The Environmental Protection agency finds no basis for existence in the U.S. Constitution

"The government has the power to [. .. ] have authority over lands owned by the government" Textually speaking, one power of congress described in the constitution is "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces. " "The land" does not refer to government-owned land but instead to all land in America. Thus, the EPA is constitutional under this clause. Also, another clause in the constitution states that "Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" The EPA does provide for the general welfare of the United States by ensuring that people do not ruin the environment or make it uninhabitable. Without the EPA, nuclear bombs could be tested on private property, which would harm the general welfare of the country. Also, high quantities of pollutants could be released into the air, harming the health of everyone in the country. Thus, regulation of the environment is constitutional because it provides for the general welfare of the united states. The elastic clause also supports the EPA: Congress shall have the power "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. " So, as long as the regulation of the environment would help Congress achieve any of its other goals, then it is constitutional. Regarding the commerce clause, the environment does in fact impact commerce. My opponent said: "it is equally certain that the debate will revolve around one word: REGULATE. That word, as we use it today, would certainly allow for the existence of an EPA-like administrative body; however, the word today is not equivalent to the meaning of the word at the time the constitution was written. In that period, regulate simply meant to keep regular or to keep well-ordered. " However, I am not arguing that the modern form of the EPA is constitutional but instead that "an agency regulating (setting standards for) the actions of the people with regards to the environment" is constitutional. In this context, "setting standards for" appears synonymous with "keep[ing] regular or [. .] well-ordered. " If standards are set, then interactions will be regular and well-ordered; similarly, if standards are not set, then interactions will not be regular or well-ordered. Under this interpretation of regulate, an environmental protection agency is constitutional as explained in my opponent's argument. "This certainly cannot mean a militia subject to some sort of administrative bureaucracy; rather, it is explained by one of the powers granted in Article 1, Section 8, "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia. In other words, remove obstacles to the efficient functioning of the militia. " Disciplining the militia necessarily requires some form of administrative bureaucracy that dictates what the militia can and cannot do. In general, regulation requires an administrative bureaucracy. "It is clear, therefore, that the Founders did not intend this clause to allow what we would call regulation; but rather to prevent a lack of superintendence from destroying the Union. [. .. ] Since the EPA does not seek to improve and make regular the commerce of the states, it does not fall under the provisions of the commerce clause and is therefore unconstitutional. " Preventing a lack of superintendence from destroying the Union requires regulation. This is what the elastic clause is for, to allow regulation that are not explicitly mentioned in the constitution but are necessary and proper to be enacted. The EPA does seek to improve and make regular the commerce of the states - without regulation, commerce could be disrupted by environmental catastrophes caused by harmful human interactions with the environment.