Slashdot Mirror
EPA Asserts Executive Privilege In CA Emissions Case
Brad Eleven writes "The AP reports that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has invoked executive privilege to justify withholding information in its response to a lawsuit. The state of California is challenging the agency's decision to block their attempt to curb the emissions from new cars and trucks. In response, the EPA has delivered documents requested by the Freedom of Information Act for the discovery phase of the lawsuit — but the documents are heavily redacted. That is, the agency has revealed that it did spend many hours meeting to discuss the issue, but refuses to divulge the details or the outcomes of the meetings. Among the examples cited, 16 pages of a 43-page Powerpoint presentation are completely blank except for the page titles. An EPA spokesperson used language similar to other recent claims of executive privilege, citing 'the chilling effect that would occur if agency employees believed their frank and honest opinions and analysis expressed as part of assessing California's waiver request were to be disclosed in a broad setting.'"
Not even close to the truth. Here's a quote from http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0207.schaeffer.html "The Bush administration faced a dilemma: How do you mount a stealth attack on environmental protection without making the most obvious mistakes of the Reagan-Gorsuch era? The first step was to appoint as EPA administrator Christine Whitman, who provides a moderate face, but already had a reputation for gutting anti-pollution enforcement programs while she was governor of New Jersey. Another was to leave the enforcement program rudderless: 18 months into his term, Bush has not yet filled the top EPA enforcement job (his first nominee, Donald Schregardus, withdrew amid criticism of his record running Ohio's program). Leaving the job unfilled not only deprives the staff of leadership, but also robs the administration's critics of an actual person to blame for poor performance. Bush political appointees in the White House and EPA quickly took up the many other ways of thwarting enforcement without drawing attention. Here are a few of their tricks:" And it goes on and on and on. Bush eviscerated the EPA.
This romantic idea that one person can make a difference all alone needs to end. It's not true, and it's never been true for anyone living in a community greater than about 20 people. Rosa Parks didn't just decide one day that she wasn't going to move to the back of the bus. Rosa Parks was an advisor for the NAACP's Youth Council who were helping organize boycotts of this type by ensuring that every member would do what was right and fair, regardless of what the unfair laws said. They had strategists and funds for a legal defense, and they were just waiting for someone to get arrested so they could file a case. In fact, it almost was someone else, Claudette Colvin, who was actually arrested before Parks for the same transgression. The NAACP decided she wasn't the right person to build a case around because she was a 15-year old who happened to be pregnant, and her moral character would be what the media would focus on, instead of the issue at hand. So they decided to have Parks do it instead. Look it up if you don't believe me.
Not to dismiss Parks' achievements. She was an immensely courageous woman, but I think it's an injustice to everyone else at the time who were participating in the Montgomery Bus Boycott to say that it was all due to "just one little lady all alone." The type of change they helped create in this country cannot be accomplished by one person just going out and doing something. In fact, isolated people taking action are likely to worsen the situation. Get organized and join existing lobby groups. That's the way the government works and you can't just ignore the big government machine in a misguided attempt to try to be a Rosa Parks-like hero.
Yes, the EPA is part of the executive branch. You didn't think they were legislative or judicial, did you?
The problem is not with whether or not the EPA has the right to use the executive branch's power of executive privilege; the problem is whether or not anyone, up to and including the President, has the right to claim "executive privilege" to avoid compliance with the law. The answer is, of course, that they don't. There's no such thing as "executive privilege" in the Constitution. It's completely made up. Unfortunately, the courts have been accepting that such a thing exists for decades, so now the precedent for this made-up power is set in stone.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
No need, the Supreme Court has spelled it out already. It's a logical corolary to the principle of separation of powers.
Not everything is "spelled out" in the Constitution. The Constitution "spells out" generalized powers and a scheme of government based on English common law and principles of political philosophy. Much of the functioning of the federal government is based on reasoning from these basic principles and scheme. The Constitution is not a universe unto itself.
I'm interested in why they blocked it in the first place
Because it involves an area of potential regulation that touches on interstate commerce, the Constitutional prerogative of the federal government, and Congress has preempted the field of regulation in that area. Congress has effectively removed that area of regulation from state control. That's why.
The Tenth Amendment has been defunct since at least the New Deal. Now it is only enforced when it happens to agree (or can be massaged into agreeing) with the preferred policy of the Supreme Court. If the Tenth Amendment were truly active, the EPA wouldn't even exist.
"lobbiests"? wtf? it's not the most lobbier ones, it's ones who lobby. "lobby-ists"
Hrm.
Here's the text of Article II that speaks about the President's rights/powers. From the National Archives at http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Stuff about how the President is elected omitted.
Please point out the part that grants Executive Privilege, keeping in mind the 10th amendment (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.)
Its because of California's previously 'unreasonable' emissions standards that you can breath in most of the cities in the Union now. Oh how I long for days when I drove up to LA and my eyes burned...yeah, those were the days...
less emissions means more of the fuel is being used for propulsion instead of being expelled.
Not necessarily, and in fact, probably not. Mandating lower emissions is not the same thing as mandating greater efficiency. Take the catalytic converter that all cars sold in the U.S. must have. While it does reduce certain emissions, it also lowers engine efficiency by increasing back-pressure (which means the engine uses more fuel.) So you can't say that a greener engine is automatically more efficient.
On the other hand, if the Feds really wanted to lower emissions, they would put stricter mileage requirements on auto vendors.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.