What Happened to States' Rights? Conservatives help me understand.

get a hyundai. they sell for $5000 and will go 100mph. don't believe me, LAPD said Rodney King was going 100mph in the Hyundai before they beat him like to a pulp like Daniel Pearl. LAPD wouldn't lie !

Mayor Adam West wrote:

I didn't read the bill or the NYTimes story, so I might not have all the info, but is the 35 mpg just a baseline estimate? Could states make it more stringent? I mean as a SS teacher, I teach my students that the Constitution tells states not to undermine the Federal government's power, so as long as the states don't set standards lower than that, they could raise them higher, right? Or does this bill explicitly state no higher or lower than 35?

The Mayor

there is a lot missing from this discussion. i'll try to provide the basic background.

california and 16 or so other states have passed a carbon reduction initiative that requires carmakers to sell cars that produce significantly less carbon dioxide within the next 10 or so years, with the first reductions required by 2009. california passed these rules 2 years ago. in order for them to go into effect, however, the EPA must grant a "waiver" from the clean air act. without such a waiver, a state cannot pre-empt the federal regulatory regime (even if the state is introducing stricter regulations - this is a longstanding element of constitutional jurisprudence; if the federal government has fully regulated in an area, a state cannot impose a different regulatory regime).

in the past, the EPA has granted california 50+ waivers without ever turning them down. this time around, it's a bit different because so many states have signed on (among them some fairly conservative states including utah). so the EPA sat on their hands and refused to grant or deny the waiver. granting it would cause problems for the US auto industry (at least in their minds) while denying it would hurt the already-weak president.

california eventually got tired of waiting, so they sued the EPA to force them to decide. california won that suit. the EPA still delayed and then finally offered the auto industry a quid pro quo - if the auto industry would get behind the energy bill then the EPA would deny the california waiver (the quid pro quo nature of this is speculation that seems to be widely believed; at the least, the two things happened within a day or two of each other). the federal energy bill (which of course was passed by the democratic-majority congress) provides for an increase in fuel efficiency to 35 mpg by 2020. unlike the california standards, there are no interim benchmarks which must be met. in other words, the 35 mpg number is a joke that will not ever be met.

california had argued that the regulation of carbon dioxide emission is different than the regulation of fuel economy. the counter to this argument is that the only way to effectively reduce carbon dioxide emissions enough to meet the california standards is to increase fuel economy so california is effectively regulating fuel economy. the california standard would ultimately require something like 43 mpg as an average, so the standard is tougher.

it's also worth noting that with the number of states that have signed onto the california plan, over half of all cars sold in the US would need to meet the california standards. it also means that politicians representing over half of all US voters have signed onto the plan.

with that lengthy background of this particular issue, i want to briefly address the SS teaching question. the simple answer is that you have been teaching incorrect information about federalism in the US. states generally cannot impose tougher regulations than the federal government. they also cannot impose less restrictive regulations. when the federal government fully regulates an area, states have no ability to impose their own standards. there are a number of federal court rulings regarding whether congress intended to fully preempt a particular regulated area. there are certain circumstances in which the federal government explicitly allows states to impose greater regulations and there are also situations in which the feds implicitly allow states to do so by only partially regulating an area. but when the feds fully regulate in an area, states cannot impose tougher standards.

SpellingBeePerson wrote:

Actually, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is a Creator-Given Right, not a privilege to be 'granted'.

Please reread the Constitution, and keep doing it until you understand it.

(a) there is nothing about the pursuit of happiness in the constitution. prove me wrong if you can.

(b) even if the constitution (or, here's a hint, a different document drafted by the founding fathers) claims that humans are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights and among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that doesn't mean that it is true that the creator in fact gave us these rights.

in any event, are you arguing that driving is a "pursuit of happiness" that is an inalienable right? and that god granted that right?

are you arguing that the text of this non-constitution, founding document should be interpreted by courts as law? what are the contours of this proposed inalienable right to pursue happiness? can i kill your mom if it makes me happy?

i guess i need to reread the constitution a few times because i don't understand.

states rights and the whole balance of power between the states and the federal government drastically changed after the civil war with the passing of several amendments to the constitution.

the 2 big legacies of the civil war are the abolition of slavery and the the significant reduction in the rights of each state.

The original writer is of course wrong about the Constitution. The mention of rights is in the Declaration of Independence. The importance of that is it does give us an insight into the thoughts of the Founding Fathers. The same man who insisted on the Bill of Rights also wrote that the Creator gave us these rights. To answer your hypothetical, you can't kill someone because you would be depriving someone of their right to life (and notice that right is mentioned first).

oftenrunning52 wrote:

To answer your hypothetical, you can't kill someone because you would be depriving someone of their right to life (and notice that right is mentioned first).

okay fine. so change the hypothetical to robbing your mom at gunpoint makes me happy.

the point remains. it is patently absurd to suggest that "the pursuit of happiness" as that poster conceives of it (such that it includes driving an SUV or driving at all) is an inalienable right.

i believe that most historians will tell you that the pursuit of happiness essentially refers to the right to acquire property. in other words, the 5th amendment's restriction on government takings without compensation. nothing at all to do with driving.

heave ho! wrote:

[quote]SpellingBeePerson wrote:

Actually, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is a Creator-Given Right, not a privilege to be 'granted'.

Please reread the Constitution, and keep doing it until you understand it.

Before you wrap yourself in the flag, you might want to get your important political documents right for perhaps you haven't read the Constition enough times, because the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" clause IS IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (and cribs John Locke's initial arguments about freedom vs. tyranny) not the Constitution of the United States of America.

why is the constitution relevant here? did the EPA cite constitutionality as a reason to deny California's request? or is it just the natural degeneration of any political discussion on letsrun?

i think kaitainen gave an excellent lecture on the issue above, so if you want to debate anything, debate the EPA's behavior.

better fuel efficiency=less need for oil=less $ for countries who hate our guts=less $ for terrorists who act in their name=better national security

I would think that equation would make sense to most Americans; liberal, conservative, or whatever label you wish to place upon yourself.

I thank you for the information and the correction. That was my understanding of the Consitution after reading it a lot to make sure that I could break it down so 8th graders understood it. I've never known about the "fully regulated" bit, I try to get them to understand that the Constitution gives the federal government power over the states, not the other way around. But, armed with this knowledge, I will perhaps answer differently in the future and come up with different examples. Thanks!

The Mayor

Learn to read. I wasn't talking to you. I agree that SUVs should become more fuel efficient. I just don't think they need to be banned altogether like some people on here. I am not arguing with you.

deal with it wrote:

Learn to read.[...] I am not arguing with you.

are so.

The OP is confusing the article and everyone reading his post.

The article is about Cali wanting better standards for carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles. That leads somewhat directly to higher gas mileage.

"The emissions standards California proposed in 2004 — but never approved by the federal government — would have forced automakers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent in new cars and light trucks by 2016, with the cutbacks to begin in 2009 models.

That would have translated into roughly 43 miles per gallon for cars and some light trucks and about 27 miles per gallon for heavier trucks and sport utility vehicles.

The new federal law will require automakers to meet a 35-mile-per-gallon fleetwide standard for cars and trucks sold in the United States by 2020. It does not address carbon dioxide emissions, but such emissions would be reduced as cars were forced to become more fuel efficient."

The reason why states can't mandate their own emission standards for cars, and thus their own standard for gas mileage, is because that would force carmakers to meet the standards of a few strict states. If every state had a different gas mileage standard the national car makers would only meet the highest standard. They would't make cars that meet standard a, then standard b, c, d, and so on because that would be far too expensive and maybe nearly impossible with the assembly line nature of the business.

Alan

Mayor Adam West wrote:

I thank you for the information and the correction. That was my understanding of the Consitution after reading it a lot to make sure that I could break it down so 8th graders understood it. I've never known about the "fully regulated" bit, I try to get them to understand that the Constitution gives the federal government power over the states, not the other way around. But, armed with this knowledge, I will perhaps answer differently in the future and come up with different examples. Thanks!

The Mayor

thanks for the reply. hopefully my initial post didn't come across as too mean. i could see how it might and i didn't intend for it to be.

i applaud you for trying to glean the rules from the text of the constitution. the courts, naturally, have expanded on this and there are entire law school semester-long classes that focus on the federal-state regulatory divide, so it's not a simple issue.

here's one website that has links to multiple articles on the topic if you want to try to learn a bit more for free:

it's a link to the american enterprise institute, which is a conservative organization, so the article links may be slanted in some way, but i'd think that at least one of them would provide an overview of the current state of the law. as an aside, the article that talks about the positives of subprime lending (from 2003) is amusing in a sad way at this point in time. it seems to argue that aggressive regulation of subprime lending by states and localities should be preempted by more lax federal standards.

You idiot. You are always talking out of your ass, yapping bullshit on so many letsrun threads.

Automakers constantly stop the line to make another car, or cars for other countries, like right hand drive cars for England and Japan, or for Japan market cars with far more stricter emissions and safety standards than the U.S. They can easily make a California car, and they will have to once Hillary Clinton takes office.

Runningart2004 wrote:

The reason why states can't mandate their own emission standards for cars, and thus their own standard for gas mileage, is because that would force carmakers to meet the standards of a few strict states. If every state had a different gas mileage standard the national car makers would only meet the highest standard. They would't make cars that meet standard a, then standard b, c, d, and so on because that would be far too expensive and maybe nearly impossible with the assembly line nature of the business.

Alan

i'm going to strongly, respectfully, disagree with this. carmakers make many different types of cars on different assembly lines. they could meet california's standards by, for example, not selling certain SUVs there, and by only selling low hp versions of sedans there.

also, as i pointed out earlier and as the article probably also points out, the california standards have been or would have been adopted by states that together account for more than half of the US automobile market. that's hardly "a few strict states".

there are times when the patchwork argument is strong. this is not one of them. this is a gift to the auto industry that in the opinion of many, including myself, will actually contribute to the decimation of the US auto industry in the medium to long run. meanwhile it will contribute to environmental damage and decrease national security.

for mayor adam west, here's one more link. it's to an introductory statement by (democratic) senator patrick leahy who held a hearing on the issue of federal preemption back in september. you can probably find the text of witness statements pretty easily too. this will obviously have a liberal/anti-bush bent to it.

kaitainen wrote:

i'm going to strongly, respectfully, disagree with this. carmakers make many different types of cars on different assembly lines. they could meet california's standards by, for example, not selling certain SUVs there, and by only selling low hp versions of sedans there.

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200709/091207b.html

I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that the reason that auto makers don't want to make different versions of cars for multiple states is because it is more expensive. This begs the question that Alan posed...why not just make the car that meets the most stringent standard?

It is clear that Detroit (read the U.S. auto industry) has fallen way, way behind the curve of where the rest of the auto making world is headed. Why is Toyota now the #1 auto maker in the world? They make good, efficient cars and trucks. Ford, Chevy, and GM keep trying to shove these giants down our throats. They continue to labor under the impression that people really, really want big ass cars.

Just plop down on the couch and watch any pro sports match if you don't believe me

Biker wrote:

The energy bill that Bush signed yesterday revoked any chance that states would have in setting their own emissions standards. Rather it mandates 35mpg by 2020 nationwide (WEAK!).

CA and the governator are pissed and plan to sue to be able to set their own more strict standards.

Please enlighten me how this is fits conservative doctrine.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/washington/20epa.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

George Bush is liberal. Not conservative. That's how...

oftenrunning52 wrote:

The same man who insisted on the Bill of Rights also wrote that the Creator gave us these rights.

I believe it was Jefferson who wrote the Declaration, Madison who wrote the Bill.