On September 18 President Trump announced that he was revoking California’s Fuel Emissions Waiver.
This comes on the heels of an array of lawsuits that California has filed against the federal government for what they see as an attack on their state sovereignty.
But what is the big deal about revoking this waiver? The waiver has been granted to California under the Clean Air Act of 1970. Every renewal for the past 45 years has been granted, except once, and that was overturned and regranted in 2009.
Here is what the Federal Register from July 8, 2009 had to say about it.
In previous waiver decisions, EPA has
recognized that the intent of Congress in
creating a limited review based on the
section 209(b)(1) criteria was to ensure
that the federal government did not
second-guess the wisdom of state
policy. This has led EPA to state:
It is worth noting * * * I would feel
constrained to approve a California approach
to the problem which I might also feel unable
to adopt at the federal level in my own
capacity as a regulator. The whole approach
of the Clean Air Act is to force the
development of new types of emission
control technology where that is needed by
compelling the industry to ‘‘catch up’’ to
some degree with newly promulgated
standards. Such an approach
* * * may be attended with costs, in the
shaped of reduced product offering,
or price or fuel economy penalties,
and by risks that a wider number
of vehicle, classes may not be able to
complete their development work in time.
Since a balancing of these risks and costs
against the potential benefits from reducing
emissions is a central policy decision for any
regulatory agency under the statutory scheme
outlined above, I believe I am required to
give very substantial deference to California’s
judgments on this score***
EPA has stated that the text, structure,
and history of the California waiver
provision clearly indicate both a
congressional intent and appropriate
EPA practice of leaving the decision on
‘‘ambiguous and controversial matters of
public policy’’ to California’s judgment.
So the EPA, by its own admission, acknowledges and respects the individual rights to public policy that are protected in the U.S. Constitution. There has been no evidence brought forth to suggest that California has violated its waiver or agreement with the federal government.
The Clean Air Act of 1970 established the basis for this waiver and is the only bill that singles out and names a state as having special permissions. By revoking the waiver the President is overstepping his authority by violating the Clean Air Act and the special permissions it awarded to California.
Taking our Liberties one Case at a Time
If we really want to display the abuses of power and subjugation of the states and the people by our federal government, we could take this as far back as Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 9 Wheat. 1 (1824). The Supreme Court affirmed that Congress could regulate interstate commerce. It, however, did not include or extend to the regulation of individuals within the respective state boundaries
Judicial activism began in 1937 with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) v Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U.S. 1 (1937) and culminated in Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), regarding wheat quotas.
The Supreme Court also overturned the Railroad Retirement Act, previously perceived as an employer-to-employee process. Likewise, the National Industrial Recovery Act was overturned for similar reasons. It further negated the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act for fixing prices, wages, hours, and working conditions.
Who Decides?
No matter how you look at it, it's more than obvious that we have a federal government with a long history of overreach and reinterpretation of the law to benefit itself and assume more authority over the states and the people.
Who decides? That is really what we need to be asking here. Who should be deciding public policy within the states? The federal government? Or we the people who have a direct voice with our state lawmakers?
Our Founding Fathers knew the answer to that one: We the People. They gave us a tool in Article V for the states to use their federal authority to push back against federal, judicial, and congressional overreach.
The question remains: what are the states going to do about it? California can solve this problem by joining the 15 other states that have already signed on to call a convention and take a firm constitutional stand against tyranny.
