Ok, so I read the back of the card and was curious what “Public Law 92-500 Section 2” said and how it gives these people super powers.
As far as I can tell, it’s the Clean Water Act from 1972 and it authorizes federal funds to build sewage plants, and regulations on what you are allowed to dump in the water.
Am I looking at the wrong Public Law? Or is this just a random set of numbers to make it sound official?
Obviously, I didn’t expect to find what they think is in there, but I expected at least something that could be misinterpreted as such.
Reading the whole Section, it seems they are leaning on this one phrase:
"SEC. 505. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, any citizen may commence a civil action on his own behalf "(1) against any person (including (i) the United States, and (ii) any other governmental instrumentality or agency to the extent permitted by the eleventh amendment to the Constitution) who is alleged to be in violation of (A) an effluent standard or limitation under this Act or (B) an order issued by the Administrator or a State with respect to such a standard or limitation,
They’re very good at looking at the letter of the law without considering the context or purpose of why it was written. Any number of logical fallacies are used to jump every shark possible.
Ok, so I read the back of the card and was curious what “Public Law 92-500 Section 2” said and how it gives these people super powers.
As far as I can tell, it’s the Clean Water Act from 1972 and it authorizes federal funds to build sewage plants, and regulations on what you are allowed to dump in the water.
Am I looking at the wrong Public Law? Or is this just a random set of numbers to make it sound official?
Obviously, I didn’t expect to find what they think is in there, but I expected at least something that could be misinterpreted as such.
Reading the whole Section, it seems they are leaning on this one phrase:
Which is duplicated here in some part here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/1365
They’re very good at looking at the letter of the law without considering the context or purpose of why it was written. Any number of logical fallacies are used to jump every shark possible.
Are you sure, jumping the shark is the correct phrase here?