0
3

[–] JohnPaulJones 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

These agreements seem to be unconstitutional. That being said it's hard to say how the federal government will deal with this as the actions taken are within the realm of the states powers (regulating state trade). There is an interesting animus case here that the left has opened up. Smart industries will take these states to the supreme court claiming that environmental regulations are motivated by animus to uphold an unconstitutional agreement. This is oddly enough along the lines of religious expression cases wherein non-violating expression was denied (ten commandant cases) due to being motivated by an animus to promote one religion over another. There was a similar line of reasoning in the travel ban denial. Anyways this could be interesting although I don't see it going this way as the federal government will likely ignore their commitments as they are largely symbolic.
As always I am not a lawyer.

0
1

[–] con77 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

no

0
0

[–] cynicaloldfart ago  (edited ago)

As I know nothing about about the legality of entering into an "agreement' with other governments, I can assume any attempt to get US federal funding would quickly be denied. If they find they would be required to give funds to foreign entities and not receive funds, they will surely stop their bs. When a city or company needs to be paid to stop polluting that should tell you where their priorities lie.