EPA chief defends California decision

Dajokerman wrote:

if the states want to decide to regulate something like, oh I don't know, gay marriage or abortion or evolution, is totally in the right of the state and the federal government should just mind their own busniess. but if the state wants to decide to make regulations that it's citizens want like emissions, then it's "well your not special, you don't get a wavier"

tina anne wrote:

Maybe California ought to try the electric car again. The last time worked oh so well when they were having all the Enron generated blackouts.

old vet wrote:

<quoted text>perhaps someday you should read the US Constitution. The relevant part, in this case, is the commerce clause. California is free to regulate automobile emissions in Californai as long as they do not interfere with interstate commerce. Any Californian is free to modify his vehicle so that it releases less emissions. The State of California is free to require its citizens to modify their vehicles to reduce the emissions of cars once they ar delivered to Calilfornia. But the state of California is not free to impose their wishes on the other 49 states and the federal government.

old vet wrote:

<quoted text>perhaps someday you should read the US Constitution. The relevant part, in this case, is the commerce clause. California is free to regulate automobile emissions in Californai as long as they do not interfere with interstate commerce. Any Californian is free to modify his vehicle so that it releases less emissions. The State of California is free to require its citizens to modify their vehicles to reduce the emissions of cars once they ar delivered to Calilfornia. But the state of California is not free to impose their wishes on the other 49 states and the federal government.

Lance Winslow wrote:

<quoted text>It's not a California issue. The total number of states represented comprise more than half of the US population. No matter, the courts will do the right thing.

Dajokerman wrote:

<quoted text>
alas, it isn't demanding anything of the other 49 states or the federal govenment, it's simply stating that they want a higher standard for products entering the state, now if the manifacters want to make only one for the whole country then hey, they can, if they have to make sperate vehicles for diffrent states, then they can do that too.
your logic of forcing the other states to accept the laws isn't true, it's the car makers that are being forced to do something.

Will Rogers wrote:

States' rights should prevail.

Dajokerman wrote:

<quoted text>
alas, it isn't demanding anything of the other 49 states or the federal govenment, it's simply stating that they want a higher standard for products entering the state, now if the manifacters want to make only one for the whole country then hey, they can, if they have to make sperate vehicles for diffrent states, then they can do that too.

tina anne wrote:

Actually if they want to reduce auto pollution then they should concentrate on getting all the old junk heaps off the road.

Donnie wrote:

<quoted text>That isn't what they want.

old vet wrote:

<quoted text>Surely you are not that ignorant of how a manufacturing process works.

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Close, what they want is all the cars off the road unless you have a special permit, kinda of like the USSR before it imploded.

Dajokerman wrote:

<quoted text>
that about as apple and orange as you can get.