Repercussions for people outside New Orleans

I do believe that the Supreme Court would be most interested in the
executive branch rescinding something that the legislative branch enacted.

Jim



"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:z2PSe.310396$_o.167366@attbi_s71...


Sure, Mike, it's not impossible. But it will probably take a
presidential rescinding of the stupid EPA laws to get it done.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:YePSe.310414$_o.34843@attbi_s71...
As long as a nuclear power plant has a containment dome, I'm all for
it. A coal fired power station puts more radiation into the air than
would ever be permissible for a nuclear plant.

I'm a long-term nuclear proponent, and have never heard that fact.

Can you site a source, please?

I'm not the OP, but check "The Nuclear Energy Option", by Bernard L. Cohen,
which has numerous references to pollution from coal (specifically Chapters
3,5,12).

This doesn't even begin to include the leftover ash residue which contains a
bunch of toxic chemicals, especially since Clinton shut down the biggest US
area (southern Utah) producing low sulfur coal back a few years (to placate
his Pacific rim coal producing campaign donors).

Tom S.

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
I do believe that the Supreme Court would be most interested in the
executive branch rescinding something that the legislative branch enacted.


Executive Order.

"Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool."
--Paul Begala, Clinton presidential aide, July 1998


Sure, Mike, it's not impossible. But it will probably take a
presidential rescinding of the stupid EPA laws to get it done.

Aren't Executive Orders limited by the laws passed by Congress giving
the Executive the power?

"Doof" wrote in message
...

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
I do believe that the Supreme Court would be most interested in the
executive branch rescinding something that the legislative branch
enacted.


Executive Order.

"Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool."
--Paul Begala, Clinton presidential aide, July 1998


Sure, Mike, it's not impossible. But it will probably take a
presidential rescinding of the stupid EPA laws to get it done.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:lbPSe.310410$_o.124941@attbi_s71...
Yes and very true. We had the prefect opportunity five years ago when
the CAFE standards were scheduled for an increase but our brilliant new
president decided not of implement them. If he had, about 80% of the US
vehicle fleet would be getting a couple more MPG which, as it turns out,
would exactly match the reduced gasoline output from Katrina.

So, of course, we wouldn't now be seeing a 30% increase in the price at
the pump if only Bush had implemented stricter mileage rules in 2000?

I'm afraid you're dreaming, Mike. We'd only have had more expensive cars
then AND the same, higher gas prices today.

We could be getting a ****load of better gas mileage if cities and towns
would synchronized their traffic signals. Of course, then they'd lose
revenue from fines for speeding (to beat constant stale yellow lights) or
from those beloved traffic cams (in which, on a national average) that have
been set at lights shortened from 7 seconds to 4.5. Also, it would alleviate
a lot a gridlock, and that would undercut the localities argument for even
more money and personnel.

It would also require a lot of traffic engineers to get off their lame asses
and do what they were trained to do. CAFE standards just let them
pontificate while exacerbating the situation.

In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

We could be getting a **** of better gas mileage if cities and towns
would synchronized their traffic signals.

Some communities may deliberately screwup the traffic lights in order
to reduce the traffic through their community. Maybe I'm just being
cynical, but some lights around here (Burlington, Lexington) are just so
messed up that it couldn't possibly be just random.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

"sfb" wrote:
Aren't Executive Orders limited by the laws passed
by Congress giving the Executive the power?


No. Executive Orders are orders issued to one or more
Executive agencies. However, an executive order cannot
conflict with or nullify any existing law passed by
Congress.

Fred F.

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

We could be getting a **** of better gas mileage if cities and towns
would synchronized their traffic signals.

Some communities may deliberately screwup the traffic lights in order
to reduce the traffic through their community. Maybe I'm just being
cynical, but some lights around here (Burlington, Lexington) are just so
messed up that it couldn't possibly be just random.


It probably isn't if my six years experience with road building a dozen
years ago is any indication.

Consider the motives: more revenue, more clout when asking for budget
increases. These are bureaucracies running these shows; what would be their
incentives for good performance versus artificially contrived gridlock?

In the meantime drivers are on the CITY mileage part of the MPG stickers on
their vehicles...probably the low end of it.

There are only four traffic lights in my town and not too bad, but some
towns I've been in are atrocious. Denver used to be pretty good, but now
it's a disaster. Even more, it's either the grossest incompetence (20 cars
at a light waiting for one or tow or ZERO vehicles to pass by, usually all
having to stop at a stale green and wait the entire cycle.

God, how many millions or billions of gallons of gas do we waste in that
manner each year?

Conservation? How about first somebody doing their damn jobs?


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

Many communities have gone to sensor based on demand traffic signals
which are impossible to coordinate. Ironically, one argument is saving
gasoline as waiting for the light to change is reduced.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
news:OA_Se.30
We could be getting a ****load of better gas mileage if cities and
towns
would synchronized their traffic signals. Of course, then they'd lose
revenue from fines for speeding (to beat constant stale yellow lights)
or
from those beloved traffic cams (in which, on a national average) that
have
been set at lights shortened from 7 seconds to 4.5. Also, it would
alleviate
a lot a gridlock, and that would undercut the localities argument for
even
more money and personnel.

It would also require a lot of traffic engineers to get off their lame
asses
and do what they were trained to do. CAFE standards just let them
pontificate while exacerbating the situation.

Isn't the answer then yes as the Executive branch is always limited by
the law.

"TaxSrv" wrote in message
...
"sfb" wrote:
Aren't Executive Orders limited by the laws passed
by Congress giving the Executive the power?


No. Executive Orders are orders issued to one or more
Executive agencies. However, an executive order cannot
conflict with or nullify any existing law passed by
Congress.

Fred F.