The EPA vs the Constitution

by Ron Paul

Last week the Supreme Court heard arguments in Sackett v. EPA, a case of blatant federal agency overreach and abuse of private property rights. Without any proof or reason, and no chance for appeal, the Environmental Protection Agency determined that a small single home lot was a “protected wetland.” The owners, Mike and Chantell Sackett, were ordered to halt construction already underway, to remove all of the work already done, and plant trees and shrubs consistent with a wetlands environment. After making these costly changes, the Sackets then would have to wait several years for the EPA to decide if they would be allowed the use of their own property. Refusal to comply with these outrageous and arbitrary commandments would result in daily fines greater than the value of the property!

Outraged, the Sacketts sought relief through the courts, but court after court determined that they had no standing. The actions of the EPA were not subject to judicial review until a mountain of fees had already been assessed. This is just another example not only of how federal agencies wield enormous power over average citizens, but also how little practical protection our court system provides when such citizens are harmed by those agencies.

Constitutionally, when the government determines private property is needed for public use, it is taken through eminent domain. In that process the owner is due fair market value in compensation for any condemned property. The EPA not only refuses to compensate the Sacketts for effectively taking their land, they are assessing– or threatening to assess– ruinous penalties that greatly exceed the value of the land. They arrogantly claim the power to determine how certain property owners can use their land, while assessing fines or ordering actions that must be undertaken at the property owner’s expense. All of this is done at the administrative level, with no judicial oversight. In short, the EPA does not believe the Constitution applies to them.

A decision on this case is expected this summer. My fervent hope is that the Supreme Court will thwart this rogue agency and stand up for property rights and the right of people to have their day in court when they find themselves unwittingly accosted by the EPA.

My own district in Texas is no stranger to these issues. Again, with no evidence to support their decision, the EPA arbitrarily determined Matagorda County to be an “Ozone Nonattainment Region”, meaning the air quality is substandard. In fact, the population in this county has been decreasing and the small amount of emissions reported from Matagorda County has actually declined in recent years. The Texas agency charged with environmental protection disagrees with the EPA. Yet Matagorda County, like the Sacketts, finds itself at the mercy of the EPA. New business and construction will be stymied until the Washington masters are satisfied.

Unless Congress acts, EPA bureaucrats will continue to inflict potentially devastating economic consequences on communities like Matagorda County and people like the Sacketts. Destroying the economy is no way to save the environment. A thriving economy and a fair judicial system that respects property rights and the Constitution provide the best protection of the environment.

Enjoyed This Post?

We cannot succeed without your help, as we will never accept government grants or handouts. Please help us by investing in the Constitution and freedom today!

Enjoyed This Post?

One Response to The EPA vs the Constitution

  1. WilliamSchooler January 19, 2012 at 5:59 am #

    Why would the EPA be considered in the confines of the Constitution? It was created out side the constitution and should not even exists. So why would they stay within the confines of something they are not?

    My question would be who or what are they? A bunch of people hired into an organization that should not even be there pretending to do anything at the expense of tax paying citizens.

    A lot of times I think we attempt to challenge these things on some legal term where some weird idea of law is born.

    Is this because all look at supreme choice as a court or a civilization? I have to ask why some attorney gets the keys to the castle in all cases?

    When is it people, life, public all one in the same get to stand up and represent themselves as they are without such a made up construct of this so called made up law?

    Rule of law is made up of nature, the law that supports life which begs to differ with said made up laws, yet we will consistently attempt to fight back using the made up law versus the Rule of law which states clearly, life in support of life. If I am wrong please explain it to me because every where I look all I see is this made up law in view while others claim rule of law as authority. What makes Rule of law the authority if it is not used as the authority which is life as the deciding factors of its acts towards itself exactly?

    When I look through the web on complexity what I see is made up complexity and made up law is very complex isn’t? Not well defined or clear but very questionable in all attempts to be assumed or interpreted.

    Yet life doing the acts that supports itself is a very clear picture because it both preserves and allows life to live which is doing what it does. Made up law attempts to control these acts that life does by living. So I keep asking myself why do we keep taking the hard road or the obscured road to protect ourselves versus using our skills as life to protect ourselves from these false made up laws that do not allow life. The last I heard and am reading is that the constitution limits but the acts of Government and made up laws expand it. Which result am I to measure by to get the to the truth of the matter? The acts of lawyers or the acts that life does to support itself I ask you? Which one shares dominance with us?

Leave a Reply