“Obama Moves to Let States Set Own Rules on Emissions”

So says The Wall Street Journal:

President Barack Obama plans to call on the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday to consider allowing states including California to regulate automobile greenhouse-gas emissions, said people familiar with the administration’s thinking.

The move will signal a major policy break from his predecessor on an issue that has divided key Democratic Party constituencies …

… Mr. Obama’s plans were described to The Wall Street Journal by three people familiar with the administration’s thinking, including one administration official. Mr. Obama was expected to outline his plans in directives to the agencies to be released at a White House event Monday.

As I previously discussed, this is not necessarily as it seems.

Neither Bush nor Obama demonstrates a belief in states rights in this case.  Bush showed his colors by enforcing federal standards against state wishes.  Obama will do the same, but with one exception – states can have laws which are more totalitarian than the federal ones.

Imagine what would happen if the State of Idaho, for example, wanted to adopt a standard which was “lower” than the federal standards.  Do you think Obama, Bush, or almost anyone in Washington would be willing to go along with that?

The truth is that virtually nobody in Washington believes in the 10th amendment [States Rights] anymore.  They feel they can, and therefore rightfully should, regulate pretty much anything they feel like regulating.

In an effort to defend Washington’s tough vehicle emissions standards law, Attorney General Rob McKenna today announced Washington state will join 14 other states in intervening in a California lawsuit filed earlier today.

The lawsuit filed today in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals challenges the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to deny California’s request for a waiver to implement its greenhouse gas emissions standards.

“The state of Washington followed California’s lead in adopting standards for vehicle emissions with the understanding California’s request for a federal pre-emption waiver would be granted in a timely manner,” McKenna said. “Now after nearly two years of waiting, EPA has denied the waiver, leaving states frustrated in their ability to address climate change concerns for their residents.”

The Clean Air Act generally preempts states from adopting their own vehicle emissions standards with the exception of California because of its efforts to address long-standing air pollution problems.  The Clean Air Act allows other states to adopt California’s standards as long as those standards are identical to California’s.

California adopted landmark vehicle emissions standards in 2005 and filed its waiver request in December 2005. Since then, 16 other states, including Washington, have also adopted or are considering adopting these standards.

None of these state laws may go into effect until California obtains its waiver of preemption from the federal government.

On Dec. 19, 2007, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson notified California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of EPA’s decision to deny the state’s waiver request.  Johnson stated he believed the problem of greenhouse gas emissions extends beyond state boundaries and calls for a national solution.  He also found that California’s standards were not needed “to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.”

Today’s lawsuit, which seeks to reverse the EPA decision, was filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The states or state agencies intervening in the suit are: Massachusetts, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

The Constitution was written under a simple principle – positive grant.  In short, what this means is this: The federal government is authorized to exercise only those powers which are specifically given to it in the Constitution.

Everything else is “reserved to the States, respectively, or to the People.”

Period.

The Tenth Amendment Center supports McKenna’s position – the federal government has no constitutional authority, whatsoever, to prevent individual states from implementing their own regulations.