State Rights vs. Federal Domination by AnthonyT

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

State Rights vs. Federal Domination

POSTED BY: ANTHONYT
UPDATED: Saturday, December 22, 2007 07:05
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 587
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, December 20, 2007 9:02 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I found this CNN article interesting:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/20/california.emissions/index.html

Apparently, the Feds are blocking California from enacting even tougher fuel efficiency standards than the ones they came up with.

This is a state's rights issue, and I hope it climbs all the way to the Supreme Court.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 9:20 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Yeah... and then they'd have prescident to stop those annoying FED raids, sponsored by Pfizer, on the marijuana farms.

You'd think the Constitution would be prescident enough, right?

On a side note.... Arnold is a married-in Kennedy and a Demoncrat in Rethuglican clothing.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2007 3:46 AM

HERO

Well, I prefer it California's way. In that case California can set its standards as high as it wants resulting in the nations highest gas prices (oops, already there). Meanwhile other states can also set their standards lower if they so choose meaning Ohio can say, "well California is really making up the difference, lets reduce standards here and give our citizens a break on their gas prices".

A national strategy is silly. Lets all do our own thing. Me, I'm heading out now to dump some oil in the river and cut down a tree (just for the heck of it). I'm sure California will be there to offset my carbon...thanks California.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2007 4:37 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Well, I prefer it California's way. In that case California can set its standards as high as it wants resulting in the nations highest gas prices (oops, already there). Meanwhile other states can also set their standards lower if they so choose meaning Ohio can say, "well California is really making up the difference, lets reduce standards here and give our citizens a break on their gas prices".

A national strategy is silly. Lets all do our own thing. Me, I'm heading out now to dump some oil in the river and cut down a tree (just for the heck of it). I'm sure California will be there to offset my carbon...thanks California.

H

Hello,

Hero, please forgive me if I think your position on this matter is silly. There is no reason that the California standard and the Federal standard can't co-exist.

In essence, to sell cars in California, an automaker would simply have to be sure he was compliant with both Federal and State requirements. Auto manufacturers would scarcely be the first manufacturers in history to have to do this. I'm sure you are aware that firearms manufacturers already carry this burden.

It would also be foolish for gasoline prices to spike in response to higher fuel economy. It is gas prices, and not merely an altruistic desire to save the planet, that have caused the public to endorse these MPG standards. If gas prices spike, you will simply see additional pressure to make even more fuel-efficient vehicles. High gas prices will speed the way towards innovation, change, and improvement.

I find it very telling that SIXTEEN states were primed and ready to adopt California's tougher standards when the Feds announced their more lax agreement. It is blindingly obvious that the Feds, the Automakers, and the Oil barons rushed to endorse a less painful agreement so that they could circumvent the California plan.

Now they are trying to force the states to fall in line, because if 16 or more states adopt the California plan, their ruse to avoid the difficulties involved with rapid change will be foiled.

Interestingly, foreign automakers are primed and ready with vehicles that already meet the strictest standards imagined by man. U.S. automakers always squawk and cry when they sense that they may need to put some work into staying competitive.

I, personally, am sick of the usual pattern:

"We the people say that you must increase fuel efficiency standards by X date."

U.S. Manufacturers: "Nooo! You can't do this to us! We'll never make it in time! Doom! Gloom! Destruction!"

Foreign Manufacturers: "Yeah... um... we did that last year."

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2007 5:20 AM

FLATTOP

But you didn't finish the pattern:

We the people buy the more efficient imports.

US manufacturers act surprised that their sales plummet.

We the people are made to bail out the failing (because they refuse to make a product that we want to buy) US auto industry via taxes.

----------
Remember to vote! http://www.usbmicro.com/misc

Sign up NOW! http://fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=11&t=25704
More Information: http://76thbattalion.homestead.com/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2007 5:36 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
It would also be foolish for gasoline prices to spike in response to higher fuel economy.

Producing dozens of different blends to satisfy state, regional, geographical, and seasonal requirements is a signifigant contributing factor to American gas prices. In the old days they produced two blends, winter and summer, nationwide. Now its Northern California winter, Light Ohio summer(with and without the extra corn mix for the folks down along the Ohio River), Alabama winter, Nebraska Winter/Spring Corn Special Reserve, etc.

Thats how the unified Federal standard idea came about, to ease the burdon on the overtaxed refineries after Katrina. As a result, despite the spike in oil prices the pump prices have remained high, but relatively stable through the fall months.

And a strict Federal standard allows the Federal govt to strictly control states that otherwise would use California's precedent to lower their own standards. Thats why the two can't co-exist. Sure California can do one better, but that means forty-nine other states are free to do worse.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2007 5:44 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
It would also be foolish for gasoline prices to spike in response to higher fuel economy.

Producing dozens of different blends to satisfy state, regional, geographical, and seasonal requirements is a signifigant contributing factor to American gas prices. In the old days they produced two blends, winter and summer, nationwide. Now its Northern California winter, Light Ohio summer(with and without the extra corn mix for the folks down along the Ohio River), Alabama winter, Nebraska Winter/Spring Corn Special Reserve, etc.

Thats how the unified Federal standard idea came about, to ease the burdon on the overtaxed refineries after Katrina. As a result, despite the spike in oil prices the pump prices have remained high, but relatively stable through the fall months.

And a strict Federal standard allows the Federal govt to strictly control states that otherwise would use California's precedent to lower their own standards. Thats why the two can't co-exist. Sure California can do one better, but that means forty-nine other states are free to do worse.

H

Hello,

"Negative, Ghostrider."

No one can do WORSE than the minimum Federal requirement. They can only do better.

That means if the Feds require 30 MPG and Cali wants 35, they are automatically in compliance with Federal guidelines. They are doing the Fed requirement, and then they are doing MORE than the Fed requirement.

It's like magic, except you replace the fairy dust with common sense.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2007 7:04 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
No one can do WORSE than the minimum Federal requirement. They can only do better.

The argument will be that if California can set its own standard...so can Ohio.

Under many circumstances, however, you are correct. But here Califonia is intruding into the realm of interstate commerce and national economic policy.

Another example is Tariffs. The Federal govt sets tariffs at a particular level. By your interpretation of California's argument they can set their own state tariffs higher (but not lower) then the Federal minumum.

These issues have been litigated before and it'll be difficult, but not impossible, for California to meet the Court's burdon to show their local policy is not interfereing with the larger Federal policy. I'm not saying its right or wrong...its just well established law that in some things, especially interstate commerce, the Federal Govt is in charge.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2007 7:13 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

I don't really understand a lot of the policy dispute here, but my sympathies lie with California. I think the States should have as much freedom as possible in defining policies. If I knew more about the policy dispute, I might side with the federal government, but typically that’s not the direction I go. I’m generally very sympathetic to the States’ rights camp.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2007 7:41 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

California has often set standards for other things tougher than the Federal standard.
Remember the smog wars? Most car manufacturers sold vehicles with a "California emissions package" in California, and without it elsewhere. If the owner of a package-less car moved to California and tried to register it here, he had to get it retro-fitted.
This may have been with Federal agreement, and that may be the issue here-- the Feds don't want tougher standards anywhere-- but the precedent is there.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 22, 2007 7:05 AM

FREMDFIRMA

"Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE