Dontrike/Shadow Priest/Black Cell Faction Friend Code - 5172-0967-3866
My thought is that your thread title is intentionally misleading; it should, in keeping with and accurately reflecting trumps political impotence, read “trump attempts to strip California of power to set auto emission standards”
He hasn’t done anything but embarrass himself... yet again.
- - - Updated - - -
Auto fatalities in the 1960s and 1970s were the highest in American history.
Now, either people back then were godawful drivers compared to today, or maybe inventions like seat belt, airbags and 40 some-odd years of innovation by the auto industry and government regulation have made cars safer.
“Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
Words to live by.
Are references to BttF obscure? That's like saying "throwing a hail mary" is an "obscure" sports reference.
- - - Updated - - -
You might consider that the reason the statute was written to set a framework by which California could be given an exemption is because the thing you are saying that would, on its own, be a violation of the dormant commerce clause as described.
The emission standards of the other 49 states are permitted by Congress. They are lawful. It is the intent of Congress than those emission standards are sufficient for the American automotive industry. They gave the Executive Branch authority to give a waiver, or not, as it required. Had Congress never given that authority and the EPA never given that waiver, do you understand that California's emission standards would be struck down in court as violating the commerce clause?
I mean, I hope so, it's incredibly obviously so, but I won't assume. But for argument's sake? At least?
So California has a waiver... that comes from the executive branch per the statutory intent of Congress. That waiver is within the discretion of the executive branch. Always was. California sued the Bush administration and would have plainly lost but it was mooted when the Obama administration reinstated the waiver.
Not even a little. California's emission standards are not within their state rights. They are permitted because they are given a renewable waiver by the EPA in a law passed by Congress. Had Congress not passed that law and there been no waiver given, California's emission standards would be unconstitutional as a violation of the dormant commerce clause. Read the 10th Amendment, states rights do not include things "prohibited by (the Constitution) to the States", and that includes state action that substantially impacts interstate commerce.
Again, don't believe the actual lawyer explaining it to you. Google the dormant commerce clause/negative implications of the commerce clause and see the examples you'll find of case law. See if you can understand why California needs the waiver authorized by the CAA in order to set these standards. Because if it was truly a states right issue, California could have imposed those standards without the CAA's waiver from the EPA.
I'm not going to argue its legality. Im arguing that i dont see this as cali changing car standards. this is just a place in the world setting its own standards and car companies who want to sell cars changing their product. If you don't like a product you don't have to buy it.
"It doesn't matter if you believe me or not but common sense doesn't really work here. You're mad, I'm mad. We're all MAD here."
Hey, by all means, I'm all for more of this kind of thing being up to the states. I've been more than pleased to see how Trump has brought out the nascent federalists in a lot of my neighbors on the left. But I'm presenting you with the pretty definitive legal certainty that it isn't up to the states in this case. The very fact that the waiver exists at all as a process confirms Congress certainly doesn't think it's up to the states. As the US Department of Transportation announced this morning I think, there will be one national fuel economy standard. It is within the power of the executive branch, under the CAA, to set exactly that policy and not give any waivers or exemptions.
So there's either "California sues and loses", or "California sues and gets an injunction in district court, which gets appealed and then eventually California loses". That's pretty much the full range of legal outcomes here. Their only hope for their waiver being reinstated is the same as it was in 2006-2007 - a new administration giving it back to them.
" If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
“ The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning.
-Kujako-
That's certainly the hail mary they plan to throw in court, I'm sure, but again, the underlying premise they'll be asserting is "because we have this waiver already, the United States Department of Transportation and the EPA now lack statutory authority to set a national fuel economy standard other than California's", and that's obviously a joke of an argument even typing/reading it.
The EPA can set whatever standard they want. California is allowed by law to set their own standards(as long as they meet EPA's minimum) with a waiver from the EPA, which California has.
Don't like it? Then change the law through congress. The president is violating the law.
Pssst: Even California doesn't actually believe this is a states rights issue or their only legal theory wouldn't be that the waiver can't be revoked. If California had a 10th Amendment right to set this standard, they wouldn't have needed the waiver in the first place.
Newsom, Beccera, et al are just throwing out the "states rights" line here as a dunk attempt because they know it will be echoed and parroted by laypeople and legal dilettantes who don't know better.
- - - Updated - - -
Like I said, that's certainly what they'll throw against the wall in court. It's constitutional law vaporware, but it's what they got. It might get them their injunction from a friendly USDC judge. But no way in hell does SCOTUS read into the waiver provision that Congress was intending to hand control over national fuel economy and emission standards, irrevocably, to any state that applied for and was given a waiver by the EPA, and that the only remedy for the federal government would be a statute to revoke a waiver that only exists because Congress said it could. It's nonsensical.
I always thought it was funny how states want better emissions but them tax you when buying the car because you pay less in gas tax.
That's not all that odd. Gas taxes are supposed to be used for transportation projects, like roads, but if you never pay the gas tax but still use those roads you're getting a free ride.
References to BttF 2 are really obscure, I've pretty much never seen anyone reference it outside of talking about the series. Nearly 70% of the TVs in the country are watching at least 1 football game every year so "hail mary" isn't at all obscure.
Last edited by Nellise; 2019-09-19 at 01:51 PM.