[falcolas]

The intent of the EPA is to regulate things that negatively impact the environment. To use your analogies, the EPA can by the word of law regulate John, and by the intent of law should be able to regulate BSA and Janet if they are operating in ways that negatively impact the environment.

If you limit an entity to only ever operate by the word and not the intent of law, then it's trivial for malicious (more accurately greedy) actors to skirt regulation, because the government will never be able to keep up with the exploitation of loopholes.

Kind of like how the IRS can tax bitcoins, despite cryptocurrencies not being explicitly written into the constitution or tax laws.

[briandear]

> Kind of like how the IRS can tax bitcoins, despite cryptocurrencies not being explicitly written into the constitution or tax laws.

Nope. The IRS could always tax assets. And bitcoin is another form of asset.

[falcolas]

And what legally labeled a bitcoin as an asset? There's enough wiggle room that someone, somewhere had to make a call, and I doubt it was congress.

[nradov]

That's not how it works. The IRS can tax profits earned from transactions in any medium of exchange (bitcoin or anything else) because Congress has specifically granted them that statutory authority. The EPA does not have blanket authority to regulate anything that might happen to negatively impact the environment. Congress could give them that authority, but has chosen not to do so.