E.P.A. Says 17 States Can’t Set Emission Rules

The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday denied California and 16 other states the right to set their own standards for carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles...[more]

No votes yet

California and 15 other states are now suing the EPA over this. I expect that all the stauch "states' rights" defenders will be all over this.

...absolutely. But then, I don't think the federal government should have an EPA in the first place.

:)

If the Federal government didn't, what then?

Wisconsin is serious about protecting the environment, and that includes the Great Lakes. Michigan is not, nor is Illinois. If not for the Federal EPA, things would be a lot worse than they already are.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

...I don't see where the Constitution grants the federal government the right to exercise this control over the states and the nation. I never said that you couldn't see the "sense" in the feds performing this function, but I go back to Barry Goldwater who said: "I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ``needed'' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible."

Just my take on things...

Oh - and we share this earth with other nations who do not follow the same rules as we do, so it really isn't very effective to compare state to state in terms of EPA rules/restrictions...

And when the constition is silent on matters as these, did the framers mean that theses matters were not in the realm of possibilities or were as lawyers and wordsmiths smart enough to know that matters as they would be contested and the judiciary would decide was is correct and proper.

 Air pollution effects us all and we can only wonder if there was not some greater agency watching out for the people of the country, what kind os environmental condition the land, air and water would be in, what with the clamoring for lesser and lesser controls to make more and more profits and pollute our resources more and more.

I lived in a town in New England that up until 1974 was still dumping raw sewage into a stream and river and if not for the Federal EPA mandating and then taking the town to court, they probably would still dumping quite literally into the stream.

The state was ineffective with regards to the matter.

 

have this conversation every time I make this statement.

I don't know how I can be much clearer. NEED does not equate to CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY.

No matter how much you (or anyone else) thinks the nation needs such an agency, the Constitution - which is supposed to be the governing document that details how our government is supposed to function - grants no such authority to the federal government to create such an agency.

Further, if people asked first if Congress has the authority to do something, we eliminate a lot of needless discussion about want, needs and desires...

The emphasis only makes little noise.

The Constitution was written at a time when many of todays problems and concerns did not exist.

So, either we can time travel back to a different time or we can live in today's world.

You still avoid the whole issue of interpreting a silence on an issue, which I suspect if you did look at, and as a person formerly in the legal system in some capacity, one would suspect there is a greater understanding of the application of a silence on an issue.

So, you would advocate a state polluting a water way, as in the example stated and then when another state complained, it would be the states right to not be concerned with the other state?

If were not with the intervention of the Fed. EPA a town would have continued to dump raw human waste into a stream, this is okay, because the constitution does not mention any thing about it?

In the Ohio Valley there are coal plants spreading harmful contaminets in the atmosphere and it is causing health problems for people in other states and as a result law suits have been filed and with federal intervention the problem is being resolved.

This is bad?

Too bad one cannot opt out and not have the forced and stolen tax dollars used for the betterment of all.

I mean why would we want to do that.

By the way, some of the followers of Goldwater have been the very same people who have made the govie bigger. Go figure, they talk about smaller and yet help make it bigger.

"NC - you and I

have this conversation every time I make this statement.

I don't know how I can be much clearer. NEED does not equate to CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY."

Oh, wait a minute! I get it now, because YOU said It, I MUST accept it and believe in it., is that correct?

By the way maybe use a Ronald Regan line, much funny then caps, like he said, "aw shut up!."

 

...my point about having this conversation before is that every time I express my opinion on states rights versus federal government, you feel the need to challenge it and basically, whether intentionally implied or not, say I'm wrong.

So - it's not that you must accept it or believe that what I say is correct, I just get tired of having the exact same discussion with the exact same points. You don't have to accept my opinion, but you can certainly expect me to defend it and to continue to tell you that I've done so in the past.

Second, I've never avoided the issue of 'silence' - you just didn't agree with my perspective. There are two ways of looking at what is or is not allowed when the Constitution is silent on an issue. You can 'assume' that you can do whatever you want if you have no prohibition or explicit authority - or you can 'assume' you cannot act because you have no authority.

For instance, in Ohio, a municipality can make laws so long as they don't contradict state laws. County Commissioners, however, cannot make laws. Further, if state law is silent on an issue, County Commissioners HAVE NO AUTHORITY to act. The best example to demonstrate this is that the ORC requires commissioners to have a dog warden to handle dogs. The state law is silent on the issue of cats, so commissioners have no authority to do anything with cats. Different governmental bodies with different rules. And - an example how 'silent' can be interpreted in two different ways.

The Constitution was established to limit the actions of government. It's also clear that the 10th Amendment specifically addressed this by saying: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Consitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So, you see, the Constitution has already addressed the issue of 'silence.'

The Constitution also provided for a method to change what it spelled out - by amending it. If you want the federal government to exceed the authority granted it by the Constitution, amend the Constitution. But don't expect that you can simply act because you see a 'need' that you believe the federal government is best suited to - or should - address.

Lastly, when did I say that pollution was appropriate? To try and say I support pollution because I don't think the federal government has the constitutional authority to regulate it is so far from sensible as to be ridiculous. If you look at what I said, I actually support the state of California in imposing stricter requirements than what the federal government allows.

(btw - I use caps because it's easier than italics or bold.)

The illusion of saying that you are wrong is in your eyes and mind, not mine.

It is all discussion.

"Second, I've never avoided the issue of 'silence' - you just didn't
agree with my perspective. There are two ways of looking at what is or
is not allowed when the Constitution is silent on an issue. You can
'assume' that you can do whatever you want if you have no prohibition
or explicit authority - or you can 'assume' you cannot act because you
have no authority."

When did I say, that I disagree?

It is a long standing legal principle that when a document is silent, one looks at the intent and then try to put together a solution or an action and then the issue is tried or the action is tried by an independent party to resolve any issues.

Been going on for 200+ years, hasn't it?

"Lastly, when did I say that pollution was appropriate? To try and say I
support pollution because I don't think the federal government has the
constitutional authority to regulate it is so far from sensible as to
be ridiculous."

Well, quite frankly, the ridiculous or I would prefer sillyness, is that you react to the comments by thinking that I said this or I wrote that.

Why do defensive or reactive or what ever.

But actually the EPA was created by the government and then we go back to full circle, is there a power granted to legislate and create agencies like the EPA. Goldwater would say no, but then again, the EPA was created and here we are.

If your position is strong and sound it stands on its merits.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Consitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.""

Yup, and the people's representatives enacted the legislation creating the EPA and that would be a violation of the Constitution?

Representatives promoted and brought forth the legislation creating the EPA, so they are wrong to perform their constitutional duties to legislate?

Heck, let's impeach them all then, if they are acting improperly.

 

Personally I think that the Federal goverment does have the right to create and enforce an EPA because things like lakes and rivers very often border multiple states. You're state dumps sewage in a river and that effects people in other states that also border the river. That state and set all the rules it wants to not dump sewage but that won't change your states actions.
That in my opinion is exactally where the Fed should step in. When the actions of one state effect another or a shared resource it becomes a national issue not a local one.

Since I haven't studied the US Constitution to the extent that I'm capable of discussing prohibited actions of the Federal government with you, I'll concede your point; that the Federal Government has no right to create the EPA or give it authority.

This leads me back to my original question, then. Since the governments at the local and State level fail to act to curb pollution, what then? In the past, citizens who lived next to a polluted area were forced to either move and take the financial loss or suffer in silence. Lawsuits could be filed, and in twenty years or so a decision might be reached but by then the area was often so polluted that the damage couldn't be repaired.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

EPA

Well, well, Nixon helped to create the EPA and he was a conservative Republican, which the party likes to claims, wants smaller government, less of this and that and gives us more and more.

http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/epa/15c.htm 

Go figure.

Seems that government has the right to do that, govern. 

 

'conservative' did it, it must be right?

Both conservatives and liberals do things they shouldn't...the mere act of doing something the Constitution grants you no authority for does not mean you suddenly gain such authority.

You've also used this 'excuse' before - that because a conservative might have done something counter to the Constitution, it must be allowable...sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

What excuse?
Maybe, remember it is just discussion, perhaps, maybe, yes?
It is history, that the party that says they are for small(er) government have done the opposite, as in large(r) government.
Excuse?
What am I making an excuse for?
An agency that helps to protect me and you from businesses and ourselves?
"hat because a conservative might have done something counter to the Constitution, it must be allowable...sorry, but it doesn't work that way."
Okay, so what does work?
A system where the states do as they wish? A system where people do as they wish?
Just keep the money in our pockets and let the chips fall where they may.
No, what we read is, that it will not work and I want my tax monies for me and not the other guy.
So, what is the alternative?

Really? It doesn't work that way? How come?
When did the revolution start? Did I miss it?
And there is still the concept or issue, if one prefers, that when the Constitution is silent on a matter does that preclude the legislatures from enacting new regulations or laws, etc.
The answer, comes back no, they do not have the right or privilege, well then that tells us that for nearly 200+ years the leadership in this country, some of the greatest people in the history of the world, have acted without authority and precedence to do so.
So, then we could say that all that we have is "illegal" in a sense.
He has an interesting past above and beyond the quotes.
But yet we have processes and checks and balances in place and there has been no rush to over turn the 200+ years of history, well except that people do not like this and do not like that, but that hardly builds to a level of malfeasance on the part of the body of government.
Heck if that was the case, then Goldwater is part of the gang of evil government agents.

Isn't the EPA's existence made Constitutional by Article 2, Section 2:

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

...and I would suppose that the answer would depend - as always - with interpretation.

This gives the president the ability to appoint "officers" who are not specifically enumerated, but which may be established by law.

Does such permission also then imply that Congress has the ability to create departments that are outside their enumerated duties? Aye - there's the rub.

I guess a big distinction would be whether or not such an authority of appointment applies only to employees who may be needed to carry out the enumerated duties or whether this gives some 'implied' authority to create new duties for the government.

interesting, don't you think?

Does such permission also then imply that Congress has the ability to create departments that are outside their enumerated duties? Aye - there's the rub.

I don't think there's any rub there. If you look at the history of these departments and agencies, they come directly from legislating them into existence.

...simply because they were legislated doesn't mean that Congress had the authority to legislate...that's the rub...

:)

Section 2 says:

"and which shall be established by Law"

Establish by law. Make law. Legislate. Isn't this a duty of The Legislative Branch?

Congress can make laws, but even the Constitution addresses this in Article 1 Section 8, when it says that Congress has the power to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution."

Some would conclude that this clause allows Congress to create laws, but only those laws that are 'necessary and proper' to allow them to carry out their limited powers.

So that's the key issue - do they have the ability to just create laws or does their ability to create laws have to be relevant to their enumerated powers?

Another thing I find so interesting is the bill to require that all legislation passed by Congress include the Constitution reference granting them the authority to do so. Funny how that hasn't passed - ever wonder why???

Some would conclude that this clause allows Congress to create laws, but only those laws that are 'necessary and proper' to allow them to carry out their limited powers

But this section specifically says "and all other powers vested by this Constitution."

If you look at the State Department, it was created in 1789 when Congress legislated it into being. George Washington signed it into law (Wikipedia). I think this example shows that Congress does have the authority to enact laws that create these departments and agencies---especially if you consider that this was done by the same writers of the Constitution, who certainly knew the meaning and intent of the words they had written.

is not about the ability to create the State Department, but whether or not the functions of a State Department are spelled out as within the purview of the federal government.

I suppose that such authority as regulating commerce with foreign nations, making treaties, appointing and receiving ambassadors would give Congress the Constitutional ability to create such a department.

Also, the Commerce Department could be authorized under the Constitutional authority of 'regulating commerce between the states,' though some would say they've exceeded that mandate and branched into others...

Even INS could be justified under the ability to "establish an (sic) uniform Rule of Naturalization."

So, using these as examples, where do you suppose Congress finds an 'authority' in the Constitution for the EPA?

Part of Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 says this:

and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for [emphasis added]

Doesn't this sound like an attempt to provide for unforeseen circumstance? To use the EPA as an example (as you suggest), there was a public outcry for clean water, clean air, etc. So the President, working with Congress, decides he would like to appoint an officer to oversee envionmental protection (the authority coming from Article 2). Knowing (again from Article 2) that Congress can make a law to establish this agency, the President (Nixon in this case) works with Congress to pass this legislation. Congress has the authority to do this under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18---since a law would be needed to execute the power vested in Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2.

Constitution allows for appointments not specifically mentioned, but would disagree that Congress or the President has the ability to exceed the enumerated powers. Just because you are given the authority to do one, you do not necessarily have the authority to do the other.

If you're looking strictly at Constitutional authority, using your example above, you'd have to first look to see if 'environmental protection' was an enumerated power. If so, then appointments to carry out such a power could be made.

The ability to make laws and make appointments would be the second step in any such process with the first being to see if the Constitution gave authority for such potential action to the federal government. If the answer to the first was 'no,' then such laws and appointments would never end up being discussed.

This is why I like Goldwater's quote - and why I like many of Rep. Ron Paul's votes. Both of them look(ed) first to the Constitution to see if something was permissible before going any futher.

...in a perfect world (LOL!)...

using your example here, if there was a public outcry for clean water, clean air, etc. The president and congress would have looked to the Constitution. Finding no enumerate power to allow them to do this, their response to the people would have been that this was a state issue. People would then have turned to their states and placed similar pressure on them to create laws, etc.

People in bordering states or with shared natural resources could have joined together to ensure that both (all) states sharing such resources would have similar laws. It would then be the power of the people making sure states 'behaved' accordingly, instead of the federal government.

(p.s. also, as I said earlier, Article 1, Section 8 restricts the making of laws to what is 'necessary and proper' for carrying out the enumerated powers - it wasn't blanket authority to create laws in general.)

I guess we'll just have to disagree. To me, it starts with the President. If he has Constitutional authority under Article 2, Section 2 to create a head of a department----then Congress has the authority to make law "which shall be necessary and proper" for executing this power. I don't claim that Congress has any blanket authority to create laws, but they do have authority to create laws to execute not only their own powers, but "all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

the past - good men/women can and do disagree on the interpretation and as far as I know none of us here are Constitutional scholars. :)

I only wish that such discussions as we've had, Chris, about the authority of the federal government took place prior to the passage of bills or the creation of departments, etc... I think we'd all be better served if that were the case.

...Congress and the President decide they are going to consider Constitutional authority prior to taking action, but since none of them are experts in the area, they decide to set up a commission - and then they begin to bicker and argue about whom to appoint and how many scholars will be on it, and on and on ... LOL!

Yup.
But we do not need laws and the alternative is some unmentioned solution or a land where people do as they should all is right with the world.

I have asked what the alternative is and the response is dead air.

Or the response is because people can legislate does not mean they should, the ol slight of hand avoiding the question gag.

 

say that if Congress doesn't exceed their authority and create laws it has no authorization for, the alternative is 'some unmentioned solution or a land where people do ..."

Why do you assume that the lack of the federal government acting means that nothing would be done?

It isn't an either/or - and there are so many options that fall between the two. For an example - the great lakes states have gotten together to address issues relative to the great lakes. That is NOT a bad thing - in fact, many would say it's quite good. And it did not require the federal government to act in order to bring them together to act in their own best interests.

Just because I believe that the federal government has exceeded their statutory authority - and they shouldn't be allowed to continue - doesn't mean that I don't believe states shouldn't act instead. In fact, that would be my preference.

And the response isn't "dead air"...or avoidance of the question - sometimes, I just tire of questions based upon logical fallacies.

Why is it that you assume the lack of action by the federal government means that no action will ever occur or that the result will be 'bad'? In the example that started all this, I applauded California for exercising their ability to implement stricter regulations than the federal EPA allows. You seem to be saying that the feds are right in telling California they can't be better to the environment. (Talk about 'gag')

"say that if Congress doesn't exceed their authority and create laws it
has no authorization for, the alternative is 'some unmentioned solution
or a land where people do ..."

For the same reason you continue to pursue your vision of what you do not agree with, it is improper.

"It isn't an either/or - and there are so many options that fall between
the two. For an example - the great lakes states have gotten together
to address issues relative to the great lakes. That is NOT a bad thing
- in fact, many would say it's quite good."

Sure, it is a good thing. What about when the states fail to act?

"And the response isn't "dead air"...or avoidance of the question -
sometimes, I just tire of questions based upon logical fallacies."

Ah there it is, finally. The I am right and every one else is wrong or ilogical. Take a nap, maybe? Took ya long enough to get it out.

"Just because I believe that the federal government has exceeded their
statutory authority - and they shouldn't be allowed to continue -
doesn't mean that I don't believe states shouldn't act instead. In
fact, that would be my preference."

Try and remember it is your opinion and as we all have ours and it is just discussion not the sharing of illogial fallicies.

"Why is it that you assume the lack of action by the federal government
means that no action will ever occur or that the result will be 'bad'?"

Why is that you assume that others discuss illogical fallacies?

"You seem to be saying that the feds are right in telling California they can't be better to the environment. (Talk about 'gag')"

Not at all. California leads the nation in a lot of issues.

I'll go back to my illogical fallacies, now.

 

...are indeed present in your arguments.

"Why is that you assume that others discuss illogical fallacies?"

Because you do! LOL!

When you say that the Federal government must act or dire consequences will occur, you present an either/or argument.

It's know as the logical fallacy of "False Dilemma." It's also known as the "either/or" fallacy or the fallacy of false choices. This fallacy takes the form of only acknowledging 2 (one of which is usually extreme) options from a continuum or other array of possibilities. Go look it up.

"Ah there it is, finally. The I am right and every one else is wrong or ilogical. Take a nap, maybe? Took ya long enough to get it out."

I've never said I was right - only offered my opinion and references to support why I believe as I do - you're the one resorting to sarcasm and derision - usually indicative of an indivdual who has no facts to support their own beliefs. And, you are presenting logical fallacies (see above definition).

Further, you often describe such back and forth as 'discussion.' I really don't see this as discussion, with you constantly resorting to the sarcastic comment about my opinions without supporting your own. My personal definition of discussion is the back and forth Chris and I are having on this very same issue - thoughtful questions and comments with respectful replies.

With all due respect, NC - why don't you go back and look at your post. I asked questions and you did not respond.

So here's what I'd like to know...your answers/comments on the following:

* why do you assume that if the federal government does not act there is no other option for issues to be addressed?

* if the federal government has the Constitutional authority to establish the EPA and enforce its rules throughout the nation, then California cannot violate those rules. How can you then support California's violation and suit against the feds over this issue?

* Examples exist of states addressing many issues when the federal government does/has not. Why do you continue to say that the feds must act because states won't and how would you explain those numerous examples?

* why do you continue to say that Congress has exceeded their Constitutional authority since its founding, when its clear (go do the research) that such violations have primarily occurred only recently? (remember the 'not yours to give' story I recommended to you previously?)

I'd be interested in your answers/comments to these questions (absent the sarcasm and just responding with a repeat of the question back to me) as that is what I'd consider 'discussion.' Again - just my opinion as this is only discussion.

No point.

You have stated that what is said is a fallacy, or the making up of a problem, and thereby stating that your opinion is factual and correct.

Oh, and by the way, sarcasim is in the eye of reader, like I am so tirred of repeating the same thing.

I have learned a great deal, not about the issue, but the messenger.

...avoiding the questions now?

Please note - I pointed out a logical fallacy in your presumption that it's an either/or solution: either the federal government must act or chaos will erupt (hyperbole intended). That is the only logical fallacy mentioned. And, for the record, I never said nor implied "the making up of a problem" so I have no idea where you got that from...

But if you want to concede that ALL your statements represent logical fallacies, then that's your decision and I'll accept it.

Is it an illogical fallacies to conclude that after 200+ years of history and legislative and trials and errors and court review that there are as many problems that are alleged to be with the actions of the Congress and Federal government or is it just that when some offer discussion, the use of quick quips, when the cup board is bare and then the, because I say so, attitude is displayed and all others are wrong.
Was hoping for some response that said somethidisagreeng based on an idea based on factual items and not merely, because I say so it is correct and others are wrong because they do not agree with me.
But then again when debate and discussion fail, nap time, fall back and label the person with some comment and it makes it all better.

"Florida has repeatedly violated an agreement to clean up pollution in the Everglades, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.
Now he has to figure out what to do about it.
Every year since 1999, the state has allowed phosphorous-laden water to flow into a national wildlife refuge at the northeastern edge of the Everglades, despite pledges to fix the problem, U.S. District Judge Frederico Moreno found.
Attorneys for the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians and environmental groups hailed Moreno's ruling as vindication of their longstanding complaints about the sluggish pace of the cleanup.
"This is a huge victory for the Everglades and a terrible setback" for the government, said David Guest of the Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund.
State officials were surprised by the judge's ruling and defended their efforts to clean up the pollution.
"We don't feel we're in violation," said South Florida Water Management District general counsel Sheryl Wood. The $1-billion the state is spending is "unparallelled," she said. Judge Faults State For Failing To Clean Up Everglades"
"Suits seek cleanup plans for waterways
TMDLs look good on paper; now states must figure out how to make them work
Suits seek cleanup plans for waterways
Debate rages over new rules for TMDLs
EPA issues rules to 'finish the job' of cleaning U.S. waters
By Karl Blankenship
Pennsylvania's waterways are likely to become more polluted soon-at least on paper. And Pennsylvania is not unique; the other Bay states may soon be in the same boat.
To resolve a citizen lawsuit, Pennsylvania recently signed an agreement with the EPA that will require it to monitor all its unassessed rivers, lakes and streams, and to do something it was legally required to do for the last two decades-write cleanup plans for polluted waters. Because about half of the state's waters have either never been monitored or not been examined in a long time, many expect the process to reveal new "impaired" waterways."
http://www.bayjournal.com/article.cfm?article=1908
Plenty more examples on Google of states failing in the responsibility to clean up and enforce regulations and when they fail to the Feddies step in and make them do, but, the Feddies are allowed to do that, right?

NC - you lost that one. Pure and simple, you've abandoned cohesive argument and logic in favor of emotional pleas.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

Not looking to win anything or compete.

The question is still, there, though 200+ years and no challenge to the system we operate under, just complaints and no actions and yet more and more regulations to come about due to the change in our world.

If the system is wrong and the actions are wrong why does this country and almost others act the same way.

This is pretty shocking. It explains the rise in lung cancer among non smokers. A non smoker living in an epa air non attainment area, has about the same risk of lung cancer as a smoker. I want to contact this Dr. in the story and get his source of data.

#5 Move That's right. Move away from the Metroplex and the polluted air that hangs over it, suggests Dr. Robert Cluck, vice president of medical affairs at Arlington Memorial Hospital, and the mayor of Arlington.

"If you are a nonsmoker and you live in an area that's a nonattainment area, such as we are, your chances of developing lung cancer are about the same as a smoker [in an attainment area]," says Cluck, who helped lead a protest against TXU plans to build new coal-burning power plants.

Wondering what "nonattainment" means? The Environmental Protection Agency sets standards for acceptable levels of six air pollutants, including ozone. The local nonattainment area, which hasn't met those standards, consists of Tarrant, Parker, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Denton, Dallas, Collin and Rockwall counties.

"Asthma frequency is doubled or tripled in nonattainment areas, such as our area. It can affect the maturation of the lungs in kids."

High concentrations of ozone can also aggravate bronchitis, emphysema and other respiratory disorders.

from #5 at this website::: bk

http://www.star-telegram.com:80/family_day/story/387517.html

RobertBrundage

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.