Clean Air Act Dbq

The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the Constitution in Article 1, Section 8, and Clause 3. The Clause states that the United States Congress shall power, “To regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” The Commerce Clause represents one of the most fundamental powers delegated to Congress. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Lopez and reversed his conviction, holding that, “Section 922, in the full reach of its terms, is invalid as beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause” (Source 1.)

Narrow construction is not found in the Constitution, but the powers granted to Congress to regulate commerce are found. Exactly stated, "Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes." This clause has no definite interpretation, but has included many aspects of regulating. The word "commerce" is defined as the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place (Webster 264). Congress has exercised this delegated power in many cases. The nature and basic guidelines of Congress' power over commerce is first laid out in the case of Gibbons v. Ogden. In addition, the case United States v. Lopez is a

The Commerce Clause grants Congress the power “[t]o regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” Despite its silence as to the effect of that affirmative power, federal courts have recognized the Framers’ wish to create a unified national market and have found a dormant congressional authority in it. Since the landmark case of Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), that dormant authority has limited state regulations that burden interstate commerce, even in the absence of congressional regulation. Congress has the power only to restrict the scope of permissible state regulation but it does not absolutely preclude states from affecting commerce. "[T]he states retain authority under their police powers to regulate matters of 'legitimate local concern', even though interstate commerce may be affected." A challenged statute is upheld if its effect on interstate commerce is merely incidental. On the other hand, a state regulation that is facially or practically discriminatory will be defeated unless it shows a legitimate local purpose that cannot be accomplished by any less discriminatory alternatives.

Narrow construction is not found in the Constitution, but the powers granted to Congress to regulate commerce are found. Exactly stated, “Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” This clause has no definite interpretation, but has included many aspects of regulating. The word “commerce” is defined as the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place (Webster 264). Congress has exercised this delegated power in many cases. The nature and basic guidelines of Congress’ power over commerce is first laid out in the case of

One of the many powers given to Congress by the Constitution is the Commerce Clause. This clause allows Congress to regulate commerce between foreign nations, states, and Indian tribes. The authority laid out authorizes Congress to pass laws that ultimately regulate activities of states and citizens and free the restraints of states who feel otherwise. Throughout the history of the United States, the Commerce Clause has caused controversy over the extent that Congress can justify the use of this clause to pass laws. The Supreme Court has been relied on to determine the constitutionality of the laws and settle the controversies. One of these controversies lies within the Supreme Court case of United States v. Lopez.

The United States Constitution is a written document that provides the framework for the federal government and is ultimately the supreme law for Americans to abide by. This document “establishes the structure of the federal government, delegates powers to the federal government, and guarantees certain fundamental rights (Cheeseman, 2007, p. 49).” These fundamental rights, laws and freedoms are granted, to all Americans. Despite the ratification of the Constitution in 1788, the laws still pertain to today’s ever-changing economy and culture. The Constitution has been referred to as a “living” document that evolves in unison with our country. The comprehension of the Commerce

Chapter 19th of the textbook, “Air Pollution Policy in Canada: Government Leadership or Smoke and Mirrors?” written by Owen Temby, Don Munton and Ingur Weibust, mainly focuses on dealing with trans-boundary air pollution and how it has been one of the concerning issues of Canada since 1970 because of the federal government in past few years.

Tribal relations to the United States are similar to that of "a ward and his guardian. ' This sentiment was proclaimed in 1831 in Cherokee Nation V. Georgia. The United States has been attempting to integrate Native populations into the American systems since the first settlements arrived from across the sea. Original tribal status was that of ‘dependent domestic nations’1. Recent history has changed the status of Native America to one of self-determination and sovereignty. This status was not determined by the US Constitution as Native Tribes were sovereign people before Colonialization. The Unites States solidified the direct relationship between the Native Nations and the Federal Government with the Indian Commerce Clause of 1879. The Commerce Clause allowed Congress alone the power to regulate commerce between the United States and the Indian tribes.2 The Marshall Trilogy, Chief Justice Marshall’s Supreme Court cases designated the limits of tribal sovereignty for the Native populations being surrounded by the newly formed United States of America. In the first case, Johnson v. M’Intosh, the Court recognized Indian nations do not have a right to enter into treaties without federal approval.3 In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, Chief Justice Marshal defined the Indian nations as ‘domestic dependent nations.’4 In the final case, Worcester v. Georgia, the Supreme Court recognized the Native nation’s right to self-govern – releasing any control by the States

Therefore, state laws do not interfere with the federal regulations. However, the state has the freedom to standardize any laws as long the federal government doesn’t specifically set its own law. Nonetheless, federal governments and state governments need to join together and address the Clean Air Act in congress. The environment is a should be a concern for both parties, by having different regulations for each state sets a confusing tone there needs to be some standardized uniformity put into

The wonders of the federal government do diligences in keeping separation of power (Judicial, executive, and legislator) has developed in many ways since the forefathers wrote the United States Constitution. In its depiction through the judicial proceedings has led to reforming how commerce clause is viewed. Let us take the constitution as a road map. Interpreting its powers has also form how congress uses those same power when it comes to the digression of law making (Legislation branch). In Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), United States v. E.C. Knight Company (1895), Muller v. Oregon (1908), Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918), National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937), and Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States et al. (1964), I will illustrate how they change the way in which commerce power is handle within the federal government.

The first legislation for air pollution was the Air Pollution Control Act of 1955. Although air pollution was not a new phenomenon this legislation was the first to fund research to investigate the sources of air pollution, and raise public awareness. This legislation followed the 1948 incident in Donora, Pennsylvania of industrial smog that killed 21 people and sickened over 6000 people, and the international incident in London where smog killed over 4000. After research and investigation the Air Pollution Control Act was expanded into the Clean Air Act of 1963 and this Act was amended up until 1990. I believe that political/governmental reactions has been the biggest influence on reducing air pollution. Once the data and research was available the potential health risks were obvious. The CAA identified the largest contributors and imposed limits and subjected them to monitoring. The CAA has reduced emissions, removed lead from gasoline, reduced byproducts of fossil fuel combustion (SO2,NO2), increased fuel economy standards, and reduced the use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFC's) and chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's). A lot of these help regulate one of the biggest human contributors to air pollution, DRIVING. Big cities all suffer from traffic and congestion so my city (DC) implemented an anti-idiling law where vehicles are not allowed to idle for more than three minutes. My city also offers education and outreach services for air quality issues. The government in my opinion is the

The clean air act is regulatory act that has a purpose of monitoring and adjusting the emissions from mobile and stationary sources, like vehicles and factories. As a whole and individual states, the clean air act’s purpose in the United States is to keep the air quality clean so people can live in healthy environments with clean air. Each individual state has their own different standards when it comes to air quality. To each of the factories and power plants that follow the clean air act standards are given allowances. The places that switch over to the clean burning systems, solar power, wind power and so on, are also given these

Up until lately, air pollution has been accomplished solely in the controlling atmosphere. Consequently, the matter offers us an outstanding illustration of how strategies creation has worked in the past years; federal determinations have helped states recognize the sources of air pollution and the influences of those discharges (Dale, 2015, chap.3 sum). The Clean Air Act remains to progress to replicate new discipline and deliver technology-based values for guidelines. Current struggles to increase the management to contain market-based, tradable documents also give us a respected intimation about the route for control. The global field has so far delivered insignificant but vital provision for state, government, and resident labors to administer

The clean-air law has been violated by Exxon so, by agreeing to pay a $2.5 million civil penalty and spend $300 million on pollution-control technology, Exxon has settled their dispute. But, with every conflict being resolved, their has to be someone who isn’t done with the problem. Like some environmentalists are criticizing the settlement by saying it’s a insufficient punishment for years of violations by the giant oil company. I mean, I agree with this since we hurt the environment pretty bad already and now we’re basically saying it’s ok if you don’t follow the rules we put in place to protect our environment from our growing economy, as long as you pay to “help” it bounce back. But good things did come out of this since they’re using that

First I will discuss the overall Clean Air Act regulations and permitting implications of both proposed Maumee projects. Then I will delve into the specifics related to each project separately.