Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

agnos.is Forums

  1. Home
  2. Electric Vehicles
  3. The Republican Assault on EVs Is Almost Complete

The Republican Assault on EVs Is Almost Complete

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Electric Vehicles
electricvehicle
12 Posts 9 Posters 1 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • sunshine@lemmy.caS This user is from outside of this forum
    sunshine@lemmy.caS This user is from outside of this forum
    [email protected]
    wrote last edited by
    #1
    This post did not contain any content.
    cruxifux@feddit.nlC dan@upvote.auD A B U 5 Replies Last reply
    40
    • sunshine@lemmy.caS [email protected]
      This post did not contain any content.
      cruxifux@feddit.nlC This user is from outside of this forum
      cruxifux@feddit.nlC This user is from outside of this forum
      [email protected]
      wrote last edited by
      #2

      For the first time I wonder if Musk joining the republicans wasn’t calculated in some way to tank EV sales.

      1 Reply Last reply
      5
      • sunshine@lemmy.caS [email protected]
        This post did not contain any content.
        dan@upvote.auD This user is from outside of this forum
        dan@upvote.auD This user is from outside of this forum
        [email protected]
        wrote last edited by [email protected]
        #3

        I don't understand how the Senate can block a Californian law. Aren't states supposed to have the autonomy to make their own laws?

        treadful@lemmy.zipT B 2 Replies Last reply
        1
        • sunshine@lemmy.caS [email protected]
          This post did not contain any content.
          A This user is from outside of this forum
          A This user is from outside of this forum
          [email protected]
          wrote last edited by
          #4

          bikes are a great mode of transportation. they keep you active and healthy. they are fun. you are the only fuel they need. and they are cheap in comparison to a car. they can last multiple lifetimes if treated well and maintained. you dont need a license to ride one, and no insurance payments.

          not for everyone, sure. but they are an option. also they are much better for the environment than any vehicle can possibly be.

          just throwing out another option for those who can/care to give them a shot.

          1 Reply Last reply
          6
          • dan@upvote.auD [email protected]

            I don't understand how the Senate can block a Californian law. Aren't states supposed to have the autonomy to make their own laws?

            treadful@lemmy.zipT This user is from outside of this forum
            treadful@lemmy.zipT This user is from outside of this forum
            [email protected]
            wrote last edited by
            #5

            Federal law supersedes state law.

            dan@upvote.auD 1 Reply Last reply
            1
            • dan@upvote.auD [email protected]

              I don't understand how the Senate can block a Californian law. Aren't states supposed to have the autonomy to make their own laws?

              B This user is from outside of this forum
              B This user is from outside of this forum
              [email protected]
              wrote last edited by
              #6

              I believe it’s because CA’s laws would become the defacto law due to how much control it has over the auto market.

              U 1 Reply Last reply
              2
              • treadful@lemmy.zipT [email protected]

                Federal law supersedes state law.

                dan@upvote.auD This user is from outside of this forum
                dan@upvote.auD This user is from outside of this forum
                [email protected]
                wrote last edited by [email protected]
                #7

                Can't states have laws that are stricter than federal law though? California has a lot of laws that are stricter than federal laws, for example tighter regulation of guns, better worker protection (for things like overtime and rest breaks), etc. I don't get how laws about cars are any different.

                treadful@lemmy.zipT 1 Reply Last reply
                2
                • dan@upvote.auD [email protected]

                  Can't states have laws that are stricter than federal law though? California has a lot of laws that are stricter than federal laws, for example tighter regulation of guns, better worker protection (for things like overtime and rest breaks), etc. I don't get how laws about cars are any different.

                  treadful@lemmy.zipT This user is from outside of this forum
                  treadful@lemmy.zipT This user is from outside of this forum
                  [email protected]
                  wrote last edited by
                  #8

                  From TFA:

                  The same goes for the Senate’s vote to block California’s program banning gas-guzzlers by 2035. The state has the power to do this under a long-standing waiver to the Clean Air Act allowing it to set its own emissions standards.

                  In this case, California was utilizing a federal law to effectively ban ICE vehicles and Congress closed that "loop hole."

                  State laws are wholly operating within federal law, insofar as the federal government has the authority granted to it by the constitution to do so. Anything not granted to the federal government is defacto state territory according to their constitution.

                  I'm not the guy to really explain your specific questions though. Most of that has to do with a long history of legal precedent and constitutional law over hundreds of years.

                  O 1 Reply Last reply
                  3
                  • sunshine@lemmy.caS [email protected]
                    This post did not contain any content.
                    B This user is from outside of this forum
                    B This user is from outside of this forum
                    [email protected]
                    wrote last edited by
                    #9

                    “States’ rights” to reduce pollution: 👎

                    “States’ rights” to own slaves: 👍

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    2
                    • treadful@lemmy.zipT [email protected]

                      From TFA:

                      The same goes for the Senate’s vote to block California’s program banning gas-guzzlers by 2035. The state has the power to do this under a long-standing waiver to the Clean Air Act allowing it to set its own emissions standards.

                      In this case, California was utilizing a federal law to effectively ban ICE vehicles and Congress closed that "loop hole."

                      State laws are wholly operating within federal law, insofar as the federal government has the authority granted to it by the constitution to do so. Anything not granted to the federal government is defacto state territory according to their constitution.

                      I'm not the guy to really explain your specific questions though. Most of that has to do with a long history of legal precedent and constitutional law over hundreds of years.

                      O This user is from outside of this forum
                      O This user is from outside of this forum
                      [email protected]
                      wrote last edited by
                      #10

                      So the Ministry of Love Truth Peace Clean Air legally prohibits states from having clean air?

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • sunshine@lemmy.caS [email protected]
                        This post did not contain any content.
                        U This user is from outside of this forum
                        U This user is from outside of this forum
                        [email protected]
                        wrote last edited by
                        #11

                        Sure sucks to be a US automaker. Meanwhile, the rest of the world eats our lunch. That's just about the level of incompetence I expect from Republicans.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • B [email protected]

                          I believe it’s because CA’s laws would become the defacto law due to how much control it has over the auto market.

                          U This user is from outside of this forum
                          U This user is from outside of this forum
                          [email protected]
                          wrote last edited by
                          #12

                          This. AKA the interstate commerce clause. Unfortunately the argument is not without merit.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          Reply
                          • Reply as topic
                          Log in to reply
                          • Oldest to Newest
                          • Newest to Oldest
                          • Most Votes


                          • Login

                          • Login or register to search.
                          • First post
                            Last post
                          0
                          • Categories
                          • Recent
                          • Tags
                          • Popular
                          • World
                          • Users
                          • Groups