California and New York just sued to protect Obama’s final energy rules

Washington Post ^ | June 14, 2017 | by Chris Mooney

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Eleven states, led by California and New York, have sued the Trump administration for failing to finalize energy-efficiency regulations for portable air conditioners, walk-in coolers and other products.

The lawsuit, filed on Tuesday, represents the latest front in an escalating legal battle over the remaining pieces of Obama’s climate change legacy — led by a coalition of blue states, which are also fighting attempts to roll back Obama’s Clean Power Plan.

The current lawsuit involves the final five in a large batch of rules issued by the Obama administration’s Energy Department, which were left in a curious state of limbo after Trump’s inauguration.

The standards were finalized shortly before Trump’s inauguration, but subjected to a mandatory 45 day “error correction” review, focused on catching typographical errors and other minor problems.

[WKUHilltopper]

Then cut CA and NY out of the deal. They can run their cars and heat their homes on love.

[stars & stripes forever]

[a large batch of rules issued by the Obama administration’s Energy Department]

RULES are not LAWS...

To the victor go the spoils. Too bad. PRESIDENT TRUMP won.

[Amendment10]

There’s nothing stopping any state from deciding its own energy rules.

[eyeamok]

A “State” can not force the Executive Branch to issue regulations it wants and they can not force congress to pass laws, believe it or not the State’s can not even force the President to sign a Law passed by congress.

EVERY LAST PERSON INVOLVED IN THIS THAT IS A LAWYER SHOULD BE PERMANENTLY DISBARRED FOR LIFE!!!

[eyeamok]

Sure there is, it is called the Supremacy clause. If State Law conflicts with Federal Law, Federal law reigns supreme. An easy Win for even the dumbest of lawyers, State’s do not possess the Constitutional Authority to Redefine Federal Law to their own making.

[facedown]

...State’s do not possess the Constitutional Authority to Redefine Federal Law to their own making.

Yes, but the courts have shown they don't give a damn about the law.

[beethovenfan]

Trump, just ignore them and get on with your business.

[Sacajaweau]

Max efficiency is just that. Asking for more is pure stupidity.

I like my Buick...I don't want a little red wagon with a lid or a vehicle in which I could be crushed with a lid here in snow country.

And then there's something called.....cost!!

[eyeamok]

Yes, but the courts have shown they don’t give a damn about the law.

Thank God the Republicans have a majority, because Congress “ordained and established” or inferior court system and they complete authority over what they hear and how they rule on cases, Congress has the Absolute Authority to tell the supreme Court what cases they can hear./s

See Article 3.

[Sacajaweau]

More stringent applies...

[EQAndyBuzz]

“.State’s do not possess the Constitutional Authority to Redefine Federal Law to their own making.”

No, but the 9th circus does.....

Until SCOTUS overrules them.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks so much for your support to this point... I personally apprecaite it...
FReepers, it's time to wrap up this FReep-a-thon.  Lets do it...

President Donald J. Trump and the Free Republic of the United States of America

Ramirez political cartoon: Evidence of Collusion LARGE VERSION 06/14/2017: LINK  LINK to regular sized versions of his political cartoons (archive).

Please join the monthlies, an automated and the best way to help support Free Republic.  If you opt not to join the automated monthly support program, please consider joining the One One Done project.  LINK

FReepers, 97.97% of the Second Quarter FReep-a-thon goal has been met.  Click above and pencil in your donation now.  Please folks, lets end this FReepathon.  Thank you!
...this is a general all-purpose message, and should not be seen as targeting any individual I am responding to...

Just $25.00 dollars to 98.00%

[realcleanguy]

The insurrection continues. Democrats lose an election and now are threatening secession

[FlingWingFlyer]

Obama was suing Arizona every time you turned around. Trump needs to start suing some of these nasty states that abuse their taxpayers like New Yawk and California.

[JoeVet]

Seems to me the simplest solution to these morons is to make the targets so large that you could drive a truck through them.

Let the states cut their own throats.

[DUMBGRUNT]

How does that fit in with “California” (CARB) emissions standards?

If you are a California resident and acquire a new car, truck, or motorcycle from another state, it must be certified to meet California smog laws to be registered in California. This includes certain diesel-powered vehicles. DMV cannot accept an application to register a vehicle in California that does not qualify for registration (California Health and Safety Code §§43150 - 43156).
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/?1dmy&urile=wcm:path:/dmv_content_en/dmv/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr29

[facedown]

The Republicans have not shown the slightest inclination to reign in any part of the government, least of all the courts.

[SoCal Pubbie]

Clearly you haven’t seen leftist activists judges in action.

[Amendment10]

"Sure there is, it is called the Supremacy clause."

Thanks for reply eyeamok.

Have you heard of Congress’s constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers?

I agree concerning the Supremacy clause when a POTUS signs a law that is reasonably based on the limited powers that the states have expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds, most of these powers listed in Section 8.

On the other hand, please note the following limit on the Supremacy Clause.

In stark contrast to today’s politically correct interpretation of that clause, previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting Supreme Court justices had clarified the following. Not only are powers that the states haven’t expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds prohibited to the feds, but Congress cannot justify appropriating taxes for anything outside the scope of its limited powers.

• “Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

• ”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

Getting back to Obama’s energy rules, consider that even if Congress had the express constitutional consent of the states to make energy-related legislation, since Obama’s energy rules were likely established unilaterally from Congress then the states can disregard them imo.

The problem is that corrupt Congress wrongly let Obama get away with doing many things without Congress’s support, including unconstitutional things.

And even though Congress might be able to justify some energy-related laws and regulations with the Commerce Clause (1.8.3), I think that Congress still needs the express constitutional consent of the states to decide energy policy for the states.

Note that Thomas Jefferson had promoted interpreting Congress’s enumerated powers narrowly, the states amending the Constitution for new powers if necessary.

"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.

In fact, note that the eleven states involved in this lawsuit don’t come close to the 38 states needed to ratify an energy amendment to the Constitution which would give Congress the specific power to address energy conservation issues.