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