Image by Tina Chelidze.

In the days when overt racism was a thing (that is, the days of Jim Crow), it was often said that states’ rights had to be respected by the federal government. That same assertion of states’ rights and devolving power to the 50 states returned in the 1970s and was called the Sagebrush Rebellion. That dispute involved public lands in the West and demands that those lands be turned over to the respective states which would then issue permits for oil drilling, coal extraction, and so on.

The rights of states to make their own laws and set their own regulatory standards has been a primarily Republican complaint for the past decades. Federal government has become too strong, too powerful, it is said, so power needs to return to its “original” dual federalism model where decision making is divided between the federal and state authorities.

That was then, this is now. Whereas state authority was supposedly being taken away by a hyperactive national government in Washington, DC, suddenly the shoe is on the other foot in this day and age. On 22 May, The US Senate voted to nullify California’s planned transition to electric and hybrid cars by eliminating a waiver issued by the Biden administration to allow more stringent rules in that state to deal with air pollution as well as continued global warming. Suddenly, it’s okay to stomp on the authority of the state. Why is that so? Oh, it’s California, a supposed blue state.

Wyoming Senator John Barrasso feigned shock that a state might want to eliminate gasoline-powered automobiles, in effect, saying it’s a right to go to gas stations. Well, not everyone can and will drive an all-electric (EV) car (there’s not enough lithium-ION to make that workable), so Barrasso shouldn’t have to worry. Besides, if one drives a hybrid (guilty as charged), that would still be necessary even though fill-ups are less frequent (which is great, by the way).

The real issue is hypocrisy. When is it acceptable for the national government to supersede state power, and when is it not? In this instance, the Senate steps in to stop California. Little do Barrasso and other lawmakers know that many manufacturers are already planning on going all EV/hybrid in years to come. Volvo plans on transitioning to that combination in upcoming years while VW Group is planning on going all-electric in the 2030s.

Earlier in the week, one of the platforms pumping oil in the Santa Barbara Channel was restarted, as the company involved claimed that the California Coastal Commission lacked authority to stop them. This will inevitably lead to legal challenges in a court of law. What it does not change is that the oil off Santa Barbara is mostly gone. That is why the platforms closed to begin with. But let’s not have economic common sense stand in the way. Let’s let the federal government decide who gets their way, not what’s best for California. It does not take a lot of oil to do environmental damage, witness the relatively small leak at Refugio Beach, north of Santa Barbara, just a handful of years ago.

There are yet more double standards. The White House also jumped in on the same day (22 May) to announce that it would not allow international students to be accepted to Harvard, subject to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) approval. In what is supposed to be a capitalist economic system, how is it okay for the federal government to jump in and make decisions on behalf of a private institution? Where is the boundary between the government and private interests? In the interests of keeping “antisemites” out of Harvard, DHS reserves the right to intervene, meaning that only compliant and docile students may be allowed to enroll. Forgo any first amendment rights to free speech, and one gets in. What a wonderful message to send out to the world.

Here again, Washington decides to intervene in a matter that should be decided by a private entity and secondly, it jumps in on a matter in a particular state to say that no, this is a federal issue. This time, it’s the state of Massachusetts that apparently cannot manage its own affairs.

The late German writer Hans Magnus Enzensberger once asked: why is consistency a criterion for deciding what is good and what is not? Enzensberger was not sure what the answer might be. But it is here. Beyond the consolidation of power itself, there is no reason to grant power to the federal government. That is not what happened with ending Jim Crow, but it is here. Leave the states alone.

The post States’ Rights in California appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.