Overturn laws that limit auto manufacturers from selling their vehicles directly(petitions.whitehouse.gov)
petitions.whitehouse.gov
Overturn laws that limit auto manufacturers from selling their vehicles directly
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/overturn-franchise-laws-limit-auto-manufacturers-selling-their-vehicles-directly-consumers/rlShbLzr
5 comments
Like many petitions on We The People, the executive hasn't the power to do what this proposes. The president simply doesn't have the power to rewrite state laws.
The judiciary could questionably overturn state laws as overreaching into interstate commerce, but even that requires a case. I'm sure if Tesla believed that it was worth it, they would be bring such litigation.
So, I'm curious what impact a petition like this has on the various actors who have the power to do something: state and federal legislators. Given that there is no way for a legislator to tell how many people in their district support a petition, I would guess very little.
The executive does not have that power, but if Congress should pass a law regulating it, I'm pretty sure that Congress can override state commerce laws. Doubly so if the commercial transaction counts as interstate (as would happen if you bought the car on the manufacturer's website).
However that said, even if this passed, every manufacturer is so embedded in its web of dealers that any move to reconsider that relationship would cause a lot of conflict. In fact fear of that exact conflict is how we got the state laws in the first place.
However that said, even if this passed, every manufacturer is so embedded in its web of dealers that any move to reconsider that relationship would cause a lot of conflict. In fact fear of that exact conflict is how we got the state laws in the first place.
Actually Congress cannot pass a law regulating it per the 10th amendment. They can pass laws governing other things that effectively regulate this--often by withholding federal funds from states that do not comply--but have no power over this specific issue.
If Musk wants the US Congress to interfere, maybe he should sell liquor in the most lavish and expensive and functional "bottle case" ever conceived. But selling liquor in a car "case" might not be the best PR move. hehe.
If Musk wants the US Congress to interfere, maybe he should sell liquor in the most lavish and expensive and functional "bottle case" ever conceived. But selling liquor in a car "case" might not be the best PR move. hehe.
That may be a plausible reading of the commerce clause in conjunction with the 10th amendment, but it is not the one currently in force.
In cases such as Wikard v Filburn and Raich v Gonzalez, the Supreme Court has held that Comgresses power to regulate extends to any activity which, in the aggregate, substantially effects interstate commerce. Such a test is trivially met by state laws forbidding the sale of automobiles directly from manufacturers to the public.
In cases such as Wikard v Filburn and Raich v Gonzalez, the Supreme Court has held that Comgresses power to regulate extends to any activity which, in the aggregate, substantially effects interstate commerce. Such a test is trivially met by state laws forbidding the sale of automobiles directly from manufacturers to the public.
Actually Congress cannot pass a law regulating it per the 10th amendment.
Have you read the Constitution?
Here is the 10th amendment.
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.
If you read Article 1, Section 8, clause 3 you will find the Commerce Clause that grants Congress the following power.
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
When a manufacturer is in one state, and a customer is in another, the power to regulate business transactions between the two is clearly given to Congress by that clause. The 10th does not take that away. Therefore Congress should have power to regulate that commerce in any Constitutional way it wants.
(Note, your suggestion of selling liquor goes the wrong way. The 21st amendment expressly gives state laws supremacy in that case. But if no liquor is involved, then Congress should have authority.)
I am not a lawyer, but my lay understanding is that in this case the interpretation of the courts fits my reading of the text.
Have you read the Constitution?
Here is the 10th amendment.
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.
If you read Article 1, Section 8, clause 3 you will find the Commerce Clause that grants Congress the following power.
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
When a manufacturer is in one state, and a customer is in another, the power to regulate business transactions between the two is clearly given to Congress by that clause. The 10th does not take that away. Therefore Congress should have power to regulate that commerce in any Constitutional way it wants.
(Note, your suggestion of selling liquor goes the wrong way. The 21st amendment expressly gives state laws supremacy in that case. But if no liquor is involved, then Congress should have authority.)
I am not a lawyer, but my lay understanding is that in this case the interpretation of the courts fits my reading of the text.
Selling alcohol in violation of state liquor laws is one of the few ways a private individual can violate the US constitution.
Quoth the 21st Amendment:
"""
Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
"""
I'm sure that if Congress really wanted to directly regulate the sell of automobiles, they can find a way to appeal to the constitution's commerce clause. I know the courts have tended leaned more towards the 10th amendment in recent decades, but they still tend to give the commerce clause a very broad interpretation.
>Actually Congress cannot pass a law regulating it per the 10th amendment.
As bradleyjg points out, the Supreme Court copy of the constitution doesn't seem to include the tenth amendment. Between the commerce clause and the 14th amendment Congress can do pretty much whatever it wants.
As bradleyjg points out, the Supreme Court copy of the constitution doesn't seem to include the tenth amendment. Between the commerce clause and the 14th amendment Congress can do pretty much whatever it wants.
Interestingly there was a great podcast on archaic dealership laws on NPR's Planet Money in February. Worth a listen for some context.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/02/12/171814201/episode-...
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/02/12/171814201/episode-...
Is it me or are these petitions almost worse than doing nothing? These petitions show over & over again that they don't actually do anything to change policies.
It's almost like a release valve so people feel like they're being democratic without even really doing anything at all.
It's almost like a release valve so people feel like they're being democratic without even really doing anything at all.
In what way is any of that worse than doing nothing at all?
It's easier to "sign" an online petition than to send a letter to one of your representatives, if people click once and then feel like they have had their say then much of the people's voice will be lost.
I wonder if experiments have been done on this.
Limit it to the actions of doing nothing, of clicking/signing a petition, and writing a representative.
So, the question is if the likelihood of someone writing a representative is increased or decreased by the presence of an opportunity to click/sign a petition.
Sounds like the hypothesis here is that the satisfaction of signing a petition would reduce the odds of writing a representative, more than increase it. I could see it the other way though - maybe the civic engagement of caring enough to sign a petition would make it more likely that they'd contact a representative than they would have otherwise.
I wonder how the experiment could be structured? Maybe an educational/awareness web page, with a second step of an opportunity to contact a representative, while inserting the "sign-a-petition?" step in between?
There are some ecommerce people that believe that by giving buyers more-and-smaller steps to click through, it increases conversion, so who knows.
Limit it to the actions of doing nothing, of clicking/signing a petition, and writing a representative.
So, the question is if the likelihood of someone writing a representative is increased or decreased by the presence of an opportunity to click/sign a petition.
Sounds like the hypothesis here is that the satisfaction of signing a petition would reduce the odds of writing a representative, more than increase it. I could see it the other way though - maybe the civic engagement of caring enough to sign a petition would make it more likely that they'd contact a representative than they would have otherwise.
I wonder how the experiment could be structured? Maybe an educational/awareness web page, with a second step of an opportunity to contact a representative, while inserting the "sign-a-petition?" step in between?
There are some ecommerce people that believe that by giving buyers more-and-smaller steps to click through, it increases conversion, so who knows.
I don't think it's obvious that someone who clicks on a petition either would have otherwise sent a letter to a representative or would be discouraged from doing so in the future after the fact. Maybe engaging in small scale participatory democracy actually encourages people to engage in larger scales, for all you know.
Frankly, I hear so much of this "oh that'll never do anything and it just makes people disillusioned" nonsense about ALL levels of engagement ("protesters are hurting their own cause!" "it's just a staffer who reads your letter!" "no one cares what you say!") that I'm extremely skeptical of all such claims.
Maybe rather than tell people who engage that they're failing it would be more useful to encourage them to succeed more.
Frankly, I hear so much of this "oh that'll never do anything and it just makes people disillusioned" nonsense about ALL levels of engagement ("protesters are hurting their own cause!" "it's just a staffer who reads your letter!" "no one cares what you say!") that I'm extremely skeptical of all such claims.
Maybe rather than tell people who engage that they're failing it would be more useful to encourage them to succeed more.
> Frankly, I hear so much of this "oh that'll never do anything and it just makes people disillusioned" nonsense about ALL levels of engagement ("protesters are hurting their own cause!" "it's just a staffer who reads your letter!" "no one cares what you say!") that I'm extremely skeptical of all such claims.
But there are examples of those types of protests working. Have the petitions ever done anything (other than the death star one which gave the gov't some PR points)?
The activism that happened last year with SOPA actually took effort & targeted the people who were able to act on it. Right now, the petition site seems to be handled exclusively by the White House's PR team.
But there are examples of those types of protests working. Have the petitions ever done anything (other than the death star one which gave the gov't some PR points)?
The activism that happened last year with SOPA actually took effort & targeted the people who were able to act on it. Right now, the petition site seems to be handled exclusively by the White House's PR team.
Thank you. I've had an issue with the White House petitions since it's inception, and could put my finger on exactly why. And this absolutely articulates my thoughts.
If I had a botnet, I'd point the whole lot of them at this comment to get it upvoted more.
As I said in the second part of my post:
> It's almost like a release valve so people feel like they're being democratic without even really doing anything at all.
> It's almost like a release valve so people feel like they're being democratic without even really doing anything at all.
Ignoring the debated effects of petitions, laws that limit auto manufacturer's sales are there for varied reasons state to state.
I love Tesla, but this isn't going to do it.
Finally, really nit-picky but you're petitioning the White House here, please proofread.
I love Tesla, but this isn't going to do it.
Finally, really nit-picky but you're petitioning the White House here, please proofread.
Why were the laws enacted in the first place?
You'd get 50 different answers because those are state laws.
Lobbyists earning their money.