4 ms·

The law allows the EPA to grant the waiver. It doesn't require them to do it. Edit: pre-emptively nitpicking my own statement: the Act gives the EPA enumerate

by bt848 7y ago

The law allows the EPA to grant the waiver. It doesn't require them to do it. Edit: pre-emptively nitpicking my own statement: the Act gives the EPA enumerated reasons to not grant the waivers.

mywittyname 7y ago
Does this lead to a constitutional crisis over the EPA's ability to govern? It seems like the Feds have a difficult time using interstate commerce as a justification for the EPA's authority. In this case, California isn't attempting to regulate industry outside of the state (it just happens to be so powerful as to have that side-effect). I feel like this is a move to destroy the EPA and make California pay the legal fees to do it.
- bt848 7y ago
  Maybe? Anything that erodes the federal powers, up to and including dissolution of the union, is fine by me as long as such powers devolve to the states and the people. If you fear constitutional crisis then I suggest you brace yourself because Trump will never leave office willingly. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1171631144414208000 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/11716311444142080...
  - scarface74 7y ago
    “States Rights” historically haven’t been good for minorities in the south.... I really don’t want southern politicians to have more power.
    - munk-a 7y ago
      I would agree (and do agree that "States rights" has been abused in the past and present) but the US is intensely undemocratic right now, there is even talk of repealing the direct election of senators which is crazy, while we're dependent on the federal government nothing will be done because... filibustering and skewed representation.
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  > Does this lead to a constitutional crisis I severely doubt it. Wickard v. Filburn is a solid bedrock of totally ignoring the intent of the commerce clause.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    Supreme Court cases get deprecated without expressly being overruled, especially wartime cases. Stare decisis doesn’t require you to read a precedent for all its worth; only to follow it if it’s squarely on point. The ACA case found the individual mandate failed under the commerce clause notwithstanding Wickard.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > Does this lead to a constitutional crisis over the EPA's ability to govern? No; it may add to the stack of legal disputes about the Trump Administration’s administrative actions allegedly exceeding statutory bounds and procedural requirements (including the requirement not to be arbitrary and capricious), but that's such a big stack already... > I feel like this is a move to destroy the EPA and make California pay the legal fees to do it. It's not about destroying the EPA, just its purpose of protecting the environment.
magicalist 7y ago
> The law allows the EPA to grant the waiver. It doesn't require them to do it. The bigger nitpick is that it's not clear that the Clean Air Act allows for revoking previously granted waivers.

by bt848 7y ago

The law allows the EPA to grant the waiver. It doesn't require them to do it. Edit: pre-emptively nitpicking my own statement: the Act gives the EPA enumerated reasons to not grant the waivers.

mywittyname 7y ago

Does this lead to a constitutional crisis over the EPA's ability to govern? It seems like the Feds have a difficult time using interstate commerce as a justification for the EPA's authority. In this case, California isn't attempting to regulate industry outside of the state (it just happens to be so powerful as to have that side-effect). I feel like this is a move to destroy the EPA and make California pay the legal fees to do it.

bt848 7y ago
Maybe? Anything that erodes the federal powers, up to and including dissolution of the union, is fine by me as long as such powers devolve to the states and the people. If you fear constitutional crisis then I suggest you brace yourself because Trump will never leave office willingly. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1171631144414208000 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/11716311444142080...
- scarface74 7y ago
  “States Rights” historically haven’t been good for minorities in the south.... I really don’t want southern politicians to have more power.
  - munk-a 7y ago
    I would agree (and do agree that "States rights" has been abused in the past and present) but the US is intensely undemocratic right now, there is even talk of repealing the direct election of senators which is crazy, while we're dependent on the federal government nothing will be done because... filibustering and skewed representation.
Dylan16807 7y ago
> Does this lead to a constitutional crisis I severely doubt it. Wickard v. Filburn is a solid bedrock of totally ignoring the intent of the commerce clause.
- rayiner 7y ago
  Supreme Court cases get deprecated without expressly being overruled, especially wartime cases. Stare decisis doesn’t require you to read a precedent for all its worth; only to follow it if it’s squarely on point. The ACA case found the individual mandate failed under the commerce clause notwithstanding Wickard.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> Does this lead to a constitutional crisis over the EPA's ability to govern? No; it may add to the stack of legal disputes about the Trump Administration’s administrative actions allegedly exceeding statutory bounds and procedural requirements (including the requirement not to be arbitrary and capricious), but that's such a big stack already... > I feel like this is a move to destroy the EPA and make California pay the legal fees to do it. It's not about destroying the EPA, just its purpose of protecting the environment.

magicalist 7y ago

> The law allows the EPA to grant the waiver. It doesn't require them to do it. The bigger nitpick is that it's not clear that the Clean Air Act allows for revoking previously granted waivers.