shouldn't trump, do more to protect Alaska wild salmon

[naveed]

shouldn't trump, do more to protect Alaska wild salmon

Bristol Bay: EPA's Scott Pruitt met with mining CEO - CNNPolitics

 

[Targaryen]

Trump should do a lot of things. Will he?

Hasn't yet.

 

[Dawnhammer]

Those illegal immigrant salmons. I vote for underwater wall to be built and salmons will pay for it.

 

[miamited]

Those illegal immigrant salmons. I vote for underwater wall to be built and salmons will pay for it.

Hi dawnhammer,

No, no. The flounder will pay for it.

I think that Donald 'ducky' Trump should do more to keep his mouth shut.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[DaisyDay]

Copper is pretty poisonous to fish, iirc. Well, we can always eat beef!

 

[DaisyDay]

Trump should do a lot of things. Will he?

Hasn't yet.

Hey, he's spoken out against kneeling during the anthem.

 

[HannahT]

I wanted to read more about this issue. So, I hit an Alaska Newspaper, and tried to find another source as well.

Doesn't sound like any decision has been made. The company sued because the EPA halted the project even before the details of the projects were presented. All this decision does is allow the company to present the project, and then a determination would be made if it can move forward. The company claimed the EPA made a decision before it knew what it was making a decision about.

So, I guess the Salmon are safe at this point. No determination has been made, and won't be made it sounds like anytime soon. I'm not sure it really reads that the mine project is moving forward, but in reality the plans can be submitted at this point.

At this point it is UP in the air.

 

[hislegacy]

I love wild Salmon. Especially smoked

 

[mark46]

How would protecting wild salmon help his big business buddies?

 

[naveed]

Trump should do a lot of things. Will he?

Hasn't yet.

yes

 

[War_Eagle]

shouldn't trump, do more to protect Alaska wild salmon

Bristol Bay: EPA's Scott Pruitt met with mining CEO - CNNPolitics

No. The Constitution doesn't give the president the power to involve himself in such things.

Now, if he wants to do so as a private citizen, perhaps donate some money or create an environmental charity, sure. That would be a great idea.

But the office of the president and the government should stay out of it.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

No. The Constitution doesn't give the president the power to involve himself in such things.

Now, if he wants to do so as a private citizen, perhaps donate some money or create an environmental charity, sure. That would be a great idea.

But the office of the president and the government should stay out of it.

Are you aware that there is more to running the government than just the Constitution?

 

[miamited]

Are you aware that there is more to running the government than just the Constitution?

Hi jay,

Yes, the constitution doesn't give government the authority to collect taxes, establish national parks, build highways. However, living without our government having such abilities would make life as we know it today impossible and likely we'd look like some third world nation.

However, the Constitution does give general authority for such things. It gives the federal government authority to do what it deems right to establish 'domestic tranquility'. It gives the federal government the authority to 'provide for the common defense' of the citizens as it deems right and proper. It gives the federal government the authority to 'promote the general welfare' of it's citizens however it deems proper. It gives the federal government the authority to do what it believes to be necessary to 'secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity'.

So, the federal government has a lot of authority given it by the Constitution so long as that authority can be tied to one of these 'rights' that our Constitution gives our government the authority to oversee among its citizenry. If we need the collection of taxes to be able to provide and oversee this work that the Constitution says it has, then the Constitution does give us the authority to collect taxes. If the establishment of national parks allows some amount of well being among the citizens, then the federal government has the authority to establish such parks. If the federal government should deem that very strict firearms control is necessary to 'promote the general welfare' of its citizens, then the federal government has the right to enact such laws.

As relates to this thread, if it can be shown that protecting the environment 'promotes the general welfare' of the people, then the federal government has the right to establish the EPA. If an issue that comes before the EPA is in line with the purpose of establishing the EPA in the first place, then there is some authority given to the EPA through its approved establishment where it can insinuate its control into a lot of issues.

I think that we should also understand that in this day and age, most all civilized nations allow for the protection of natural resources contained within its boundaries. Most of these nations take on that responsibility based on their understanding that such laws and responsibility do provide some benefit for the general welfare of the people.

Now, having rambled on about my understanding of 'what' the Constitution does give our government the authority to oversee, no, I don't think that Donald Trump, himself, should get involved in this effort. That's the EPA's responsibility or the Fish and Game agency of the Interior Department.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Hi jay,

Yes, the constitution doesn't give government the authority to collect taxes, establish national parks, build highways. However, living without our government having such abilities would make life as we know it today impossible and likely we'd look like some third world nation.

However, the Constitution does give general authority for such things. It gives the federal government authority to do what it deems right to establish 'domestic tranquility'. It gives the federal government the authority to 'provide for the common defense' of the citizens as it deems right and proper. It gives the federal government the authority to 'promote the general welfare' of it's citizens however it deems proper. It gives the federal government the authority to do what it believes to be necessary to 'secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity'.

So, the federal government has a lot of authority given it by the Constitution so long as that authority can be tied to one of these 'rights' that our Constitution gives our government the authority to oversee among its citizenry. If we need the collection of taxes to be able to provide and oversee this work that the Constitution says it has, then the Constitution does give us the authority to collect taxes. If the establishment of national parks allows some amount of well being among the citizens, then the federal government has the authority to establish such parks. If the federal government should deem that very strict firearms control is necessary to 'promote the general welfare' of its citizens, then the federal government has the right to enact such laws.

As relates to this thread, if it can be shown that protecting the environment 'promotes the general welfare' of the people, then the federal government has the right to establish the EPA. If an issue that comes before the EPA is in line with the purpose of establishing the EPA in the first place, then there is some authority given to the EPA through its approved establishment where it can insinuate its control into a lot of issues.

I think that we should also understand that in this day and age, most all civilized nations allow for the protection of natural resources contained within its boundaries. Most of these nations take on that responsibility based on their understanding that such laws and responsibility do provide some benefit for the general welfare of the people.

Now, having rambled on about my understanding of 'what' the Constitution does give our government the authority to oversee, no, I don't think that Donald Trump, himself, should get involved in this effort. That's the EPA's responsibility or the Fish and Game agency of the Interior Department.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

I was responding to War eagle.

I am aware of all the powers of the government as I was an employee of them for almost 24 years, a few of those years protecting salmon in Alaska. We have a 200 mile Economic Exclusion Zone that already protects the salmon and crab fisheries in Alaskan waters.

 

[PeachyKeane]

No. The Constitution doesn't give the president the power to involve himself in such things.

Now, if he wants to do so as a private citizen, perhaps donate some money or create an environmental charity, sure. That would be a great idea.

But the office of the president and the government should stay out of it.

I'm sure he can stand up and say how awful it is that this industry is threatened, and that he thinks steps should be taken to preserve it. That would do a lot of good. He can do that, right?

 

[naveed]

yes

 

[Rion]

Please stop bumping your old threads.

 

[bhsmte]

yes

You bored?