Should the US circumvent existing laws, like the CAA, by using other laws?

What we should do is stop making stupid feel good laws that are so easily abused. To allow EPA to control carbon emissions would be allowing leftists to put nooses around capitalism. Our markets are reeling from attacks by Obama on our financial system, our medical system, etc. I don't know how much our society and economy can take from these idiotic policies. If we allow them to attack energy as they are planning, the cost of energy will skyrocket way beyond the ridiculous costs of a year or two ago. America better wake up soon from this nightmare and figure out what is causing it. It is Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid and their accomplices. They always have Rush Limbaugh and Bush as convenient fall guys.

Because the interpretation and implementation of laws is dependent upon current context, not on original writing--the courts and executive branch are able to interpret the law and its original intent. For example, let's imagine that next month, reputable scientists determined that materials used in certain kinds of concrete clearly and directly increased certain types of cancer--both when made and when existing buildings are destroyed (essentially, like asbestos). Further say that the result are indisputable, and even the concrete manufacturers and users agree. In this case, it is clear that the EPA could regulate the use of this type of concrete, as well as any project that involved the destruction of said concrete. That is, a new form of environmental toxin, never imagined by the creators of the ESA, is discovered, and yet it is still within the provence of the EPA to regulate it.

The question is whether or not carbon dioxide is such an environmental toxin. Clearly it doesn't directly poison or injure local plants or animals. However, something doesn't need to directly cause a problem to fall within the bounds of a law--indirect causes are recognized in many legal situations. So the real question here is one of science--does carbon dioxide cause clear and demonstrable harm to the environment in a way covered by the EPA. This is certainly debatable. But if the people directing the EPA have determined it to be such an environmental toxin (even if the damage is indirect), then it is perfectly reasonable to allow the EPA to regulate it.

Again, another similar situation is the way the FCC has been able to regulate some aspects of Internet trafficking, even though the original laws creating the FCC didn't have even the slightest imagination of how information could be broadcast in that way.

The US has circumvented just about every moral and legal rule of financial management for the last few years. I guess you bunch of right wing jerks knew what you thought you were doing. Only thing is the rest of the world hates you. Look at the state of your domestic motor industry after the Bush rules which took pick-up trucks and pick-up based cars out of the safety and environmental laws.