Concord Monitor (N.H.), Jan. 29:
Presidential candidates, like street-corner organ grinders of old, put out tin cups and crank out promises created to please the audience. This time around, many have impressive goals for their first day in office. Bernie Sanders would act to reverse the decline of the middle class on his first day. Ted Cruz has pledged to abolish the IRS, investigate Planned Parenthood, undo the multi-nation deal to restrict Iran’s nuclear program, abolish Common Core education standards and reverse every one of President Obama’s long list of executive orders.
None of those things can or will happen, but then the promise is music to some ears. At least since President Harry Truman used an executive order to desegregate the military, scholars and politicians alike have questioned how far a president can go to circumvent Congress with a presidential edict. The limits remain unclear.
For three election cycles, political reporter Charlie Savage, now of the New York Times, has asked presidential candidates to answer a short list of questions geared to gauge their view of presidential authority. This time, Savage explained in a Times article on Sunday, only one candidate, Republican Rand Paul, answered them.
Presidents Obama and George W. Bush issued executive orders and memoranda in roughly equal amounts, and faced similar challenges to their constitutionality and cries of “imperial presidency.” Executive orders, in use since George Washington, allow a president to act quickly, particularly in times of danger, without first gaining congressional approval. Their use, however, has increased with congressional paralysis, which has become a political fact of life that’s not likely to change with the next election. So it could be that the candidates didn’t answer because they didn’t want to limit their powers needlessly or because the question has yet to be answered definitively by anyone.
Several candidates, including Trump and lawyers Cruz and Marco Rubio, appear to have views on the extent of presidential power that, with less than a dozen days to go before the primary, voters should think about.
President Richard Nixon once summed up his take on the matter by saying “when the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.” That proved not to be the case. Dick Cheney, the former vice president and perhaps the nation’s most steadfast proponent of almost unchecked presidential power, once put it this way when asked about limits:
“The president of the United States now for 50 years is followed at all times, 24 hours a day, by a military aide carrying a football that contains the nuclear codes that he would use and be authorized to use in the event of a nuclear attack on the United States. He could launch a kind of devastating attack the world’s never seen. He doesn’t have to check with anybody. He doesn’t have to call the Congress. He doesn’t have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in.”
That’s not a view of executive authority that makes us feel safer, but it does make us wonder how many of today’s candidates feel the same way.
New Haven Register (Conn.), Jan. 28:
Whether a man-made material used for athletic fields and playgrounds is safe for athletes and children is under the microscope after being targeting by critics for years.
U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., is calling on the federal government to conduct an independent study on the use of crumb rubber on athletic fields and playgrounds after a series of reports and complaints called into question whether the man-made material was a pathway to exposure to one or more carcinogens.
Many argue the health effects of crumb rubber, which currently is used in more than 11,000 synthetic turf sports fields in the U.S. and in children’s playgrounds across the country, have not been adequately tested to ensure that it is safe for long-term exposure. One soccer coach has documented 69 cases of former soccer players diagnosed with cancer.
Here in Connecticut, the Department of Public Health has deemed its use safe and thousands of kids play on crumb rubber surfaces at high schools and playgrounds across the state.
But without a definitive scientific study determining its safety, experts are divided on its use and concerned parents rightfully are worried. Some municipalities have taken matters into their own hands – such as Ridgefield, which has posted health safety warning signs at its two athletic fields.
Crumb rubber made its debut as a synthetic turf for professional sports in the early 2000s, the successor to previous forms that athletes complained did nothing to protect them from hard landings. The new turf was made up of tiny, black crumbs made from pulverized car tires, among other materials. It provided a cushion upon impact for athletes and helped minimize serious injuries such as concussions.
But cries for federal authorities to take a closer look at the potential hazards have been mushrooming after many athletes who played extensively on synthetic fields were diagnosed with cancer. The controversy picked up steam after Environmental Protection Agency head Gina McCarthy refused to answer a reporter’s question as to whether the synthetic turf was safe for children.
No study links crumb rubber to cancer, but a study by Yale University found crumb rubber pieces contain 96 different chemicals, and 20 percent of the toxic chemicals present were carcinogens. And that is spreading fear through parents who say the tiny rubber crumbs get everywhere – in player’s uniforms, hair and cleats. And every time a player slams onto the turf, a black cloud of tire pellets shoot into the air and the granules get into their cuts and scrapes, and into their mouths.
The Synthetic Turf Council argues on its website there is no evidence to support claims that synthetic turf is unsafe. But an in-depth study free from special interests is needed to ensure athletes and children are not playing now to pay later. When the head of EPA refuses to go on record and validate a product’s safety to the American people, that should make everyone sit up and take notice. We certainly did – and so should the federal government.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
