Environment Idaho

Nullification in Idaho

It’s been a while since we’ve seen an amusing attempt to unilaterally subvert the federal government, hasn’t it?

In this case, Idaho Republicans are arguing that the Supremacy Clause does not apply because the EPA itself is unconstitutional. Or something.

A new bill, introduced by Idaho Rep. Paul Shepherd (R-Riggins), declares that the EPA’s regulatory authority is unconstitutional and violate’s the U.S. Constitution’s “true meaning and intent as given by the founders and ratifiers.” For that reason, if the bill was passed, the EPA’s authority would “not be recognized by this state, is specifically rejected by this state and shall be considered null and void and of no force and effect in this state.” [...]

Shepherd said that the bill would’t nullify any regulations that have been approved by Congress, but Congressional approval isn’t part of the EPA’s regulatory process.

EPA regulations can be reviewed by federal courts and the state cannot nullify the decisions of federal courts regardless of what Paul Shepherd (R-Tentherville) says. The state does not have the authority to simply nullify the EPA’s regulatory power on a whim.

If Shepherd and his supporters want to block the EPA’s regulation of dredging, they can challenge it in court. They cannot pull the Tenth Amendment out of their ass and wave a wand to make it go away.

Nullificationists deserve every ounce of ridicule.

  • Badgerite


  • mrbrink

    It’s like every fifteen minutes, now. It’s Lucy working the conveyor belt for poverty wages in the craziest candy factory ever conceived. Where the oompa loompas are ball-gagged and stuffed into a padlocked box and dipped in chocolate until they give up the whereabouts of Charlie and Grandpa Joe.

    • beulahmo

      Nooooo! Stop!!
      You’re traumatizing me. It’s like when I went to a punk club downtown where the walls were covered with murals of Barney and Betty and Wilma and Fred engaged BDSM foursomes. :::shudders:::

      • mrbrink

        It could have started with all those subliminal messages in Disney movies, or that time banksy did the intro to the Simpsons. Some innocence may have to be sacrificed along the way, but the tree of hilarity must be refreshed from time to time with a Flintstones foursome.

        • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

          “The secret source of humor is not joy but sorrow; there is no humor in Heaven.” — Mark Twain

      • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

        You know where that BDSM scene comes from….all those little boys that secretly thought Wilma was hot–I mean, look at those curves and the red hair–everyone knows about red heads, amiright? And she must have liked abuse because FSM knows she put up with plenty from that fat asshole, Fred. I never liked the Flintstones anyway. I was more of a Bugs Bunny fan myself.

  • Christopher Foxx

    ¤ States can nullify any federal law they want.
    ¤ Nondiscrimination laws create discrimination.
    ¤ More CO2 is needed in the air, not less.
    ¤ People should be allowed to discriminate against gays because that’s freedom.
    ¤ Barriers must be created to ACA enrollment because, well, because.
    ¤ Homosexuality must be banned to protect black folks from themselves.

    I swear, it’s getting so every day there’s another utterly stupid, nonsensical and/or simply vicious attempt by Republicans to harm Americans .

    Actually, those were just from the last three days! It’s like they want some new stupidity for both the morning and evening editions.

    • Churchlady320

      Until number 4 you had me worried you were ADVOCATING these steps. Whew.

      • Christopher Foxx

        Yikes. I would have thought it obvious earlier than that.

        • mrbrink

          It was. You had me at ‘states can nullify.’

          I thought it was like reading a prison psychologist’s session notes from recent interviews with the criminally-insane. This can be off-putting to the untrained eye, probably because of all the doctor/patient confidentiality laws you just broke.

          • Christopher Foxx

            Yeah. When you lay them out simply and directly like that, the inherent contradictions and craziness are inescapable.

            Which just brings up again the tragedy of Democrats not hammering the Republicans on each and every one of these.

          • mrbrink

            Democrats are always hammering on those issues. It’s just difficult to hear it over Citizens United politics and a tabloid media that fears wingnut flack.

          • Christopher Foxx

            Then, clearly, they aren’t hammering nearly hard enough.

            Instead of a “>shrug< Well, we tried." cop-out they should be "OK, that didn't work. What do we need to do differently so that it does?" persistence.

          • mrbrink

            They face a relentless and ubiquitous onslaught. What are you doing to help?

          • Christopher Foxx

            They face a relentless and ubiquitous onslaught.

            Yeah, so? Is that an excuse to stop, or a reason why Democrats should be relentless and unwavering?

            What are you doing to help?

            We’re going to head into the ad hominem direction now? I need to have some acceptable bona fides before my view gets considered?

            OK. Working on campaigns. Donating time and money. Walking door to door. Helping organize. Meeting whenever possible with folks in positions to do things. Working weekly, sometimes daily, with other people and groups interested in actually changing things. Typically spending one to several hours each day working against the disinformation and encouraging others to realize they can do so as well.

            Do I pass muster. Am I good enough for you now?

          • mrbrink

            That’s good muster. The fumes are intoxicating. What’s it called, “Disappointed-o-crat?”

          • Christopher Foxx

            Ad hominem, and now snide. It doesn’t become you, brink.

          • mrbrink

            “Which just brings up again the tragedy of Democrats not hammering the Republicans on each and every one of these.”

            1) nothing I wrote could be considered a segue to “the tragedy of Democrats…” and so forth. That shoehorn argument is an unqualified fit, there, Cinderfella.

            2) Democrats do, in fact, ‘hammer’ the issues and the GOP’s lunacy every step of the way, so your whole premise is based upon an ad homineminem criticism of the Democratic party.

            3) three, three, three…you’re practically family, so if I don’t point out all the logical mistakes you’re making, you could get eaten alive out there and I can’t live with that on my conscience. Your input with the average joe wine box could be the difference between war and peace someday. That’s a lot of pressure for you, I know, but the force is acquainted with you through a friend of a friend. And because Mickey loves ya you should be catching that chicken and raising it up every time.

          • Christopher Foxx

            You sure you’re not nipping at the wine box yourself in that last paragraph? ;)

          • Sabyen91

            “Yeah, so? Is that an excuse to stop, or a reason why Democrats similarly need to be relentless and unwavering?”

            Who said they are? You are putting words in mrbrink’s mouth.

          • Christopher Foxx

            You are putting words in mrbrink’s mouth.

            Oh, please. Challenging him on or asking him about what he said isn’t “putting words in his mouth”.

    • Pinkamena Diane Pie

      They gotta get as much crazy going as possible before they all die off.