Does Bush have the Right to Keep California From Raising Gas Mileage Standards?

Question

Today (Wednesday), Bush's EPA denied California the right to raise their own gas mileage standards. This is on the heels of Bush signing the latest energy bill yesterday that required all cars to obtain a 35 mile per gallon standard average by 2020. A very weak standard, considering China already has a 35 mpg standard for their cars.

Since California has so many cars, a more strict mileage standard would require automakers to build cars to reach the California standard, as opposed to the weaker national standard (they wouldn't want to make two sets of cars, one for California, and one for the rest of the U.S.).




http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/20/america/California-Greenhouse-Gases.php

Answer 1

The short answer to your question is NO, he does not. Here's what's going on with this: California is governed by the fact that it had, even before the Clean Air act of 1970 had come into effect, set up its own standards. It's now governed by a separate section of the STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIP's) where were established by the CAA.

According to Steven Ferry's book: "Environmental Law, Third Edition" (copywrite 2004), "Once a SIP is adopted at the federal level by the EPA, only an agreement with or variance granted by the EPA will allow noncompliance with the provisions of the SIP." (page 167, last paragraph).

Generally, the federal law allows a state to have MORE stringent rules than the federal government, but not LESS stringent ones. The State of CA. is an exception to this. By trying to force tighter rules, it's trying to go around the EPA and basically force national industried to accept California's rules for the whole country (by dint of the fact that CA is the biggest single market in the US, all auto industries would have to make cars which could be sold there - thus essentially forcing CA rules to be the 'de facto' federal rules. Normally, such a scheme would not be allowed - but since CA and 19 other states want to adopt the tighter rules, it may in face be acceptable to the EPA. We'll have to see what happens when the challenge case makes it to the 1st Federal District Court in Sacremento, CA. No matter what happens, it will be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court (in San Francisco) which is the most liberal court in the nation. From there, it's probably destined to go to the Supreme Ct. in D.C.

Good luck with this. I hope it answers your questions.


See:
The Clean Air Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7400 )(Public law 95-95, Aug. 7, 1977)

You might also want to see:
U.S. EPA. 1999.The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act: 1990 to 2010: EPA Report to Congress. U.S. EPA. Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Policy. Washington, DC. EPA 410-R-99-001.

As well as the "National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Criteria Pollutants" (explained in detail the the case Amer. Lung ***'n vs. E.P.A, 134 F3d 388 (D.C. Cir. 1998)

Answer 2

Commerce Clause states:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:

“ The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes" [1]

CA has no right to establish a separate gas mileage standard under this clause. EPA rules can be easily interpreted as falling under the Commerce clause, and thus are written by Congress.

Article IV, Section 1

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." [2]

So, if CA enacts some gas mileage standard, they force each state to comply via full faith and credit clause. Thereby creating a de facto national standard without legislation by Congress.

The Executive branch is charged with enforcing the Constitution, therefore, they have the authority to say that CA cannot enact their rules because they are violating the commerce clause.

This really is a very simple case of a state overstepping thier bounds. The Executive branch acted first (EPA) by striking them down. The Supreme Court and Congress now have their chances to act. If the CA standards are good, then Congress should draw up and pass legislation that makes the CA standard the national standard. Short of that, the Supreme Court will likely hear arguments regarding the rules and decide of the regulations are Constitutional.

So the short answer is that yes, the President is well within his right to strike down these regulations.

Answer 3

Does congress have the right to impose arbitrary standards on the automotive industry?

If you believe that setting economy standards are the function of the federal gvmt, then yes, Bush is well within his power to override the states decisions.

If you believe that states should control what happens within their boarders, then congress has no right imposing federal standards, as this is a state issue, not a federal one.

However most people believe in states rights when it suits their cause, and are for federalism when it suits their needs. Normally people like this lack principals and understanding.

Answer 4

By law, only the federal government can do this; otherwise you could have every state setting different standards, making it impossible to manufacture cars which would meet all of them.

Actually, from a strictly constructionist viewpoint, neither the state nor federal government has the Constitutional authority to do this. If it had been left to the market ab initio, we'd probably have cleaner and better cars already.

Answer 5

The whole issue is stupid. Imagine forcing car manufacturers to a specific standard for mileage just to appease the global warming freaks. The same environmental nuts won't let us make nuclear plants or drill for oil. Why does anyone listen to such fools?

Answer 6

Sure, Bush and Cheney have to please their former employers and his campaign contributors in the oil industry. That is simply the nature of American government at this time. Bush accomplishes control in part by making political appointees to run federal government agencies, ensuring alignment with his agenda.

President Bush Names Gov. Leavitt to Head EPA
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/08/20030811-2.html

Besides, a dictator has whatever rights he chooses to assign to his administration, including:
- torture of suspects, in violation of international law
- denial of due process - indefinite holding of suspects who have not been tried or even formally accused of any criminal charge
- covert military action in countries where no war has been declared (Pakistan)
- unauthorized and unsupervised and unconstitutional surveillance of citizens
- assignment of political appointees to government offices to ensure complete unilateral control of all branches and functions of government
- denial of free speech, including revision and supression of scientific findings
- evading congressional and judiciary probes into administartion behavior, including destruction of evidence

Presidents have been impeached for far less.

The recourse for residents of California, residents of the other states in favor of higher mileage standards, and for other citizens in favor of higher standards, is to register to vote and vote against the party responsible for tolerating and not addressing this mess.

Answer 7

BUSH's EPA is a complete Joke. Those people dont know how to do their jobs and or they dont do their jobs and just do what they are told to keep their jobs, its sad really but It wont stay this way for long i bet

Answer 8

no i dont think so. they really need to raise the standard for the benefit of the planet.

Answer 9

The EPA does not answer to the President. Please do a little reading about administrative law and the administrative branch of our great country.

Answer 10

No. States have the constitutional right to be as stupid as they want to be.