doesn't, everyone is stupid?

Requiring them to publish the "science" they are basing their rulings on is influencing science?

Yes, it is influencing the science.

If you know what they know, you can check the science, if it is bad science, you can correct it. If it is good science, you can improve it. If you cannot improve it, you can accept it and champion it. And when you make your science available to others to do the same, the EPA can then use it too. See how all that influence is possible?

The argument against influencing the science is essentially- stay out of this because we want it to mean what we want it to mean so we can justify doing what we want to do.

Many people will ignore this reality and focus on politics- those evil republicans only want to stop the EPA from doing what we want them to do. To them, it is not about the science, it is about doing what they want the EPA to do.

Perhaps their mission should be to mow the whitehouse lawn. There certainly is no constitutional basis for the EPA to exist anyways.

That being said, what exactly is your problem with requiring all information the EPA uses to set policies be open to the public and able to survive scientific scrutiny? I would think you of all people would be championing this transparency as well as the stability the rigor of the scientific process could give as they justify their moves. Perhaps you only don't like it because republicans want it to happen?

Don't know why you think it's God's domain. The article doesn't pretend that they are alive. It's not any different than the G.I. Joe dolls or even the merchandise Hollywood puts out resembling movie characters.