I'm a little confused here. Doesn't the article state that Trump was trying to reduce the EPA rules and force a lower standard to make it easier with which to comply; but, California wants stricter standards, so they passed a law for stricter standards that Trump is trying to override.

If California sets mileage limits higher than Federal, the auto companies will have two choices: either tack on the extra cost of compliance with all models sold in the state; or only sell the models that achieve the California limits. Either choice won't make stockholders happy, as it will limit sales in California, which is a big market.

Since making their whole lines more expensive with choice 1 for a limited market could hurt their national market, the companies will be likely to go with limiting the models available to California buyers. No big SUVs, no pickups, no big luxury models other than the Tesla model S. Will California buyers be happy with a state-approved set of autos limited to subcompacts, hybrid compacts, and electric vehicles? In fact, the Obama-era mileage goal of over 54 mpg fleet average may force out anything but hybrids and electrics, and if the Trump administration drops the tax credit for electric vehicles, even those models will become too expensive for middle class buyers. Would that be the final straw that drives a change in California politics?

EPA standards? Me dino is all for doing away with the EPA altogether.
May help a little with this gorilla in the room~http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Can't imagine any state tolerating dirty air, dirty water in this day and time.
Yeah, that above statement doesn't count in regard to human feces that litter Kalifornia big city streets.

Actually...Although I too am loathe to take issue with you....I think in this case the commerce clause may be valid as a source of Federal Power here. The commerce clause was directly intended to avoid states doing things like imposing tariffs on another states goods, thereby interrupting what should be free trade. [Idaho for instance imposing a tariff on potatoes from out of state] The California requirements could be interpreted as a barrier to trade as the auto manufacturers have to build cars differently for California and the consumer gets the shaft. It is a hell of a lot better argument than the Heart of Atlanta Motel argument, or Wickard V Filburn.

Anyway...no matter how it goes it will upset somebody's apple cart of power.

i'm with you...but the Supreme Court has become unjust...more like a Soviet Politburo...

Unfortunately I do not understand what point you are trying to make.
If secession happened before 1860 that supports my point that states rights existed prior to 1860 and such states rights made the states stronger and the federal government weaker as the founders intended. There has not been any secession or serious threat of secession since 1860. That "states right" was about the only remaining response for states to a federal government that was not complying in 1860 with the spirit of the defining agreement between states, the US Constitution. The federal government had imposed heavy taxation upon some southern states to benefit manufacturers of northern states who had given support to Lincoln and his new whig replacement party, the GOP in the 1860 elections. This high tariff had been tried about 30 years earlier and had nearly caused some states to secede at that time. Lincoln knew what the result of the high tariffs would be and he would not negotiate with southern representatives to avert war. Lincoln wanted a war against the southern states to increase federal power and his own power.
For a well researched discussion on the causes of the war I recommend reading The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo.

STATE, n. A people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common-law habits and custom into one body politic exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries, capable of making war and peace and of entering into international relations with other communities of the globe. United States v. Kusche, D.C.Cal., 56 F. Supp. 201, 207, 208. The organization of social life which exercises sovereign power in behalf of the people. Delany v. Moraitis, C.C.A.Md., 136 F. 2d 129, 130 - Black's Law Dictionary, Revised 4th Edition, 1968.

By the Declaration of Independence each of the existing colonies became independent countries in 1776.

Supposedly, it was they that formed this thing called the united States. So if they formed, why could they not unform?

But it was not secession that was the problem, that happened before 1860. That was not the cause of the war.

But supposed is wishful thinking and has nothing to do with reality. I can see you are not a student of history or you would not be shocked, Every republic has gone the same way in the same manner throughout time, It's all based on morality. When chefs become heroes, then the end is near.

While I agree that the amendments and federal reserve act of 1913 were the most repressive of liberty since 1860, if that were true the southern states would have been a separate country starting in 1860.

True, the Federal Government is "supposed" to have very limited powers.

Ok, fair enough. I see your point.

But they do have limited powers. The problem is they get to set the limits.

Actually the states had all their powers until Amendment XVII in 1913. Wow, what else happened in 1913, can you say coup?

Actually is was 1868 when the 14th Amendment was ratified by coercion. The southern states, already under federal governor control, where kicked out of the senate and where not allowed back until they had signed the 14th Amendment which the southern states had rejected.

All the southern states where required to rewrite their constitutions and have approved by congress before being allowed to have their seats back and elect their own governors.

California must do as the feds say for many reasons. First and most important is the fact that the state of California is a federal corporation chartered by the federal government. If the federal government cancels their charter, then under the Northwest Treaty, the federal government appoints a governor until the territory becomes eligible to be a state.

Or to punish, they let the charter remain and just cut them off from sources of federal tax dollars. Just messing with Medicaid would be devastating to that broke government.

This should be one heck of a circus come November.

That is but half of it. When coupled with the proper and necessary clause, congress has had many hay days.

Throw into that the opinion by those mystical beings in black robes whereas a farmer was held to be in interstate for growing his own wheat because if he hadn't grow the wheat he would of purchased wheat that could involve interstate commerce.

Trade between the states was massive from the beginning. Many exports from the south could not be created in the north due to climate so they were exported to the north. Some manufactured goods were made in the northern states and not in the south, but they had intense competition from Britain and France. The states had more power than the federal government prior to 1860.

In my persons, I read documents as written. I have also researched five ways from Sunday in all directions around it. But what does that have to with justice?

No doubt you are trying to imply those 9 mystical beings in black robes that any five can control those little sheeple commonly referred to as citizens.

Them and the district courts now have the power to control the president. How do you rectify this in light of Article III, Section 2, Clause 2:

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

The clause John Marshall used in Marbury v Madison to declare the legislature erred as to his power which he redefined by the above clause and as punishment declared the court the supreme arbitrator as to the constitutionality of things. It has been all downhill from there.

Guess you don't "gotme".

I make no claims of expert knowledge of legal rulings before 1860. Yet, it seems reasonable that anything produced before 1860 would have been almost exclusively used within a state. Thus, it makes sense that deference to states so they could regulate horses, or horse and buggies would have been the norm.

With respect, your rational reading is the opposite of the way it was rationally read before 1860 and states had the rights designed in the constitution by the founders.

The original intent, if I recall, was only for the federal government to prevent the states from charging tariffs in trade between states. (The language of that clause is hideously vague and has been used to destroy liberty and free trade for 150 years.)

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States"
Automobiles are produced, sold and utilized among the several states. A rational reading would indicate that California must defer to the US Congress laws, wise or foolish.

Ha.
We objectivists can only dream of such an outcome as the Federal Government does not have the authority to set EPA mileage standards. They don't, of course, but the idea that they do is so ingrained that it is a pipe dream to hope for a ruling stating that anything limits the Federal Governments powers.

Ah, so you are reading it according to the opinions of the Justices and not the original intent. Gotcha.

I'm for no federal mpg standards at all. Let the free market dictate what features are needed by buyers choices.
CA can set whatever standards they are allowed by the CA voters. States rights over federal meddling. It may require secession to achieve.