Is it true George W. Bush eliminated a law requiring US auto manufactures to produce many hybrid vehicles?
March 5th, 2010 | by admin |If so how his this decision effected the big 3?
The President can neither make laws or terminate them. Laws are made by Congress and they can also pass a bill to undo a bad law. The Supreme Court can declare a law to be unconstitutional and thus void it. But, the President can only veto a bill to keep it from becoming law. However, his veto can be overridden by a 2/3 majority.
16 Responses to “Is it true George W. Bush eliminated a law requiring US auto manufactures to produce many hybrid vehicles?”
By Reality has a Liberal Bias on Mar 5, 2010 | Reply
Wouldn’t surprise me. Now we’re behind in that category.
Bush’s Final Fumble on Fuel Economy
PUBLISHED JANUARY 16, 2009
wo weeks ago, the Bush Administration said that it "will not finalize its rulemaking on Corporate Fuel Economy Standards." That’s a shame because the regulations were understood to be all but finalized and ready for White House sign-off more than a month ago. It would have, at least, given Bush a chance to burnish the "light green" part of his legacy.
"Last March, President Bush plugged an electric cord into a hybrid on the White House lawn. Photo opportunities aside, Bush will step down without finalizing new fuel efficiency laws.
The Department of Transportation’s CAFE proposal, covering model years 2011-2015, was on track toward meeting the 2020 target of 35 miles per gallon. But the Administration couldn’t resist taking one last dig at California’s tough greenhouse gas regulations for cars, known as Pavley standards, by adding language saying that state regulations for CO2 tailpipe emissions "are expressly and impliedly preempted" by its interpretation of Federal law.
Forget that the Bush interpretation had already been struck down by two Federal courts. Such a posture was another attempt to lend legal ammunition to automakers still hoping to derail California and other states’ leadership on stronger steps to protect the climate."
References :
http://www.hybridcars.com/incentives-laws/bush-final-fumble-fuel-economy-25422.html
By Missouri Patriot on Mar 5, 2010 | Reply
That was the Dem congress!
References :
By scott b on Mar 5, 2010 | Reply
The President doesn’t have the authority to "eliminate" a law. Only the Supreme Court can do that, or congress by writing another law that supersedes it.
References :
By civil_av8r on Mar 5, 2010 | Reply
We’ve never had a law regulating what types of vehicles a car company had to produce.
References :
By Andy on Mar 5, 2010 | Reply
The president can’t do that.
References :
By Jean-Luc Picard on Mar 5, 2010 | Reply
yes
References :
By Patrick G on Mar 5, 2010 | Reply
Absolutely not.
First, there was never such a law.
Second, the president does not have unilateral authority to abolish a law.
References :
I can read
By captain awesome on Mar 5, 2010 | Reply
I’ve never heard of it but if he did good for him. Congress has no right to tell companies what to manufacture. If there was a demand for hybrid vehicles, more people would be buying them without the need to mandate it.
References :
By It's him again on Mar 5, 2010 | Reply
Bush has investments in the oil industry.
References :
By Brian on Mar 5, 2010 | Reply
No, Presidents can’t do that..
References :
By Stainless Steel Rat on Mar 5, 2010 | Reply
I never heard of it. However keep in mind that he and Cheney are big oil men. Condaleeza was also into oil. Exxon named one of their tankers for her.
References :
By 2012, Hope for Change!! on Mar 5, 2010 | Reply
Presidents don’t have that kind of power even if such a law existed. Your one of those people who think he snapped his fingers and here comes Katrina to wipe out New Orleans.
Send a postcard when you get back to reality please.
References :
By donk35 on Mar 5, 2010 | Reply
Do you really believe Bush would have access to an unpublished law? Another Blame Bush scheme.
References :
By plezurgui on Mar 5, 2010 | Reply
The President can neither make laws or terminate them. Laws are made by Congress and they can also pass a bill to undo a bad law. The Supreme Court can declare a law to be unconstitutional and thus void it. But, the President can only veto a bill to keep it from becoming law. However, his veto can be overridden by a 2/3 majority.
References :
By sociald on Mar 5, 2010 | Reply
A law like that wouldnt make sense. If there was a demand for hybrid vehicles then an automaker would naturally make them. If you had a law requireing them to make them and not many people were buying them then it would be detrimental to the automaker.
If the demand is there they will make them. but that means the product has to be decent quality and afordable. thats one of the problems with hybrid vehicles , the savings in economy doesnt make up for the cost to go buy one.
Also looking back the 92-93 Geo Metro and Honda Accord got better MPG than the Prius does now. so whats the real bottom line.
References :
By Kman on Mar 5, 2010 | Reply
Sort of. The president can’t simply eliminate new laws, but he can be a big obstacle in enacting new laws. Bush objected to *new* fuel efficiency laws in 2007 and prevented their passage.
A more long-winded explanation:
Auto manufacturers are required to have a minimum average mileage requirement across all their vehicles. In other words (and a slight oversimplification) – you can sell 10-mpg hummers, provided that you also sell sufficiently efficient vehicles so that the average across the lines is high enough. That number is rather low (20-something, if I’m not mistaken).
In 2007 – when fuel was skyrocketing – congress proposed raising said minimum average mileage. That would have forced some manufactures to abandon their most inefficient lines OR develop high-efficiency vehicles to offset their gas guzzlers.
It was a fairly popular bill, but not quite popular enough to survive a veto. George W. Bush threatened to veto it, and there was resistance to it by the big 3 (because trucks are their most profitable lines, and they were behind the Japanese in efficiency).
I can’t recall if W’s and Detroit’s objections compromised and watered down the bill, or if the threatened veto caused the bill to slowly die. I can find articles on the bill’s discussion in 2007, but nothing on it’s resolution… which leads me to believe it’s the later.
References :