[rando56473]

I don’t agree that it’s unconstititional. (But, I do contend that it’s a foolish, regressive action for the administration to take.)

The federal government clearly has constitutional power to establish preemptive law in this area. Whether that preemptive effect is conditionally or selectively waived, and whether the waiver involves executive discretion, doesn’t change the constitutional dimensions of the issue, in my opinion.

[throwaway5752]

How do you reconcile it with the 10th amendment. Due to local effects of emissions it should be within state purview. The case (because this will reach the scotus) will be based the commerce clause, and that is nonsense because it is a critical health issue in smog prone areas.

You can argue abstract about trends in commerce clause based decisions in the 20th century between wickburn and lopez, but my point is you can throw that out the window: there is a plausible argument that allows a conservative decision. Therefore, regardless of precedent, the decision will be made along partisan lines. If a Democratic president is elected in 2020, precedent will be summarily reversed. The conservative movement is completely comfortable with power and exercising it maximally.

[dragonwriter]

The argument that it is unconstitutional is not that the federal government lacks the power to make preemptive law, but that this specific action is not within the power delegated to the executive by Congress under Congress exercise of its power to legislate in this area.