Hacker News Reader

Comment by tathougies | Hacker News Reader

Registered republican here. I actually disagree. This is not something that should be under federal purview. The states retain full sovereignty over their land and are under no obligation to 'figure out how to do it through the federal government'. California is and should be free to set whatever standards it pleases, regardless of how idiotic someone in Iowa or New York think they may be.

Trump has violated states rights and deserves to be criticized for it.

View on HN

The issue is - only California had that special right - but thats more of an issue with the framing of the original clean air act - the special rule was put in because California had standards on emissions before the rest of the country

From my cursory understanding any state can get a waiver just that California was the only one that applied for it.

Several other states have adopted California's rules-- why bother creating your own, presumably rigorous science based emission rules are costly to design-- when you can adopt someone elses'?

"the special rule was put in because California had standards on emissions before the rest of the country"

No, we were granted the exception because of the unique geography of the LA Basin and the pollution that it naturally traps and holds which required stricter standards than the minimum the Federal government was allowing.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

And all of these ought to be declared illegal via the Constitution's prohibition on bills of attainder.

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”.

> 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.

The reason this is federal is California is free on states rights to set rules for cars sold in their state. However the federal government can force California to all someone to go elsewhere and buy a polluting car and register it. Because of this federal exception California can violate normal interstate commerce rules.

Note, I'm talking strictly states rights as I think they should be by the constitution. There are other areas of this where the feds have done things I disagree with (such as not allowing each state to set their own standards)

As a person who comes from a traditionally Republican family and has myself transitioned from center-right to pretty far left, it is reassuring to see a consistency of opinion like yours from those who still identify as Republicans. One of the biggest symptoms of our current political polarization seems to be people on both sides giving carte blanche to their respective leaders to backtrack or redefine their espoused values. Just as it angers me when Democrats throw nuclear power under the bus due to its status as a political non-starter, it angers me when GOP supporters do gymnastics to explain selective abandoning of their most dearly held ideals like states' rights.

To my mind much of the polarization is in part the result of more and more power being handed to a winner-takes-all Federal system. If more power were in the States, then it is more likely that the laws will reflect your political views, and/or have an option to move to another State without having to leave your nation. With most eggs being in the Federal basket, which (generally) does not make laws for one state but not another, you are going to have a bunch of unhappy folks no matter what law gets passed.

Meh... you can be a right-leaning or left-leaning strict constructionist. The two terms are not correlated really. It all comes down to how much you believe the law should be enforced equally and impartially (in my possibly controversial opinion).

Being consistent ad absurdium is just being a different kind of dumb.

The federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce, though, right? Since many or most of these cars are made in other states then sold in California it seems like a pretty clear situation of interstate commerce.

And it seems like it would be a mess if you had "Ohio cars" that could be driven in Ohio but not California, and "California cars" that could be driven in California but not in Texas, etc etc.

States can regulate products without running afoul of interstate commerce rules. The key is for the regulations to not depend on the origin of the product. What gets you in trouble under the interstate commerce rules is trying to disadvantage out of states manufacturers relative to in states ones.

It is perfectly fine under the interstate commerce rules for California rules and Ohio rules and Texas rules for a given product to make it so that a manufacturer can't make a single product that works in all three states.

As long as someone who decides that they wants to make products that meets California rules can make those products in Ohio or Texas, and someone who wants to make products for the Ohio market can make them in California and Texas, and so on, that's fine.

Add in the consideration that air and water don't respect state boundaries, it would be an even bigger mess.

To be fair, the federal government has a history of abusing the interstate commerce clause -- it's not clear that just because something is capable of crossing a state line, it should automatically fall under federal purview.

Sure, the federal government can control the sales of cars. However, the interstate highways are owned and operated by california. California is also the sole authority who can register cars in the state of california for operation. So, while the federal government can force california to allow californians to buy cars produced in another state, it should not be able to force california to allow those cars to be driven on roads owned by the state of california.

interstate highways are funded by federal tax dollars. So not wholly owned by California.

And article 1, section 8 gives feds power to regulate (normalize) interstate commerce.

No theyre wholly owned by the state. The federal government provides money but the land and improvements are owned by the state of California. Not that it matters anyway because state law is the sole arbiter of who owns what.

Yeah. The EU doesn't allow individual states to set their own emissions standards for cars for similar reasons, even though they're nowhere near as unified as the US in general - it affects trade between the member states and therefore is centrally controlled. (This has caused some problems due to the European NO2 and PM5 standards for diesels being rather on the lax side.)

Interstate commerce yes, but going by the perspective of the original unmutilated Commerce Clause what California is doing involves only intrastate markets and thus should be untouchable.

This is one of the funniest things about this whole mess, California's "exemption" is much more legal than the EPA ever was (along with pretty much every other regulatory 3 letter agency).

would agree that while CA can ban purchasing certain cars (commerce) in CA, they could not deny people bringing in cars from other states (property)?

Yes, they can. California does this today. California has a border patrol that will throw away any contraband you attempt to smuggle in to the state of California. Border stations exist between Mexico and California, Nevada and California, Arizona and California, and Oregon and California. For example, if California discovers you have a ferret, they will fine you or put you in jail. If you attempt to bring a ferret into California via the interstate highway, and go through a california border station, they will likely confiscate and euthanize the ferret. This is not just for ferrets but all sorts of pests, plants, etc. California keeps a tight border. Last time I crossed the border from Oregon, we were stopped, and questioned, and our car inspected with a mirror underneath, at the border station.

The Constitution guarantees that you -- an American citizen or legal immigrant or tourist -- can enter and leave the state at will -- not your stuff.

while you are correct, you happen to replying to someone who owned a ferret for 4 years while living in CA. Yes, I did smuggle the ferrets into CA, but there is a ferret owners group in CA. Also the vets are very nice to ferret owners, and will even sell you ferret food. :-)

> to someone who owned a ferret for 4 years while living in CA

You mean a criminal? It is a crime to own a ferret into california or to smuggle them in.

Interstate commerce is a joke now. Growing a crop on your own land to feed your own livestock is considered interstate commerce.

If you disagree in this case you should be blaming the interstate commerce clause. I strongly suspect the union is going to eventually rattle apart due to being held together too tightly by its abuse.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com