http://theusconstitution.org/blog.warming/?p=631 Changing the Climate in the Courts Mon, 12 Apr 2010 14:38:44 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 http://theusconstitution.org/blog.warming/?p=631&cpage=1#comment-5453 Independence Intelligencer Wed, 20 May 2009 14:56:32 +0000 http://theusconstitution.org/blog.warming/?p=631#comment-5453 How is this "A Victory for . . . the Constitution!"? The only constitutional provision that was implicated was the Supremacy Clause, which makes Federal law supreme over State law, such that any State law that is contrary to Federal law is void. The issue was whether California State law, which imposed emission standards stricter than those imposed by Federal law, should be void because it was contrary to Federal law. Given that Federal law will now impose emission standards that are equally as strict as those of California State law, therefore the Supremacy Clause is no longer implicated, and there is no longer a constitutional question at issue. So, eliminating the constitutional question is a victory for the Constitution? How is this “A Victory for . . . the Constitution!”? The only constitutional provision that was implicated was the Supremacy Clause, which makes Federal law supreme over State law, such that any State law that is contrary to Federal law is void. The issue was whether California State law, which imposed emission standards stricter than those imposed by Federal law, should be void because it was contrary to Federal law. Given that Federal law will now impose emission standards that are equally as strict as those of California State law, therefore the Supremacy Clause is no longer implicated, and there is no longer a constitutional question at issue. So, eliminating the constitutional question is a victory for the Constitution?

]]>