Letters to the Editor: What, getting carmakers to agree to pollute less is illegal?

To the editor: Headlines such as “Trump warns California that emissions deal with automakers may be illegal” read like “Saturday Night Live” sketches meant to poke fun at lax government standards on car emissions, right?

But no, it’s the Trump administration showing concern that our state is doing too much to curb pollution. That is equal parts bizarre, surreal and scary.

The White House is upset at California and four automakers for agreeing to put the health of (literally) every single living being on the planet above Big Oil’s profits. Just when I, for the umpteenth time, think it can’t get any worse, it does. Even the polluters want to pitch in to improve air quality, but the administration is having none of it.

Since the president’s many missteps will surely outweigh his few contributions to the well-being of this country, history is not likely to be too kind to Trump.

Robert Archerd, Rancho Palos Verdes

..

To the editor: The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

Just where in the Constitution does one find support for the feds telling California what to do about emission standards? I couldn’t find a single word about auto emissions in the Constitution.

Patrick Mauer, Pasadena

..

To the editor: As a child of the 1970s, I know we do not want to go back to breathing the air of that era.

When those in Washington are breathing the same air as we are, then they can collaborate on our laws. In the meantime, we breathe it, so we will decide what is best.

Chris Todosiev, San Pedro

..

To the editor: My head is spinning after reading articles on the Trump administration telling California that its emissions agreement with four automakers is illegal.

Trump, famous for his desire to reduce government regulation of industry, threatens carmakers for making decisions that they feel will improve their future bottom lines. Can he spell “irony”?

Dan Bridge, Seattle