Trump to Block California Emissions Standards

[mrjurrs]

Like their response to the Muslim Travel Ban? Or the plan to drill in the arctic? Wait, you must mean people have to work for their medicaid benefits. That is just three of the 63 judicial losses the current administration have suffered in their attempt at extralegal activity.

What is TANSTAAFL?

 

[Mycroft]

You've got that backwards. There's no reason to think allowing emission standards to be what they were in the 70's won't make the air just as polluted as it was then.

What makes you think anyone is thinking of allowing emission standards to be what they were in the 70's? I haven't heard anyone from Trump's administration say that. Have you?

 

[Craig234]

There has to be a valid reason to act. You cannot change regulations/policy on a whim and the judges will see this for what it is and deny Trump's action. If the legitimacy of this waiver was legally unsupported it would have been challenged on its face 40+ years ago.

There's no question the waiver is 'legitimate'. There is some law around laws - and regulations, which are based on laws - needing a public purpose to justify them, but I'm not sure how that applies to waivers like these. There is a lot of room for presidents to simply have different policies and voters choose them in elections - I'm not sure where that line is drawn in the law.

 

[Mycroft]

Like their response to the Muslim Travel Ban? Or the plan to drill in the arctic? Wait, you must mean people have to work for their medicaid benefits. That is just three of the 63 judicial losses the current administration have suffered in their attempt at extralegal activity.

What is TANSTAAFL?

Since you didn't quote anyone, I don't know if you are responding to me or someone else...but I have TANSTAAFL in my sig. I'll answer your question about that acronym.

TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

 

[JackA]

Did you read the article? This has nothing to do with "state's rights". California never had a "right". All they had was a "waiver". That waiver is being removed.

As I said in that other thread on this topic a week or so back: The lord giveth and the lord taketh away. In this case, the federal government calls the shots.

I read the article and am familiar with the issue. Rescinding the waiver is an attempt to assert the power of the Federal government over that of a state to set its own environmental protection laws. It remains to been what the Supreme Court will say.

 

[Mycroft]

I read the article and am familiar with the issue. Rescinding the waiver is an attempt to assert the power of the Federal government over that of a state to set its own environmental protection laws. It remains to been what the Supreme Court will say.

Neither California nor any other state have the power to set it's own emission standards in conflict with federal law...unless they've received a waiver from the federal government. California was given that waiver. The federal government is now going to take that waiver away.

California can cry, but they won't be able to stop the federal government.

 

[Lisa]

There's no question the waiver is 'legitimate'. There is some law around laws - and regulations, which are based on laws - needing a public purpose to justify them, but I'm not sure how that applies to waivers like these. There is a lot of room for presidents to simply have different policies and voters choose them in elections - I'm not sure where that line is drawn in the law.

He cannot just take his POTUS Sharpie and start crossing laws off the books. The law requires him to have a valid reason for changing or eliminating laws. He cannot create legal chaos for personal or partisan reasons. Our laws are built around a system of checks and balances and those checks on presidential power will prevent him from doing this.

Donald Trump still has not learned that he was not elected CEO of the US Corporation. Congress does not function as his board of directors, despite his delusions.

 

[Lisa]

Neither California nor any other state have the power to set it's own emission standards in conflict with federal law...unless they've received a waiver from the federal government. California was given that waiver. The federal government is now going to take that waiver away.

California can cry, but they won't be able to stop the federal government.

What is the legally valid reason to challenge that emissions waiver that has stood for 40+ years? "Because I said so" will not be sufficient for the courts to uphold Trump's action.

 

[Nickyjo]

Why would the EPA support selling cars have produce more pollution in Californa and 12 other states? That is counter to their reason for existence.

Not sure I understand. I was wondering if official Washington in the form of the EPA might have some rational soundingjustification for this, however wrong, given that we can’t expect Trump to make sense if/when he is asked.

 

[Nickyjo]

I have no idea why he is revoking their waiver. Im only pointing out that the oeople wagging their fingers at conservatives are the same people that dont believe in atate sovereignty

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

There are few states/federal purists around. Local is always better, except when it is not. As a California lefty, I am glad that we are resisting, tho in theory it makes more sense for there to be national standards. On the other hand, I don’t think states should be allowed to do voter ID stuff that I believe is intended to give an edge to the right.

 

[Lisa]

Not sure I understand. I was wondering if official Washington in the form of the EPA might have some rational soundingjustification for this, however wrong, given that we can’t expect Trump to make sense if/when he is asked.

This is about purely Trump's ego. He wants to attack anything that Obama did and the automakers have told him to go pound sand when Trump tried to roll back the emissions regs, so this is his response. His actions are childish and we see his supporters carrying water for him.

Trump Tweet criticizes automakers cool on his mileage plan

 

[JackA]

Neither California nor any other state have the power to set it's own emission standards in conflict with federal law...unless they've received a waiver from the federal government. California was given that waiver. The federal government is now going to take that waiver away.

California can cry, but they won't be able to stop the federal government.

Right, the standard conservative position. Please. There is nothing in The Constitution that empowers Congress to set environmental standards for the states unless, by implication, the Supreme Court discovers otherwise, which we will now find out.

 

[Obscurity]

Did you read the article? This has nothing to do with "state's rights". California never had a "right". All they had was a "waiver". That waiver is being removed.

As I said in that other thread on this topic a week or so back: The lord giveth and the lord taketh away. In this case, the federal government calls the shots.

Thats not thd point. Trump is also suing car makers for saying they will work with California to build efficient cars.

If you guys had your way we will be back to smog forecasts.

This is authoritarianism at a minimum.

 

[Obscurity]

This is about purely Trump's ego. He wants to attack anything that Obama did and the automakers have told him to go pound sand when Trump tried to roll back the emissions regs, so this is his response. His actions are childish and we see his supporters carrying water for him.

Trump Tweet criticizes automakers cool on his mileage plan

This is the true Trump agenda. Undo obama.

 

[Craig234]

He cannot just take his POTUS Sharpie and start crossing laws off the books. The law requires him to have a valid reason for changing or eliminating laws. He cannot create legal chaos for personal or partisan reasons. Our laws are built around a system of checks and balances and those checks on presidential power will prevent him from doing this.

This isn't a law on the books. It's a discretionary waiver granted by the federal government annually (?) to give up its power.

 

[Craig234]

This is the true Trump agenda. Undo obama.

Destroy as much of America as he can, which includes undoing as much Obama policy as he can.

 

[Craig234]

Right, the standard conservative position. Please. There is nothing in The Constitution that empowers Congress to set environmental standards for the states unless, by implication, the Supreme Court discovers otherwise, which we will now find out.

The Supremacy clause.

 

[Mycroft]

Right, the standard conservative position. Please. There is nothing in The Constitution that empowers Congress to set environmental standards for the states unless, by implication, the Supreme Court discovers otherwise, which we will now find out.

So...you envision the Supreme Court ruling that the EPA is unconstitutional?

 

[Mycroft]

Thats not thd point. Trump is also suing car makers for saying they will work with California to build efficient cars.

If you guys had your way we will be back to smog forecasts.

This is authoritarianism at a minimum.

There you go...spouting hyperbole again.

Dismissed.

 

[JackA]

The Supremacy clause.

The supremacy clause covers laws enacted by Congress as empowered by The Constitution, which is silent on environmental law. The Supreme Court would have to find an unstated nexus between state environmental laws and an express power reserved to Congress in order for the Federal Government to override the California law. You might think this would rub the wrong way with the Court's conservative majority, but maybe they are Trump's judges now, like Republican Congresspersons are Trump's Congresspersons.

 

[JackA]

So...you envision the Supreme Court ruling that the EPA is unconstitutional?

The Court wouldn't need to rule the EPA unconstitutional, only that it doesn't preempt inconsistent state law.

 

[trouble13]

He cannot just take his POTUS Sharpie and start crossing laws off the books. The law requires him to have a valid reason for changing or eliminating laws. He cannot create legal chaos for personal or partisan reasons. Our laws are built around a system of checks and balances and those checks on presidential power will prevent him from doing this.

Donald Trump still has not learned that he was not elected CEO of the US Corporation. Congress does not function as his board of directors, despite his delusions.

Actually yes he can do that. He has Obama's pen and it still has plenty of ink

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

There are few states/federal purists around. Local is always better, except when it is not. As a California lefty, I am glad that we are resisting, tho in theory it makes more sense for there to be national standards. On the other hand, I don’t think states should be allowed to do voter ID stuff that I believe is intended to give an edge to the right.

So basically your saying that standards YOU agree with you support being nationalized but when a standard is set by the feds you dont like, you want to envoke state rights.

I am different than you in that regard. I dont consider myself a conservative but you would consider me one and even though i disagree with California s emission standard i support their right to determine that for themselves. Whether i agree with that they are proposing or not does not influence my belief in their right to sovereignty.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Grand Mal]

What makes you think anyone is thinking of allowing emission standards to be what they were in the 70's? I haven't heard anyone from Trump's administration say that. Have you?

I'm replying to you. You said, "At this point, there's no reason to believe we'll go back to how bad it was in the bad old days...even without California's stricter rules." Do you want to quibble over the decade I cited? Okay, 80's then. Whatever. Rolling back emission standards that have been working just fine, have made American cities more livable. Emission standards rollbacks that some car companies are uncomfortable with. Emission standards that allow American companys to compete on a level playing field with other countries.
Don't forget that these internal rollbacks of standards will work for foreign companies who want to dump cheap polluters into the American market. There's cars produced in India that can't be sold in the US because they pollute so badly.

 

[Mycroft]

I'm replying to you. You said, "At this point, there's no reason to believe we'll go back to how bad it was in the bad old days...even without California's stricter rules." Do you want to quibble over the decade I cited? Okay, 80's then. Whatever. Rolling back emission standards that have been working just fine, have made American cities more livable. Emission standards rollbacks that some car companies are uncomfortable with. Emission standards that allow American companys to compete on a level playing field with other countries.
Don't forget that these internal rollbacks of standards will work for foreign companies who want to dump cheap polluters into the American market. There's cars produced in India that can't be sold in the US because they pollute so badly.

Well, I suggest you wait till you know just how far Trump wants to roll back reg to...if at all...and then you can piss and moan about the air with some facts.

It works better that way.