Hacker News Reader

This simply misses the point. Very few laws are restricted to the best science of their day: nearly all allow for administrative interpretation so that the US Government can apply the law without having to relitigate its essential qualities.

The CAA empowers the EPA to identify pollutants, and that's what the EPA has (correctly!) done. Whether or not the scientific consensus from the 1960s agrees is immaterial.

View on HN

> This simply misses the point. Very few laws are restricted to the best science of their day: nearly all allow for administrative interpretation so that the US Government can apply the law without having to relitigate its essential qualities. Precisely, if it was the case then arms of the second amendment wouldn’t apply to modern day firearms.

Maybe, or one could argue that the second amendment applies to the most modern and capable arms of the day e.g. the musket of the time = an assault rifle today

Don’t want to talk guns, but want to illustrate the challenges of making such claims

Why would the Second Amendment be interpreted in that way and the CAA not be allowed similar breadth in interpreting what is a pollutant? The latter is actually explicit in this regard; the former has been constructed through judicial interpretation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com