How can California supercede EPA?

[yokna7]

Just a quick one

In light of the Arizona court ruling which appears will fall mostly by the supremacy clause, how can the state of California have tougher emission standards than the federal government and not be dismissed under the supremacy clause?

Can't this be interpreted to violate the commerce clause as well?

[Anti Federalist]

Because stricter EPA standards are doubleplusgood.

Seriously, that's a good question, I'm sure there's some legal loophole somewhere.

In the infamous Kelo V New London decision the SCOTUS made specific mention of the fact that states could enact any form of eminent domain restrictions that they wanted.

[yokna7]

I was reading an article which claimed that the EPA "granted" California the right to levy tougher restrictions on emissions. So would this mean that the federal government could do the same for immigration if it were so inclined?

It also stated that the rest of the states could abide by Cali's standards or the feds. Whichever one.

This is not the same article:

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/epa-allows-california-emissions-rules/

[libertybrewcity]

doesn't the commerce clause allow the federal government to only regulate interstate? a state can regulate what it wants via states rights-tenth amendment within its boundaries including nullifying epa standards or raising them.

[07041826]

Also, would this ruling impact the states that set higher minimum wages vs. the fed minimum wage as they are setting standards that deviate from federal standards?

[WaltM]

then how can a State have higher income taxes or higher minimum wage?

[james1906]

Seems like anything the fedgov has its nose it that it is not authorized to can have greater regulation at the state level.

Imagine a state:
forming an army
issuing currency
starting a postal service
or doing anything else that the Constitution explicitly allows the fedgov to do.

[yokna7]

doesn't the commerce clause allow the federal government to only regulate interstate? a state can regulate what it wants via states rights-tenth amendment within its boundaries including nullifying epa standards or raising them.

It was really an afterthought, but we know the manipulation of the clause. Let's say hypothetically, the emissions standards were so stringent that certain high performance fuels like cam 2 or something were banned, but interstate travelers could not refuel. This could interfere with interstate commerce. Thats a real lame reason with holes in it. I realize that, someone in this forum could come up with something better, but lets no focus on that. Lets address the first question.

What is the mechanism that turns off supremacy clause regarding cali emissions?

[Anti Federalist]

It was really an afterthought, but we know the manipulation of the clause. Let's say hypothetically, the emissions standards were so stringent that certain high performance fuels like cam 2 or something were banned, but interstate travelers could not refuel. This could interfere with interstate commerce. Thats a real lame reason with holes in it. I realize that, someone in this forum could come up with something better, but lets no focus on that. Lets address the first question.

What is the mechanism that turns off supremacy clause regarding cali emissions?

I think it comes down to "less than - more than".

As a general rule, states can enact more strict rules against whatever, but cannot ease rules past the fed minimum.

I'm sure there is case law to back this up, I'm just not in a position to find it right now.

[yokna7]

I think it comes down to "less than - more than".

As a general rule, states can enact more strict rules against whatever, but cannot ease rules past the fed minimum.

I'm sure there is case law to back this up, I'm just not in a position to find it right now.

I agree, but that would contradict what happened in the Arizona ruling today right? Arizona wanted to "enact more strict rules.." and in a matter of speaking exceed current laws and were defeated by the supremacy clause.

I wish they would show their true colors and say "strict immigration laws affect interstate commerce" :rolleyes:

[Anti Federalist]

I agree, but that would contradict what happened in the Arizona ruling today right? Arizona wanted to "enact more strict rules.." and in a matter of speaking exceed current laws and were defeated by the supremacy clause.

I wish they would show their true colors and say "strict immigration laws affect interstate commerce" :rolleyes:

Like I said in my first post in this thread:

Strict EPA restrictions are doubleplusgood.

Strict immigration enforcement is doubleplusungood.

There is no rationality to it and certainly no justice, it follows the will of the current zeitgeist.