Trump strips California of power to set auto emission standards

[Grapemask]

California should handle this the same way Trump handles restrictions and orders against his power: just ignore it altogether. Surely everyone's realized by now that there are only consequences in government if they choose to comply with the consequences.

[sarahtasher]

No thanks. This is wonderful news. Id rather have power and speed, and comfortable sized cars than higher miles per gallon. Factories dont want to make engines to California's standards because the people who actually drive the cars dont want weak ass engines and/or small cars, and making them to California standards raises the cost of cars meaning less sales

Ah, I remember, this is the country where people wreck their own cars to piss off dah liburals (rolling coal)

[Stormdash]

You're right in that this is NOT a 10th Amendment issue. The government fully does have the right to set the regulations, and they can use the dormant commerce clause as justification in doing so. That's all true. However, California is actually following the federal regulations that have been given to it by congress. The federal emissions act sets minimum standards that the country has to operate by, it does not in any way even suggest an upper limit. Similar to something like a Building Code in construction, you're perfectly within your rights to ask for something better than the minimum the law allows for, you're simply not allowed to make something worse. Except even then, you have the 1970 Clean Air Act which actually explicitly grants California the ability to set differing regulations, and the way it's phrased suggests that the intent of that exception is to allow for California to be worse in some areas as long as it's better in others to give a similar or better overall effect.

Ultimately, the Federal government has the authority to set a maximum on the regulations, and they could rescind California's exception. But either of those would require the passage of new laws which has simply not happened and is unlikely to happen. The commerce clauses /allow/ for the federal government to pass laws regulating interstate trade, they do not imply such laws where none exist.

What the Act does is give the EPA power over the standards and exceptions. The Executive Branch. The White House, in terms of constitutional law. So unless a Court is going to find a constitutional flaw in that grant by Congress, like an unconstitutional delegation, than I"m not sure what basis there would be to bar this move. That would be upheld on review that is, I'm sure even now there's a district court judge in the 9th circus ready to enjoin it because they don't like it.

[sarahtasher]

No, it doesn't. Car makers can still sell less efficient cars to other states. Literally nothing is stopping them from doing it. They're just choosing not to.

I have headache thinking people might want cars that cost more to drive because they think it's annoy people to the left of them. You know, if you absolutely want to burn money, buy gasoline and pour it on your cash.

[Stormdash]

Ah, I remember, this is the country where people wreck their own cars to piss off dah liburals (rolling coal)

wrecking their cars was something we did a lot less of before the imposition of CAFE standards, btw.

[callipygoustp]

Fights over before it even began: gratz California on a big win.

[Shadowferal]

It was just a few weeks ago that Trump’s Rollback of Auto Pollution Rules Shows Signs of Disarray

The White House, blindsided by a pact between California and four automakers to oppose President Trump’s auto emissions rollbacks, has mounted an effort to prevent any more companies from joining California.

Toyota, Fiat Chrysler and General Motors were all summoned by a senior Trump adviser to a White House meeting last month where he pressed them to stand by the president’s own initiative, according to four people familiar with the talks.

But even as the White House was meeting with automakers, it was losing ground. Yet another company, Mercedes-Benz, is preparing to join the four automakers already in the California agreement — Honda, Ford, Volkswagen and BMW

In addition to Mercedes-Benz, a sixth prominent automaker — one of the three summoned last month to the White House — intends to disregard the Trump proposal and stick to the current, stricter federal emissions standards for at least the next four years, according to executives at the company.

Together, the six manufacturers who so far plan not to adhere to the new Trump rules account for more than 40 percent of all cars sold in the United States.

[sarahtasher]

wrecking their cars was something we did a lot less of before the imposition of CAFE standards, btw.

Do you find it's intelligent to break your own car (for rolling coal) because you are told it's going to annoy liberals ?

[kasuke06]

Wait, the left wants states to have more power than the federal government? That seems ass backward-oh wait it's libs trying to steal more power for their hub states. got it.

[Shadowferal]

Wait, the left wants states to have more power than the federal government? That seems ass backward-oh wait it's libs trying to steal more power for their hub states. got it.

It's California...

[kasuke06]

It's California...

yes, and they're arguing for more power than the federal government. as it's power derived from one of their "untouchable" states.

[Wyrt]

Wait, the left wants states to have more power than the federal government? That seems ass backward-oh wait it's libs trying to steal more power for their hub states. got it.

The left is only against "states rights" because we know that "states rights" really means "state's right to discriminate against people."

[Orbitus]

Wait, the left wants states to have more power than the federal government? That seems ass backward-oh wait it's libs trying to steal more power for their hub states. got it.

This isn't a federal power. Trump is trying to institute Maximums on the minimum standards for carbon emissions and gas mileage. This is not a federal power. There are federal minimums, but never maximums on the minimums. So, your argument is pretty much bullshit.

[kasuke06]

This isn't a federal power. Trump is trying to institute Maximums on the minimum standards for carbon emissions and gas mileage. This is not a federal power. There are federal minimums, but never maximums on the minimums. So, your argument is pretty much bullshit.

So, you're saying one state should set THE standard for the entire union?

[Shadowferal]

yes, and they're arguing for more power than the federal government. as it's power derived from one of their "untouchable" states.

No.
You do history? Because that's what CA is simply going by. They've always set the standards regarding auto emissions. Trump wants to undo the 1970 law that gave CA that power. To actually accomplish that little feat will take congress' help. (The Supreme Court will remind him...and you apparently, of that)

[Wyrt]

So, you're saying one state should set THE standard for the entire union?

They aren't. California is setting the standard for California. Every other state can set whatever standard they want as long as it's above the federal minimum.

[Endus]

Wait, the left wants states to have more power than the federal government? That seems ass backward-oh wait it's libs trying to steal more power for their hub states. got it.

1> Nope, not "more power than the federal government". Just the capacity to make decisions for their own citizens, where they're meeting or exceeding the federally-mandated minimums. That's what we're talking about, here. That the fed says "do at least 5x", and California says "well dang, we'll do 10x", and that's apparently "bad", according to you.

2> The right wing has traditionally only backed "States' rights" when it came to discriminating against or oppressing some class of people. It's a dogwhistle red herring. That those right-wingers aren't backing California here proves that it's a bullshit red herring that none of those people ever believed.

3> The Democrats were never against State's rights. That's just wrong, on its face. They may have opposed States taking specific actions, but on the context and character of those specific actions, not the concept of States' rights in general.

[Orbitus]

So, you're saying one state should set THE standard for the entire union?

They aren't forcing the other states to follow their standard, but it would be stupid to have lower gas mileage and higher carbon emissions for NO FUCKING REASON, other than to be climate change denying morons.

[Shadowferal]

Clean Air Act

The 1970 Clean Air Act required states to develop State Implementation Plans for how they would meet new national ambient air quality standards by 1977.[52] Although the 1990 Clean Air Act is a federal law covering the entire country, the states do much of the work to carry out the Act.

The federal law recognizes that states should lead in carrying out the Clean Air Act, because pollution control problems often require special understanding of local industries, geography, housing patterns, etc. However, states are not allowed to have weaker pollution controls than the national minimum criteria set by EPA.

Most notably, the law prevents states from setting standards that are more strict than the federal standards, but carves out a special exemption for California due to its past issues with smog pollution in the metropolitan areas. In practice, when California's environmental agencies decide on new vehicle emission standards, they submit these to the EPA for approval under this waiver, with the most recent approval in 2009. The California standard was adopted by twelve other states, and it based on the de facto standard that automobile manufactures have subsequently built towards, as to avoid having to develop multiple lines of emission systems in their vehicles for different states.

[Thestrawman]

It's fun watching Republicans try to weasel their way through being against states rights and being for government overreach.