No. of Recommendations: 2
We don' need no stinkin' States' rights!

"EPA to announce California waiver withdrawal on Wednesday"

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/17/epa-california-oba...

Ken
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<We don' need no stinkin' States' rights!>>



Tough.


Federal preemption is a well understood part of constitutional law.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
Federal preemption is a well understood part of constitutional law.

Only if there is an overriding federal requirement or obligation--which does not exist. Guess how fast things would change if CA decided to dump all its pollutants on and around Spankie properties. Hey, he WANTS the pollution, so give it to him. When he whines and sues, the states simply state *he wanted that pollution, so we gave it to him*. It is then *his* problem--not theirs.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
<<<<We don' need no stinkin' States' rights!>>



Tough.


Federal preemption is a well understood part of constitutional law.



Seattle Pioneer>>


<<I doubt your simplistic reply is at all helpful in this case.

But perhaps you have not met your 'being obnoxious' quota for the day.

Ken>>




Heh, heh! Sorry, I forgot how tender you guys are.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I doubt your simplistic reply is at all helpful in this case.

But perhaps you have not met your 'being obnoxious' quota for the day.



Aw, c'mon, Ken -- At an advanced age employment opportunities are limited.

Play nice, guys.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
As I've written before, so-called "small government" Republicans in the State lege and Governor's office are quick on the draw when it comes to shutting down local control. Bonus: They do it by openly engaging in voter fraud right there in the Capitol Building.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Still, CA can use tax/fee incentives as a way of rewarding/punishing ownership of higher polluting cars.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<Still, CA can use tax/fee incentives as a way of rewarding/punishing ownership of higher polluting cars.>>



Interesting idea. I wonder if it's true?


Federal courts have historically been VERY jealous of Federal prerogatives, and control of interstate commerce is unambiguously a power of the Federal government. I think it's quite likely that Federal courts would throw out any attempted end run around Federal standards.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
California should have the right to place pollution reduction requirements in all products produced and sold in California. California should be able to control intrastate commerce in California as much or as little as they choose.



However, California may not place trade barriers on interstate commerce by limiting the sale of products legally produced in other states.


c
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
they're all for "States Rights" when it has to do with a state keeping minorities in their places.

barriers to maximum profits? bring in the Feds..
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
However, California may not place trade barriers on interstate commerce by limiting the sale of products legally produced in other states.

Speaking as someone with lung disease, I am thrilled that California dealt with and is continuing to deal as best it can with life-threatening smog in its major cities and commute routes.

They don't stop people with non-CA-compliant cars from driving to and through the state. But if you move to CA and bring in a non-compliant car, you have to pay an extra tax for the privilege. We did for one of our cars when we moved to CA in the 90s, anyhow. We each bought a new car while we lived in CA and were happy to buy compliant cars. (The hubster's was a first-generation Prius.)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
{{But if you move to CA and bring in a non-compliant car, you have to pay an extra tax for the privilege. }}



We have seen the trouble with global trade when one country increases tariffs. One of the purposes of the Constitution was to ensure that individual states could not set up tariffs and trade barriers to prevent interstate commerce. That is why the federal government was given the power to regulate commerce among the states.

While I think jurisprudence has gone too far in allowing intrastate commerce to be regulated by the federal government as interstate commerce(grain grown on a farm for feed of livestock on that farm is NOT interstate commerce), I do not favor allowing states to regulate interstate commerce and erect tariffs and trade barriers against commerce from other states.


c
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So you favor killing people with heart & lung problems and lowering the IQs of babies via smog.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
However, California may not place trade barriers on interstate commerce by limiting the sale of products legally produced in other states.

That's probably why California and the automakers reached an agreement on this. Funny, but not in a good way, that it's a Republican administration trying to tell a business how to conduct business.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"However, California may not place trade barriers on interstate commerce by limiting the sale of products legally produced in other states."

That's probably why California and the automakers reached an agreement on this. Funny, but not in a good way, that it's a Republican administration trying to tell a business how to conduct business.

Indeed.

Its even worse when you realize that the Trump administration is advocating for LESS efficient cars, and MORE pollution.

MAGA?


“Trump makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W. look smart.”

Dotard Trump is a skid mark in the shorts of America.

#Trump=FakePOTUS
#PresidentSharpie
#PresidentPAB
#DumpTrump
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
To you, the ends justify the means?


c
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<No. of Recommendations: 0
California should have the right to place pollution reduction requirements in all products produced and sold in California. California should be able to control intrastate commerce in California as much or as little as they choose.>>


But they don't. Not if the Federal government has prempted regulation of an element of interstate commerce.


That is very well established.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<So you favor killing people with heart & lung problems and lowering the IQs of babies via smog.>>




The Congress has passed a law regulating auto exhaust. That should be enforced, including in California.


Want something more stringent? Get the Congress to pass a law you would like better.


Not happy with the Congress being empowered to regulate interstate commerce? Amend the constitution.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<Its even worse when you realize that the Trump administration is advocating for LESS efficient cars, and MORE pollution.

MAGA?
>>



Why you poor babies! Liberals are discovering that they have to obey Federal laws like everyone else.


They got the clean air act passed so the Federal government would dictate standards to ALL the states, and then decided that law should not apply to the privileged state of California!


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
There's a 'tough' word for people who enjoy hurting tender things: Sociopath.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<So you favor killing people with heart & lung problems and lowering the IQs of babies via smog.>>


The Congress has passed a law regulating auto exhaust. That should be enforced, including in California.

It is. What California is doing meets or exceeds the requirements passed by Congress.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<Its even worse when you realize that the Trump administration is advocating for LESS efficient cars, and MORE pollution.

MAGA?
>>


Why you poor babies! Liberals are discovering that they have to obey Federal laws like everyone else.

You are not getting it. This agreement does not in any way break Federal laws.

Poor baby.

They got the clean air act passed so the Federal government would dictate standards to ALL the states, and then decided that law should not apply to the privileged state of California!

It does apply. California wants to do it better, that's all.

Boo hoo.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<<<So you favor killing people with heart & lung problems and lowering the IQs of babies via smog.>>


The Congress has passed a law regulating auto exhaust. That should be enforced, including in California.

It is. What California is doing meets or exceeds the requirements passed by Congress.>>



Pre emption means that you follow Federal law, not replace it with something more to your taste.


And of course the California standard is designed to encourage other states to form illegal compact to follow California's law rather than Federal law. That is a violation of the constitution as well:

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0221.htm


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<<<So you favor killing people with heart & lung problems and lowering the IQs of babies via smog.>>

The Congress has passed a law regulating auto exhaust. That should be enforced, including in California.>>>>

"It is. What California is doing meets or exceeds the requirements passed by Congress."

Pre emption means that you follow Federal law, not replace it with something more to your taste.

No law has been replaced. Try again?

And of course the California standard is designed to encourage other states to form illegal compact to follow California's law rather than Federal law. That is a violation of the constitution as well:

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0221.htm


The second line in your link reads;

"This office is not authorized to issue legal opinions and this report should not be construed as such."

Try again.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I see a post I had in this thread was FA'd by someone presumably with a thin skin. Nice to see it lives on because others quoted from it before it vanished.

:-)


Ken
Print the post Back To Top