Incidentally, in case anyone has forgotten, The EPA was established by that raving socialist–Richard Nixon.
(sarcasm intentional)
The heinous part of the reg is that it even applies to transiting the state. What’s to stop my Commonwealth from doing the same, then collecting a kickback fining operators who don’t comply? AFAIK, there is no domestic land route to points NE without transit…you’d have to drive E through VA to VA beach, then up through Wilmington DE, NJ…or something equally stupid.
(Tricky Dick was far from a libertarian…a socially-conservative hawk about sums him up. Groundwater, OTOH…)
You mean the same president that gave us the 55 limit on freeways? And worked to delay the war to insure his election? Just an example of how the Dem/Rep labels are really meaningless.
All those things you just listed sound good to me
I live in California and I like breathing clean air
Stay out of my state with your black smoke belching gross polluter
At my work, I service those class 8 diesel trucks you’re talking about. They’ve all been retrofitted with those particulate filters you are so “fond” of. Some of them need to be removed and burned off periodically. On others you can initiate a burn-off without removing it from the vehicle. They do a decent job catching all of the soot. I also do opacity inspections, and the vehicles are pretty clean.
Would you rather breathe that soot in?
Or would you rather breathe clean air?
My choice has been made
Fine…regulate intrastate commerce…it’s your right as a state. Just don’t play games to “end run” the US Constitution!
Hopefully the Circuit Court of Appeals…or the US Supreme Court…will put an appropriate “smackdown” on this power grab.
@meanjoe75fan, I’m not sure what is an end run around the constitution. What I can say is that by opposing regulations such as those in California, you’re not somehow standing up for our constitutional “rights” as citizens. You end up standing behind only the rights of some to impinge upon the rights of others. Ultimately you are also asking for federal and international level regulation of commerce - which is odd since all that does is reduce our abilities to control the conditions under which we each live our lives. Do you want control to be more local and more in tune to wishes of people who actually live in an area? Or do you want control in huge, far-flung federal and international bureaucracies that have no sense for or concern for the interests of regular folks in their own localities?
States have no rights to regulate interstate commerce ! That’s what the central govt. does. States can only regulate the individual business in which it’s head quarters reside. Giving states the right to do so would be an end run around the constitution.
^
Dagosa is correct, of course.
And, if somebody’s Libertarian allegiance rests on the premise that states have the right to regulate interstate commerce, then that allegiance is built on a false premise.
When the states agreed to abandon the impractical and largely unworkable Articles of Confederation, and to band together under the US Constitution, they ceded many of their previous rights to the central government. If somebody does not understand this concept, then I have to question their understanding of both the US Constitution and the concept of States’ Rights.
Ain’t asking for nothing. “Commerce” between states, between nations, and amongst Indian tribes is a federal power per the USC. (Also navigable waterways.)
Interstate is Federal; intrastate isn’t which is how Southwest Air circumvented the FAA/CAA as an “all-Texas airline.”
Saying that CA state law…is actually federal…but good luck holding the authors accountable…well, if that isnt an “end run,” what is it?
Southwest Airlines IS headquartered in Texas. Hence, the Texas AG has some say as to state regulations and laws as they apply to SWA. In the same way that the NYS AG has some prosecutorial powers over those managing the NYSE if they violate state laws. Of course what they require has an “interstate” influence but not if it conflicts with federal law and often there is no conflict if state regs are stricter then federal law. Would you have it any other way ? States are generally free to adopt stricter standards, and often do for polution control and gun laws as an example. That is their constitutional right and a viable way when enough states ratify similar laws, to then bring these changes before congress for their cinsideration through their representatives and placed into law federally or even as an amendment to the constitution if necessary.
So, while we rail against the Feds for being out of control, much of that is a direct result of a majority of states flexing their legislative muscle and exerting their constitutionally given STATES RIGHTS. You WILL see that state influence in everything from the pipeline to fracking and groundwater. It’s just a conservative idiom that rails against the fed run amuck when it’s just the fed responding to state representative influence which they are legislatively mandated to do through the agencies they run…LIKE THE EPA. Just like Nixon did in responding to states that asked for help in curbing polution in the formation of the EPA.
Therein lies the difference between “interstate” and “intrastate”.
California, just the other 49 states, has a lot of latitude regarding what they do within their state boundaries, and apparently emissions-related regulations fall into the category of what they can regulate w/in their boundaries.
@dagosa: No, I’m talking historically. SWA was founded as a “deregulated” airline prior to deregulation of aviation in the US.
The commercial carrier FARs didnt apply to them, so long as they served only Texas cities. This ticked the CAA/FAA off royally, but there was nothing they could do. Braniff, and others, sued them…and lost.
I thought this was common knowledge…
@VDC: time will tell. Until then, all I can do us cross my fingers and hope for justice to prevail.
@MJ75,I remember in the 60s going to the mailbox by the primary road and you could take your finger and make marks in the soot,being a " boomer" and being mostly " libertarian" (I’m libertarian as long as it doesnt harm others and resist asinine and tautomer regulations) I’ve seen a lot of change mostly-positive,seen some stupid stuff also.But I also believe strongely in the ownership of firearms(even though the 2nd admendment gets grossly and ridiculously misinterpeted at times) the point is -give people some credit-but as Rick sez,that right doesnt extend to burning tires and garbage,people are as a rule incredibly selfish and as much as I rue it-“Big Brother” sometimes has to step in and save us from ourselves,till childhoods end then and may we start thinking with our minds rather then our Glands-Kevin
Here in NH we had a problem with the Merrimack river and some of our towns dumping raw sewage into it. There was no state law against it. But it was causing a lot of problems for some towns in MA. MA sued NH and won. Yes we are separate states. And yes we are allowed to make our own laws. But we don’t have the right to pass or not pass laws that directly effect other states. The scrubbers that is not mandated on many coal power plants in the Mid West is a direct result of states in the North East getting sick an tired of the Acid rain that was being directly caused by them.
If I’m not mistaken, those gas powered golf carts are actually started using the generator as a starter. No Bendix style starter drive to engage and disengage, the starter is always turning with the engine and after the engine starts, it turns into a generator to recharge the battery.
Most hybrids are also use one of the motor/generators to do the actual engine starting.
Back in the '60s, Yamaha made a 125cc two stroke motorcycle that used a direct drive starter/generator.
@Mike,we are still having a problem here with acid rain,the rocks in the Shendoah National Park have little buffering ability and only a few hardy species of fish manage to hang on(Brook Trout and Black Dace) now right around the area in the Alleghanies were I reside,we have enough Limestone in the riverine system to effectively buffer a certain amount of acidity,I don’t notice the sulfury smell quite as often in the air anymore,so I hope we can get weaned furthur off of high sulfur fuels-Kevin
@kmccune - It’s been reduced…but NOT because the companies or states they reside in felt it was the nice thing to do. Instead they were FORCED to do it…thank God.
Normally, Libertarians pay lip service to states’ rights, yet MeanJoe seems willing to trample California’s rights to enact environmental laws that helped resolve serious smog issues. What’s up with that?
Other than paying for everything in gold coin, I don’t have a clue what it means to be Libertarian. I know I need enlightenment. Like why aren’t Libertarians card carrying members of the ACLU. Isn’t personal freedom paramount ? Isn’t it my personal right not have to drink from a polluted well or breath polluted air ?
Why is it when my discussions get way off topic the moderator closes them by now?.. Anyway, The stop start feature makes sense, however how will the a/c and heat work? On a prius there is an electric water pump, and an electric ac compressor, It works great. On a regular car It will be interesting to see how it works. I wonder how much the special battery will cost.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out. Remember when Fuel Injection was gaining ground? I remember calling it “fuel infection” and all sorts of cute names. Here we are 30 years later, and I doubt many of us would go back to a carburetor.