EV Cheating Scandal [LOCKED DUE TO POLITICS]

[mkhuffman]

Nixon established the EPA for the very reason I mentioned. We're supposed to understand our history to avoid repeating the same mistakes.

https://time.com/4696104/environmental-protection-agency-1970-history/

I can appreciate the ideology of anything not in the constitution is illegal, but if that was practiced, we would not be able to address critical issues because congress is broken and ineffective.

That's not a realistic worldview.

If it is not in the Constitution, the state governments (or the people) are responsible.

If some problem is causing serious issues and we feel it must be addressed on a national scale, then there is a process for authorizing the Federal Government to take care of it: amend the Constitution. If we cannot muster the votes and support necessary to do that, then the problem isn't serious enough.

Sponsored

 

[Scooby24]

If it is not in the Constitution, the state governments (or the people) are responsible.

If some problem is causing serious issues and we feel it must be addressed on a national scale, then there is a process for authorizing the Federal Government to take care of it: amend the Constitution. If we cannot muster the votes and support necessary to do that, then the problem isn't serious enough.

The EPA was authorized to regulate by the senate 73-0 in 1970. The House 374-1.

Not serious enough?

 

[Hammered]

The EPA was authorized to regulate by the senate 73-0 in 1970. The House 374-1.

Not serious enough?

The congress doesn't have the power to create another legislative house, they are the legislative house. They have no power to delegate away their power essentially side-stepping the constitutional process whereby they and they alone are tasked with creating laws. There's been entirely too much perversion and it needs to be reined in. The constitution created an entity and a cage, and continued expansion outside of its cage doesn't make it right, just, or moral. It's time to put the beast back into its box.

 

[Scooby24]

The congress doesn't have the power to create another legislative house, they are the legislative house. They have no power to delegate away their power essentially side-stepping the constitutional process whereby they and they alone are tasked with creating laws. There's been entirely too much perversion and it needs to be reined in. The constitution created an entity and a cage, and continued expansion outside of its cage doesn't make it right, just, or moral. It's time to put the beast back into its box.

Why do you believe congress supported the establishment of the EPAs regulation powers in the manner they did when they clearly had the votes for a constitutional amendment?

 

[Hammered]

Why do you believe congress supported the establishment of the EPAs regulation powers in the manner they did when they clearly had the votes for a constitutional amendment?

So it could be abolished when it got out of hand.

 

[Ghost Ryder]

Maybe? We will never know.

But I can say for certain they don’t need those credits anymore today.

If the justification for them getting them in the past is “need based,” then I say we use the same argument to stop giving them the credits because they aren’t needed anymore.

I can get on board with the idea that they “served a purpose” in the past as long as we change them when we don’t need them anymore.

But other companies still need the tax credits. Can't really single out one company.

 

[Scooby24]

So it could be abolished when it got out of hand.

Well for that to make sense, you must be meaning it was intended to be abolished by the same body. If that was what you meant then I would agree. In which case Congress should put it to a vote.

 

[nvabill]

 

[ctenidae]

There's nothing hidden or nefarious about the multiplier or carbon credits. Just

Only works if you believe those carbon credits were passed on to the consumer and affected consumer behavior.

I’m not convinced.

Consumer behavior gets driven by the options available. That gets driven by the policy actions.

People buy EVs even when they're not quite practical. Job done.

 

[mkhuffman]

Well for that to make sense, you must be meaning it was intended to be abolished by the same body. If that was what you meant then I would agree. In which case Congress should put it to a vote.

They should have amended the Constitution but they didn't. They didn't follow the correct process. That doesn't make it right or even legal.

The process to add the authority via a Constitutional amendment would not have been nearly as easy as a vote on a bill. And if they had tried that, it might have failed. Who knows? A Constitutional amendment would have basically been permanent. Maybe more than a few supporters would have dropped off in that situation.

They took the easy way out because there other agencies that are unconstitutional, so why not create another one?

 

[Phrozen]

You know what else isn't specifically in the Constitution, Huffman? The Air Force. In any event, this has nothing to do with the EPA--CAFE is part of USDOT.

As for this WSJ op-ed, it's an obvious attempt at an EV hit-job. The multiplier is clearly intended to further incentivize the adoption of EVs, which as I would hope we here can all agree, have more societal benefits than merely their "gas mileage." By increasing their impact by 667%, there are more credits available to the auto industry as a whole. The effectiveness of this can certainly be debated, but there's nothing "cheating" or "scandal"ous about it.

 

[Hammered]

Well for that to make sense, you must be meaning it was intended to be abolished by the same body. If that was what you meant then I would agree. In which case Congress should put it to a vote.

No, SCOTUS would be the one to kill it. The whole checks and balances thing at play.

 

[ferrin]

and I’m not gonna doubt the WSJ reporting

LOL. Haven't kept up on WSJ in recent years, huh?

 

[mkhuffman]

You know what else isn't specifically in the Constitution, Huffman? The Air Force.

Henry, the Constitution specifies that the Federal Government is responsible for national security. The Air Force is part of our national security.

 

[Mirak]

The amount of vitriol is really off the charts. What a pleasant year this will be. Good grief, folks. Chill. Please.

Sponsored