September 21, 2019
Blue States Sue Administration over Carbon Dioxide Regulations
Timothy Birdnow
Illinois joins 22 other states as well as the District of Columbia in filing suit against the Trump Administration demanding the authority to regulate auto carbon emissions.
According to the Belleville News Democrat:
HE won't allow the Federal government to stop Illinois from regulating carbon dioxide? Since when do Democrats defend states rights over Federal supremacy?
No mention of where the lawsuit was filed, but given this started in California, anyone want to take a guess? It was aimed at the Ninth Circuit all along.
There is not a single Republican-controlled state in this suit. The others include California, New Mexico, Nevada, Virginia, Connecticut, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, Washington, D.C., as well as New York City and Los Angeles. I don't see how the three cities have standing here.
One of the arguments being used is that this restriction will cost the individual states revenue because they won't be able to collect fines. They are actually arguing that. Perhaps they should make defecating on the sidewalk a crime and enforce it in places like, oh, San Francisco if they want extra revenue.
Read more about the Trump policy here.
Illinois joins 22 other states as well as the District of Columbia in filing suit against the Trump Administration demanding the authority to regulate auto carbon emissions.
According to the Belleville News Democrat:
Attorney General Kwame Raoul joined a group of 22 other states, the
District of Columbia and two cities in suing the federal government
after it moved Thursday to revoke the most populous state’s ability to
set stricter emission specifications than those required by President
Donald Trump’s Administration.
The lawsuit is testing the waters for how federal and state powers will be weighed when setting environmental policies to combat climate change. It was filed the same day as the Global Climate Strike, a march in more than 150 countries to urge political leaders to take action on global warming.
[...]
The effects of climate change include, the attorneys general wrote, deterioration of the state’s infrastructure, parks, agriculture sector and tourism industry. That would likely cause a drop in the amount of tax revenue those states could collect. Additionally, air quality would decay, causing public health programs to spend more, they added.
"I simply will not tolerate the federal government’s actions to refute scientific facts and allow climate change to go unchecked, all while putting our environment and public health at risk,†Raoul said in a press release.
The lawsuit is testing the waters for how federal and state powers will be weighed when setting environmental policies to combat climate change. It was filed the same day as the Global Climate Strike, a march in more than 150 countries to urge political leaders to take action on global warming.
[...]
The effects of climate change include, the attorneys general wrote, deterioration of the state’s infrastructure, parks, agriculture sector and tourism industry. That would likely cause a drop in the amount of tax revenue those states could collect. Additionally, air quality would decay, causing public health programs to spend more, they added.
"I simply will not tolerate the federal government’s actions to refute scientific facts and allow climate change to go unchecked, all while putting our environment and public health at risk,†Raoul said in a press release.
HE won't allow the Federal government to stop Illinois from regulating carbon dioxide? Since when do Democrats defend states rights over Federal supremacy?
No mention of where the lawsuit was filed, but given this started in California, anyone want to take a guess? It was aimed at the Ninth Circuit all along.
There is not a single Republican-controlled state in this suit. The others include California, New Mexico, Nevada, Virginia, Connecticut, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, Washington, D.C., as well as New York City and Los Angeles. I don't see how the three cities have standing here.
One of the arguments being used is that this restriction will cost the individual states revenue because they won't be able to collect fines. They are actually arguing that. Perhaps they should make defecating on the sidewalk a crime and enforce it in places like, oh, San Francisco if they want extra revenue.
Read more about the Trump policy here.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:04 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 398 words, total size 3 kb.
21kb generated in CPU 0.0087, elapsed 0.2357 seconds.
35 queries taking 0.2291 seconds, 157 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
35 queries taking 0.2291 seconds, 157 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
