factbat.com

(Continued Mar 2, 2010...)

The main issue here is the United States Supreme Court’s disreputable misinterpretation of various legislation which are also in violation of the constitution.

The fact is that the Clean Water Act merely states that it is illegal to dump pollutants in “navigable waterways.” Rather than prohibiting abuses with clear language that reiterates the sovereign rights of the individual.

Court rulings have been allowed to ignore the intent of the law, and pretend that the term navigable waterway does not apply to various rivers and streams that sometimes dry-up during changes in weather patterns. But these patterns are not always annual ones.

Furthermore, these rivers and streams typically shed into the water table and can contaminate drinking water.

Simply because a law prohibits dumping pollution into navigable waterways, does not somehow legitimize dumping into waters which are not navigable. For the courts to portend that the two are unrelated is completely ridiculous and exhibits clear contempt for the letter of the law.

The wording of the CWA legislation is meant to curb abuses of those waters that can easily absorb significant levels of pollution while not necessarily exhibiting overt effects that expose such pollution, and thus can build up and cause a long term pandemic crisis.

For such ignorant legalese to be so predaciously implemented against the general public by a court system that is the foundation of this nation, is criminal and is only enabled by a citizenry that does not understand how important the study of law is to its survival.

There are far too many lawyers in this nation who subvert justice because citizens are not being taught the law in all schools as they should be. Every student in America should afforded at least one course in law per year from the time they reach the third grade until they graduate.

The constitution say’s nothing about the need for legal professionals. It does however demand that one has the right to “defend their self in court with the aid of legal counsel.” Furthermore, this is a nation of free and constitutionally bound jurist citizens who possess the majority decision “in suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars.”

This current water dispute runs in the hundreds of millions with respect to proposed expenses for the polluter, and in the trillions of dollars with respect to the damages against consumers, and the environment the average citizen must inhabit.

The average consumer is not raking in billions of dollars in profit which affords them a lifestyle that enables them to easily choose an alternate habitat if, and when, theirs becomes toxic to their daily lives.

Furthermore, this could not have been a decision made by a jury of citizens and thus is not valid. The seventh amendment of the United States Constitution also states explicitly that in these disputes at common law “the right to a jury trial shall be preserved.” It does not say one ever has the right to wave such jury trial, and it also does not differentiate between the defendant or the plaintiff when referring to such right.

This is because the jury system was expressly created in order to guarantee the integrity of the court, thus prohibiting rulings made by those who have a conflict of interest, or that can be easily corrupted.

The fact is that any judge in the nation bears a conflict of interest on such issues and therefore cannot be allowed to rule on the matter since he is an agent of the government and must then recuse himself. It is the individual who is at peril in the matter and the judge cannot be expected to remain impartial since the individual has no vested interest in the proceedings as the government does.

As the article states “some argue that such decisions help limit overreaching regulatory efforts." However, this just proves the point that it is the incessant choice by congress to use regulation rather than the rule of law, which places citizens in the utmost peril.

Don Parrish, the American Farm Bureau Federation’s senior director of regulatory relations -- who has lobbied on Clean Water issues -- claims “there is no doubt in my mind that when Congress passed the Clean Water Act of 1972 they intended it to have broad regulatory reach, but they did not intend it to be unlimited.”

The fact is this point is mute since the intention of the Congress is not in question, and legally cannot be brought into the proceedings since it is not evidence, nor is it in any way relative to the dispute.

This is nothing more than sophistry and a manipulative tactic which displays this man’s utter contempt for the people and as well the rule of law. Parrish should be removed from his position for his flagrant disregard and criminal complicity. It certainly is difficult to simply assume he is as mentally challenged as he pretends. But then, displays of incompetence are also completely justifiable causes for demanding somebody’s resignation.

Unfortunately the legal “talent” in this nation appears to be severely lacking, and this author is now beginning an ardent search for the resources to secure a degree in law before these sideshow puppets completely destroy our beautiful lands.

The decisions by the courts have created widespread uncertainty in the E.P.A. and state regulators because of the courts ambiguous rulings which now allows polluters to determine for themselves just what waters they can dump in, and once again force private local citizens to fight for damages in court after they have already been harmed by the toxins.

Furthermore, various judicial districts have interpreted the decision differently, and thus pollution will now be a geographical concern on a scale which will see unprecedented shifts in real estate values occur across the nation. Some neighborhoods and municipalities which are now considered havens for healthy families and communities will be devalued simply for implications of increased risk due to their proximity to industrial corporations and manufacturing plants.

E.P.A lawyers have allegedly established unwritten internal guidelines to avoid cases in which proving jurisdiction is too difficult, according to interviews with more than two dozen current and former E.P.A. officials.

However, for anyone who has found it necessary to consult a lawyer concerning any difficult litigious matter in this country, one finds that most legal professionals have no intention of fighting difficult battles in court -- and as well, most of them are not talented enough to prevail -- they typically only seek to represent those cases that are a sure bet and which do not require any actual legal argument or interpretation.

The article goes on to report that according to Peter S. Silva, the E.P.A.’s assistant administrator for the Clean Water Act, “the decision reduces the E.P.A.’s ability to do what the law intends -- to protect water quality, the environment and public health.” However, once again this is not actually a law. First and foremost because it does not comply with the United States Constitution, and second because it is merely an illegitimate “interpretation” of a previously enacted regulation by a legislative body of which the court has no ability to conclusively determine its mindset at the time.

What is significant in effectively marginalizing the position of the court is understanding the conflicts of interest inured within the federal bureaucracies of the E.P.A. as well. If they are controlled and financed by the government then they have no truly unequivocal vested interest in protecting the average citizens.

While they may certainly be upstanding individuals and may have the people's best interests at heart, they still typically take their marching orders from bureaucratic entities. One cannot conclusively determine whether some or all of the agency's actions have not been influenced by a political agenda. And since politicians do not even attempt to hide the fact that they are financed and influenced by big business, the prevailing structure is inherently corrupted from the beginning.

This is another reason while they are required to take an oath to uphold and protect the constitution and the rule of law. This oath actually prohibits them from enacting legislation such as the Clean Water Act, and instead demands that they simply prohibit abuses across the board regardless of interpretation of the specific area, waterway, level, or type of pollution.

According to the E.P.A. at least 117 million people get their drinking water from sources fed by waters which are now unprotected because they are vulnerable to exclusion from the CWA.

What is disturbing is that the Supreme Court made its ruling against the nation’s citizens more than two years ago, and some members of Congress have been attempting to limit the impact of the court’s decision by introducing the Clean Water Restoration Act which tries to resolve the problem by removing the word “navigable” from the law and restoring regulators’ authority over all waters that were protected before the Supreme Court’s decision.

The bill has been approved by the Senate Committee, but has yet to be introduced in the House.

The NYT article goes on to mention that ‘a broad coalition of industries has often successfully lobbied to prevent the full Congress from voting on such proposals by telling farmers and small business owners that the new legislation would permit the government to regulate rain puddles and small ponds and layer new regulations on how they dispose of waste.’

But then, these are the kinds of things voters get when politicians act beyond their authority and outside the rule of law set out in the Constitution in attempts to satisfy constituents simply for the purpose of getting re-elected.

While the will of the people is to be respected, such respect demands that one not patronize those they represent to the point that it injures them or their personal interests. The reasoning which created the American government was itself bound by the law with respect to the sovereign rights of the individual, and thus made provisions to conclusively remove discretionary arguments from the overall process.

Unfortunately misdirected or wrongheaded discretion has countless times subverted the will of this nation’s founding documents in opt for abusive and exclusionary legislation, and this practice will eventually require abrogation if this nation is to survive intact.

Some intend to fault Lisa P. Jackson, head of the E.P.A. for not issuing new regulations to clarify jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act, but again, if politicians would just follow the constitution it would absolve them of much of the actual responsibility they harangue themselves with.

Since 2002 incidences of illegal polluting have been steadily rising, while enforcement has simultaneously been steadily dropping.

Members of the Water Advocacy Coalition, which is supported by the Farm Bureau Federation, the National Association of Home Builders and other groups affected by the Clean Water Act, are working hard to come up with persuasive speech that emphasizes the “scary possibilities” of the legislation. They routinely use sensationally mendacious claims that the CWA will regulate gutters and roadside ditches, which typically succeeds in causing raucus actions and concerns by the businesses which finance them.

Officials say the consequences of the Supreme Court ruling are stark. In drier states, some polluters say the act no longer applies to them and therefore they are refusing to renew or apply for permits, making it impossible to monitor what they are dumping.

Administrators at Cannon Air Force Base, near Clovis -- which dumps wastewater containing bacteria and human waste into a lake on the base -- recently told E.P.A. officials they no longer consider themselves subject to the act.

Since the Supreme Court ruling -- bringing into question what waterways were subject to the law -- more than 200 oil spill cases have been delayed; E.P.A. judicial actions against major polluters have fallen by almost half, and according to University of Michigan law professor David M. Uhlmann, “cases have been lost because the company argues that it is dumping in an unprotected nearby stream that flows into a protected river, rather than the river itself.”

One guilty verdict was actually overturned, and the fine vacated after an Alabama company, McWane Inc., appealed the conviction for dumping oil, lead, zinc and other chemicals into a large creek, because the appellate court ruled that the Supreme Court precedent exempted the waterway from the Clean Water Act. The company eventually settled by agreeing to a smaller fine and probation.

Once again this all illuminates that judges are not intended to make these rulings, and it is the citizen jury of peers which must stand and deliver the verdict. This is a country founded on respect for the individual and the inalienable rights of the people in preservation of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all concerned.

Refusing to pander to special interests and groups, whether they are corporations, small businesses, advocacy coalitions or social classes, and instead abiding the rule of the constitution, will certainly disappoint some of the people, most of the time, but it will guarantee posterity of the common good of the nation all of the time.