Letter: EPA's work isn't in the U.S. Constitution

Is the Environmental Protection Act unconstitutional? The act itself is probably constitutional. However, the way that it is being used is undoubtedly not.

The enumerated legislative powers granted to Congress by the people through the U.S. Constitution did not place the natural resources under the supreme legislative powers granted congress so the disciples of Karl Marx, also known as the Watermelon People, came up with this brilliant plan to get Congress to pass the Environmental Protection Act to protect man's environment, and then by the use of a process known as case- or court- made law, the natural resources were gradually redefined, case by case as the environment, and so now everything must be administered to protect the environment , the resources from man instead of for man.

But the one small fly in the ointment is that administrative authority stems from legislative authority and legislative authority stems from constitutionally delegated authority, and no matter what name you call the resources, such authority does not exist within the enumerated supreme powers given Congress, and all courts and judges are bound thereby.

The U.S. Constitution delegates supreme legislative power to Congress over the first 16 enumerated powers of Congress. The 17th is delegated to Congress by the state legislature, but is limited to land for the seat of the government, forts, dock yards and needful buildings (military purposes) when purchased with the consent of the state legislature, within which the same shall be.

This does not mean that Congress can't pass legislation to protect the resources and our right of access to them, under the Ninth Article of the Bill of Rights. Congress has done exactly that over 130 times. The Civil Culture Act, the Agriculture Homestead Act, the Stock Raising Homestead Act, the Taylor Grazing Act and the infamous 1872 Mineral Homestead Act, were all passed under the Ninth Article of the Bill of Rights to create a vehicle by which title could be created for the legitimate settler. It simply means that federal law is not supreme over state or local law except in the absence of a state or county law to protect the peoples' constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Article 4, Section 4 of the federal constitution, "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government." It necessarily follows that the federal constitution is guaranteeing to each and every county or borough a republican form of government (not a mobocracy, democracy, state, county or federal bureaucracy) but a republican form of government where property owners vote on property rights and the welfare disciples of Karl Marx can't vote your rights away. Communism operates on the theory that a person has only rights granted by the central government, under a system of permits, issued by the county, state or federal government and that is without a doubt the reason the Bill of Rights was inserted into the U.S. Constitution along with the words, "The constitution of an individual state cannot in any shape or form abrogate the Constitution of the United States."

CLIFFORD THOMPSON

Fernley