Is it treason to sabotage the EPA, damaging the health of millions of people?

 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  7455
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
09 January 2018 11:52
 

Is it treason to sabotage the EPA, damaging the health of millions of people?  About 100 million Americans live in areas with unhealthy air.  When health authorities warn that pollution has reached dangerous levels, how many are able to go to places like Mar a Lago?

https://www.sierraclub.org/compass/2017/03/top-10-reasons-we-need-epa

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/28/opinion/pruitt-trump-epa-fired.html

quote from this New York Times article:

[Appointed by Trump] “The current administrator of the E.P.A., Scott Pruitt, built his political career by attacking clean-air and clean-water rules. Now in charge of the agency, he is tearing down those protections, dismantling the E.P.A., appointing or nominating industry insiders to oversee their former businesses and blocking scientific input.  Mr. Pruitt is jeopardizing the health and well-being of Americans.  For the sake of our children’s health, it’s time for Scott Pruitt to go.” 

 
 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  2332
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
10 January 2018 06:13
 

Opening Arguments actually has a podcast about this in reference to the lawsuit Manafort is bringing against the DOJ, Rosenstein and Mueller: the Supreme Court decided in the so-called Chevron Deference that it is perfectly ok for the head of the EPA to undo everything the EPA stands for as long as Congress agrees.
https://openargs.com/oa136-chevron-deference-consequences-particularly-paul-manafort/

 
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  7455
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
10 January 2018 12:10
 
Twissel - 10 January 2018 06:13 AM

Opening Arguments actually has a podcast about this in reference to the lawsuit Manafort is bringing against the DOJ, Rosenstein and Mueller: the Supreme Court decided in the so-called Chevron Deference that it is perfectly ok for the head of the EPA to undo everything the EPA stands for as long as Congress agrees.
https://openargs.com/oa136-chevron-deference-consequences-particularly-paul-manafort/

How bad do you think air pollution would get in U.S. cities before a Republican Congress acted to restore everything the EPA stands for?  http://www.scmp.com/week-asia/society/article/2053387/and-you-thought-beijing-polluted 

“Crazy bad air?”

quote:  “China is back in the thick of smog season, so to speak. Beijing was on high alert as a new round of heavy smog descended on the capital and other parts of northern China over the weekend. An air monitor index released by the US embassy in Beijing breached a level that qualifies as what the locals call “crazy bad” air. Top mainland Chinese officials, meanwhile, admitted that China tops the world in almost all types of air pollution .”

 

 
 
Wayne HJ
 
Avatar
 
 
Wayne HJ
Total Posts:  27
Joined  29-09-2017
 
 
 
13 January 2018 07:37
 

What definition of “treason” do you offer?  I think you’re just virtue signaling and not actually pushing a policy debate forward in a useful manner. In what way can we consider any legally implemented policy of an elected government to be treasonous?  Isn’t it oxymoronic?  I think you’re going to have a hard time coming up with a rational definition of treason that would categorize any such policy as treasonous but I’ll await your response.

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6092
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
13 January 2018 10:29
 
Wayne HJ - 13 January 2018 07:37 AM

What definition of “treason” do you offer?  I think you’re just virtue signaling and not actually pushing a policy debate forward in a useful manner. In what way can we consider any legally implemented policy of an elected government to be treasonous?  Isn’t it oxymoronic?  I think you’re going to have a hard time coming up with a rational definition of treason that would categorize any such policy as treasonous but I’ll await your response.

YOU JUST WANT CHILDREN TO DIE OF POLLUTION!

 
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  7455
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
13 January 2018 12:40
 
Wayne HJ - 13 January 2018 07:37 AM

What definition of “treason” do you offer?  I think you’re just virtue signaling and not actually pushing a policy debate forward in a useful manner. In what way can we consider any legally implemented policy of an elected government to be treasonous?  Isn’t it oxymoronic?  I think you’re going to have a hard time coming up with a rational definition of treason that would categorize any such policy as treasonous but I’ll await your response.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treason

Definition of treason
1 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign’s family
2 : the betrayal of a trust : treachery

In the U.S. the people are sovereign.  Trump and Pruitt are acting to dismantle the EPA which protects the people from serious hazards.  2.  The betrayal of a trust? 

Do you trust your government to prevent industry from polluting where you live?

 
 
Wayne HJ
 
Avatar
 
 
Wayne HJ
Total Posts:  27
Joined  29-09-2017
 
 
 
13 January 2018 16:03
 
unsmoked - 13 January 2018 12:40 PM
Wayne HJ - 13 January 2018 07:37 AM

What definition of “treason” do you offer?  I think you’re just virtue signaling and not actually pushing a policy debate forward in a useful manner. In what way can we consider any legally implemented policy of an elected government to be treasonous?  Isn’t it oxymoronic?  I think you’re going to have a hard time coming up with a rational definition of treason that would categorize any such policy as treasonous but I’ll await your response.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treason

Definition of treason
1 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign’s family
2 : the betrayal of a trust : treachery

In the U.S. the people are sovereign.  Trump and Pruitt are acting to dismantle the EPA which protects the people from serious hazards.  2.  The betrayal of a trust? 

Do you trust your government to prevent industry from polluting where you live?

The people, while not fully sovereign, have a good deal of sovereignty. However, we have these little things called elections in which the electorate vote and elect a president and other representatives to faithfully execute the law and carry out a policy agenda within the law.  Trump ran on a platform of deregulating business, I think every person who looked at the election knew he would look for ways within the law to diminish the impact of EPA regulations on business. He has not betrayed a trust, he is doing approximately what he was elected to do, and as far as I know within the law.  That doesn’t mean I support the policy change, I don’t.  But it does mean he’s not breaking a trust, he’s making a bad policy choice.

 
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  7455
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
14 January 2018 11:08
 
Wayne HJ - 13 January 2018 04:03 PM
unsmoked - 13 January 2018 12:40 PM
Wayne HJ - 13 January 2018 07:37 AM

What definition of “treason” do you offer?  I think you’re just virtue signaling and not actually pushing a policy debate forward in a useful manner. In what way can we consider any legally implemented policy of an elected government to be treasonous?  Isn’t it oxymoronic?  I think you’re going to have a hard time coming up with a rational definition of treason that would categorize any such policy as treasonous but I’ll await your response.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treason

Definition of treason
1 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign’s family
2 : the betrayal of a trust : treachery

In the U.S. the people are sovereign.  Trump and Pruitt are acting to dismantle the EPA which protects the people from serious hazards.  2.  The betrayal of a trust? 

Do you trust your government to prevent industry from polluting where you live?

The people, while not fully sovereign, have a good deal of sovereignty. However, we have these little things called elections in which the electorate vote and elect a president and other representatives to faithfully execute the law and carry out a policy agenda within the law.  Trump ran on a platform of deregulating business, I think every person who looked at the election knew he would look for ways within the law to diminish the impact of EPA regulations on business. He has not betrayed a trust, he is doing approximately what he was elected to do, and as far as I know within the law.  That doesn’t mean I support the policy change, I don’t.  But it does mean he’s not breaking a trust, he’s making a bad policy choice.

Posted by Jan_CAN in the Icehorse topic about treason and climate-change denial:


Posted: 14 January 2018 10:39

In regards to the OP, Canadian scientist David Suzuki advocates legal protection of the environment.  I am not sure how well known Suzuki is south of the border, but he is a very well known scientist and environmentalist in Canada, in large part due to his long-running TV series, The Nature of Things.

Climate change activism
... In February 2008, he urged McGill University students to speak out against politicians who fail to act on climate change, stating “What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they’re doing is a criminal act.”


David Suzuki Foundation:
https://davidsuzuki.org/

1.  Environmental rights:
Goal: Establish the legal right for all Canadians to live in a healthy environment.
The right to a healthy environment is the simple yet powerful idea that everyone should be able to breathe fresh air, drink clean water and eat safe food. We believe Canadians should have this right constitutionally protected. That’s why we are pursuing legal protections for environmental rights, and in so doing, taking responsibility as stewards for the natural world on which we depend.

Initiative for a federal environmental bill of rights:
https://davidsuzuki.org/project/blue-dot-movement/

 

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  6026
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
14 January 2018 18:04
 
unsmoked - 09 January 2018 11:52 AM

Is it treason to sabotage the EPA, damaging the health of millions of people?  About 100 million Americans live in areas with unhealthy air.  When health authorities warn that pollution has reached dangerous levels, how many are able to go to places like Mar a Lago?

https://www.sierraclub.org/compass/2017/03/top-10-reasons-we-need-epa

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/28/opinion/pruitt-trump-epa-fired.html

quote from this New York Times article:

[Appointed by Trump] “The current administrator of the E.P.A., Scott Pruitt, built his political career by attacking clean-air and clean-water rules. Now in charge of the agency, he is tearing down those protections, dismantling the E.P.A., appointing or nominating industry insiders to oversee their former businesses and blocking scientific input.  Mr. Pruitt is jeopardizing the health and well-being of Americans.  For the sake of our children’s health, it’s time for Scott Pruitt to go.”

I appreciate this thread, and I do see parallels with the earlier climate change / treason thread. It does seem to me that if some of these activities aren’t currently, technically “treasonous”, we ought to consider broadening our view of what can constitute treasonous behavior. What seems clearly out of balance is the degree to which our politicians can completely screw up the commons vs. the degree to which they can be punished for it. “Failure to get re-elected” is clearly an insufficient threat for these f#cktards.

 
 
Wayne HJ
 
Avatar
 
 
Wayne HJ
Total Posts:  27
Joined  29-09-2017
 
 
 
15 January 2018 15:13
 
unsmoked - 14 January 2018 11:08 AM

Posted by Jan_CAN in the Icehorse topic about treason and climate-change denial:


Posted: 14 January 2018 10:39

In regards to the OP, Canadian scientist David Suzuki advocates legal protection of the environment.  I am not sure how well known Suzuki is south of the border, but he is a very well known scientist and environmentalist in Canada, in large part due to his long-running TV series, The Nature of Things.

Climate change activism
... In February 2008, he urged McGill University students to speak out against politicians who fail to act on climate change, stating “What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they’re doing is a criminal act.”

I’m not familiar with Mr. Suziki or the context for this quote, so maybe I have it wrong.  In fact, I really should give him the benefit of the doubt but I think we should ponder the dangers of using courts to “witch hunt” properly appointed administrators implementing the policy of properly elected government officials.  If administrators break the law then they should be punished.  I hope and trust Mr Suzuki encourages this standard, but I would feel more confident if he cited a specific law these “so-called leaders” have broken.

David Suzuki Foundation:
https://davidsuzuki.org/

1.  Environmental rights:
Goal: Establish the legal right for all Canadians to live in a healthy environment.
The right to a healthy environment is the simple yet powerful idea that everyone should be able to breathe fresh air, drink clean water and eat safe food. We believe Canadians should have this right constitutionally protected. That’s why we are pursuing legal protections for environmental rights, and in so doing, taking responsibility as stewards for the natural world on which we depend.

Initiative for a federal environmental bill of rights:
https://davidsuzuki.org/project/blue-dot-movement/

I think it’s very unwise to cast as human rights (or constitutional rights) anything that requires resources.  It’s easy to imagine how an accumulation of constitutional rights in the areas of education, health care, jobs, clean environment, housing, and food can exceed the resources available and become impossible to simultaneously satisfy.  Sometimes resource constraints do constrain the possible solutions.  In such a situation neither the legislative or executive branch could solve the conflict and we would depend on the courts to allocate scare resources between competing demands.  The courts in the US are not well constructed for solving these types of problems and will not long retain their current good standing if they become enmeshed in the “sausage making” of government. 

We should restrict constitutional rights to things that do not require resources.  It doesn’t take resources for the government to not limit free speech.  It doesn’t require resources for the government to allow its citizens freedom of religion.  etc.

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  1676
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
15 January 2018 15:42
 

Not having any legal expertise, I am not sure of all the implications of passing laws in regards to protection of the environment.  There may be a need for some laws, but am unsure what form these should take.  I could see where there could be prohibitively heavy fines and possible criminal prosecution for companies/plants that break pollution emission laws, with governments being held responsible that these are enforced.

Whether or not they are effective in getting any new laws passed, IMO the work being done by David Suzuki and his foundation, and by others, can serve a very important role in putting pressure on governments, keeping these issues in the news, and in educating the public. 

[ Edited: 15 January 2018 15:44 by Jan_CAN]