SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Sr K who wrote (98001)12/20/2007 8:37:58 PM
From: Lizzie TudorRead Replies (4) of 306849
 
hrees a very accurate take on that issue-

Bush Faces a Long Legal Battle With California
Here is some evidence that even the Bush administration does not believe it is on solid legal ground. During the debate on the energy bill, the White House threatened a veto. It repeated the threat in the bill's final days on Capitol Hill, based on its desire to insert into the bill a declaration that the Department of Transportation was the sole regulator for both fuel economy and tailpipe emissions from cars.

Congress never agreed to this language, and with 87 percent of the public supporting more-efficient cars, the White House never followed through on its veto on this extremely technical point. But it is a technicality that would have snatched away California's authority, which has its root in the law giving the EPA power over tailpipe emissions.

The automakers also made a last-ditch effort to get what is called "legislative history" on their side to use in coming court battles. After Michigan Sen. Carl Levin failed in getting the language on the EPA's authority placed into the bill, he initiated a "colloquy" on the Senate floor with California Sen. Dianne Feinstein to try to establish the Department of Transportation's supremacy on tailpipe emissions. Feinstein apparently viewed her on-floor discussion with the auto-state Democrat as such a stumble that she later came back to the Senate floor to make another statement about the energy bill: "There was no intent in any way, shape, or form to negatively affect, or otherwise restrain, California or any other state's existing or future tailpipe emissions laws, or any future EPA authority on tailpipe emissions." You can read the Blog for Clean Air entries of December 12 and 13 for all the details.
usnews.com
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News