4 ms·

I think that's a relevant point. I don't like California having a unique exception on an issue where every other state has been preempted by federal law.

elliekelly 7y ago
Don’t start digging around in the Federal Code then. A law that doesn’t have a unique exception is a unique exception.
- tathougies 7y ago
  And all of these ought to be declared illegal via the Constitution's prohibition on bills of attainder.
  - qtplatypus 7y ago
    How is that a bill of attainder? A bill of attainder is one that says “$Foo $Bar and $Baz of people will be punished/have properly removed”. And exemption from a regulation is “If you fulfill this criteria/make an application then different set of regulations take effect”.
    - tathougies 7y ago
      > A bill of attainder is one that says “$Foo $Bar and $Baz of people will be punished/have properly removed” Correct. However, I see no difference between this, and attempting to formulate a set of criteria that is obviously intended to make the law only apply to someone (or some entity) the legislature has already selected. I think we have lots of examples of laws in the current US code that clearly were written with criteria designed to uniquely punish certain individuals or businesses, and I don't see a substantive difference between this and a 'traditional' bill of attainder.
gamblor956 7y ago
I don't like California having a unique exception on an issue where every other state has been preempted by federal law. Which isn't the case. California has a unique exemption because the federal law was inspired by California's existing law, driven by CA's unique needs for strong pollution controls due to a combination of population density, climate, and geography. The federal law actually grants CA an exemption only so long as CA's standards exceed the federal government's standards. Which is something that our current president doesn't quite understand. It's not just that CA wants to have higher standards to give him the middle finger--it's that CA is legally required to have higher standards to maintain its legal exemption.
dragonwriter 7y ago
The whole point of the federal law was for the rest of the country to part of the way to where California already was. But, yes, every state should have been equally free to have higher standards, but taking away California's waiver is going to the wrong direction.
tathougies 7y ago
As a strict constructionist, I object pretty heavily to the idea that it is legal for the federal government to 'pre-empt' state law. The federal government ought to be subservient to the states except for the fairly limited scope it is granted by the constitution. Air quality control is not within the enumerated powers of the federal government (except by heavy abuse of the interstate commerce clause, IMO). Thus, it is completely upon the states to decide, and any proper judge ought to refuse to enforce any federal punitive action against a state government.
qtplatypus 7y ago
California has unquie requirements though. Due to the geography of San Francisco air pollution gets trapped within the Bay Area. Combined with s high population density a vehicle emitting the same amount of pollution will have a greater health impact within San Francisco then outside of it. Regulations are a trade off between the needs of different stakeholders. If the needs of the stakeholders differ then the regulations need to as well.

elliekelly 7y ago

Don’t start digging around in the Federal Code then. A law that doesn’t have a unique exception is a unique exception.

tathougies 7y ago
And all of these ought to be declared illegal via the Constitution's prohibition on bills of attainder.
- qtplatypus 7y ago
  How is that a bill of attainder? A bill of attainder is one that says “$Foo $Bar and $Baz of people will be punished/have properly removed”. And exemption from a regulation is “If you fulfill this criteria/make an application then different set of regulations take effect”.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    > A bill of attainder is one that says “$Foo $Bar and $Baz of people will be punished/have properly removed” Correct. However, I see no difference between this, and attempting to formulate a set of criteria that is obviously intended to make the law only apply to someone (or some entity) the legislature has already selected. I think we have lots of examples of laws in the current US code that clearly were written with criteria designed to uniquely punish certain individuals or businesses, and I don't see a substantive difference between this and a 'traditional' bill of attainder.

gamblor956 7y ago

I don't like California having a unique exception on an issue where every other state has been preempted by federal law. Which isn't the case. California has a unique exemption because the federal law was inspired by California's existing law, driven by CA's unique needs for strong pollution controls due to a combination of population density, climate, and geography. The federal law actually grants CA an exemption only so long as CA's standards exceed the federal government's standards. Which is something that our current president doesn't quite understand. It's not just that CA wants to have higher standards to give him the middle finger--it's that CA is legally required to have higher standards to maintain its legal exemption.

dragonwriter 7y ago

The whole point of the federal law was for the rest of the country to part of the way to where California already was. But, yes, every state should have been equally free to have higher standards, but taking away California's waiver is going to the wrong direction.

tathougies 7y ago

As a strict constructionist, I object pretty heavily to the idea that it is legal for the federal government to 'pre-empt' state law. The federal government ought to be subservient to the states except for the fairly limited scope it is granted by the constitution. Air quality control is not within the enumerated powers of the federal government (except by heavy abuse of the interstate commerce clause, IMO). Thus, it is completely upon the states to decide, and any proper judge ought to refuse to enforce any federal punitive action against a state government.

qtplatypus 7y ago

California has unquie requirements though. Due to the geography of San Francisco air pollution gets trapped within the Bay Area. Combined with s high population density a vehicle emitting the same amount of pollution will have a greater health impact within San Francisco then outside of it. Regulations are a trade off between the needs of different stakeholders. If the needs of the stakeholders differ then the regulations need to as well.