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.
You need to reread the Constitution, cause that phrase isn't there. It's in the Declaration of Independence. Dumba$$
When Hillary and/or Obama take over, will they also mandate an end to McMansions that burn more fuel in a month than average Americans do in a year? That would really suck for Edwards and Gore.
If we were really serious about fuel economy, we'd slap a $5-10 a gallon tax on gas and the market would drive us all into Yugos. But try passing that, much less campaigning on it. What we want is 2-dollar gas and our own SUV, and everybody else to make the difficult sacrifices. Like we all want the "rich" (which means somebody richer than me) to pay all the taxes. And like we all want to kick out the whole congress but keep our own congressman who brings home all the pork.
deep south wrote:
What we want is 2-dollar gas and our own SUV, and everybody else to make the difficult sacrifices.
this is precisely why government regulation in this arena is so important. each individual contributes a little bit to the problem, so the incentive for individual action to eliminate their role in the problem is minimal.
it's extraordinarily sad that our national politicians refuse to do what just about everyone recognizes must be done. it's telling that both conservative and liberal state governments have signed onto the california plan. this is not a partisan issue. federal-level politicians are consumed with self-preservation, which is more important than national interests.
Spelling Bee Person,
It is great that you are correcting other people about "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness" when they appear no where in the Constitution, but in the Declaration of Independence.
Spelling Bee Person,
It is great that you are correcting other people about "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness" when they appear no where in the Constitution, but in the Declaration of Independence.
you pretty much quoted verbatim from the article the OP linked to. However, if it makes you feel smarter by "explaining" it all to us, then go ahead, change a few words from the article and cull and insert a few comments from a couple websites you looked at and say: here's MY analysis.
kaitainen wrote:
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.
on behalf of upgrade wrote:
you pretty much quoted verbatim from the article the OP linked to. However, if it makes you feel smarter by "explaining" it all to us, then go ahead, change a few words from the article and cull and insert a few comments from a couple websites you looked at and say: here's MY analysis.
kaitainen wrote:there is a lot missing from this discussion. i'll try to provide the basic background.
nope, didn't use the word explain. and actually no, i didn't read the article linked. if it makes you feel good to submit comments that add absolutely nothing to the discussion, then go ahead.
maybe you should go back and re-read the posts before mine. comments fairly clearly indicate that most didn't know the information i provided. i assumed, incorrectly as it turns out, that that was because the article lacked some of the information. instead, it looks like people just posted without reading the article, in which case someone posting a summary of the issue, from the article or otherwise, is helpful.
bcal92 wrote:
Spelling Bee Person,
It is great that you are correcting other people about "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness" when they appear no where in the Constitution, but in the Declaration of Independence.
hooooly shit, try reading all the posts.
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
Biker guy you nailed it. Odd isn't when the feds won't allow states to mandate more efficient vehicles. The technology has been there for years. We haven't had legislation on this since 1975 when 25 MPG was mandated.
If our foresight and judgement on this for the last 27 years weren't so sad if would be funny. We're getting killed by foreign governments (no pun intended) on the price of oil yet we've been playing with ourselves for the last 27 years and not doing anything else.
God we're soooo stupid. Things could be so different.
it may or may not be relevant to the current issue, but i think a lot of people confuse budget allocation issues with states rights/regulation
there are many things the federal government effectively regulates through funding and is states wanted to they could go their own way, but they'd lose federal $$$
states wanted to they could go their own way, but they'd lose federal $$$It's sick how the Bush Administration and Congress will go out of their way to regulate the state's own emissions standards, but could care less about mandating equal funding for education. The U.S. is the only developed nation that does not have per pupil equal funding for secondary education. Consequently inner city public schools get 1/5th the per pupil funds than suburban public schools receive.