Here is what I think is kinda absurd.
We elect Donald or whoever, plus Congress.
Between Donald, Congress and the Supreme Court, some bill is passed into law to do something.
Then the new law is sent to Thompsons
in Canada where it is shortened and revised so that it makes legal sense. While they revise it, they interpret much of what Donald, Congress and the Supreme Court was trying to say in the new law.
Then the law comes back to us in statute form.
Then a whole bunch of appointed or hired "officials" write out their public policy regarding the law. They give this public policy to their employees who often interpret it in ways that are different than their official bosses had intended.
None of the statute approximates what Donald, Congress and the Supreme Court had intended. But even if it did, the things that Donald, Congress and the Supreme Court made into law probably aren't what the people really want, anyway.
The point is, by the time that law enforcement gets their hands on the final policies, they are way different than what anybody above them had intended. Then law enforcement makes its changes, and who knows what we get.
This seems more like the process of anarchy to me.
The EPA isn't what we really want. We want protection for the environment without being stifled in our everyday freedom. Well, the environment isn't being protected, even though there are a lot of controls set in place. But the little guy almost can't build his own car from scratch and drive it without getting all kinds of tests done by the State.
If the EPA worked right, we would have freedom and true protection at the same time.