3 ms·

Because federal conflicts with and therefore preempts the state law, "NHTSA expects vehicle manufacturers to fully comply with their Federal safety obligations.

Because federal conflicts with and therefore preempts the state law, "NHTSA expects vehicle manufacturers to fully comply with their Federal safety obligations." Isn't that the exact opposite of how things actually work?

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
No; the Supremacy Clause [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
- jimbob45 3y ago
  Right, insofar as those laws are made within the scope of the Constitution. My understanding is that the NHTSA and its authority aren't found within the scope of the Constitution except by the broadest of interpretations.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > My understanding is that the NHTSA and its authority aren't found within the scope of the Constitution except by the broadest of interpretations This is legally incorrect. There are challenges to agency authority, which might change the status quo. But even in their most ambitious forms, the NHTSA pre-dates Chevron by two decades. In any case, that's an aside in terms of what can and cannot be federal law. Federal law trumping state law was always intended.
  - marcinzm 3y ago
    And the constitution has a mechanism for determining what falls within the scope of the constitution and that mechanism says this falls within the scope of the constitution.
- deathanatos 3y ago
  I think the more nuanced argument here is that while there are often federal agencies regulating various things, states have long been able to add additional requirements more stringent than the federal ones, so long as they do not conflict with the federal ones. CA has stricter environmental regulations. Numerous states have stricter minimum wage laws. Labor laws. Etc. (And yes, these can get challenged in court. In fact, the MA right to repair bill is being challenged presently.) But these are the same bad-faith arguments (FUD around remote vehicle takeover, which is not required by the MA bill) the voters of MA heard during the election season that this bill was (overwhelmingly) passed during. MA voters do not expect auto-makers to not uphold their federal obligations: MA voters expect them to uphold both.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > MA voters do not expect auto-makers to not uphold their federal obligations: MA voters expect them to uphold both If they’re in conflict, they cannot. State laws being stricter than federal ones don’t conflict.
    - deathanatos 3y ago
      Sure, but I haven't seen a salient argument that they do conflict yet, until then I'm Hitchen's razor on that; it's just been FUD about people doing remote takeovers of cars and crashing them.
  - tzs 3y ago
    > CA has stricter environmental regulations. Numerous states have stricter minimum wage laws. Labor laws. Etc. A lot depends on how the federal law is written. Federal law can be written to completely preempt state law in some given area or it can be written to only preempt state law in the specific things in that area that the federal law actually provides rules on. For wages federal law sets a minimum wage but does not prohibit states from setting their own higher minimum wage. For many environmental laws federal law is written to completely preempt state law. States in those areas cannot set stricter standards. For some of those, such as car emissions, the federal law completely preempts (which would stop California from having stricter regulations) but the EPA is authorized to issue waivers to allow states to be more strict. There is such a waiver for California that allows them to set their own stricter standards and allows other states to choose to follow the California standard. The Trump administration revoked California's waiver. (And then when several car companies announced they were going to continue to meet California's standard even if no longer required to do so the Trump administration threatened to sue them for antitrust). The Biden administration restore California's waiver.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

No; the Supremacy Clause [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

jimbob45 3y ago
Right, insofar as those laws are made within the scope of the Constitution. My understanding is that the NHTSA and its authority aren't found within the scope of the Constitution except by the broadest of interpretations.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > My understanding is that the NHTSA and its authority aren't found within the scope of the Constitution except by the broadest of interpretations This is legally incorrect. There are challenges to agency authority, which might change the status quo. But even in their most ambitious forms, the NHTSA pre-dates Chevron by two decades. In any case, that's an aside in terms of what can and cannot be federal law. Federal law trumping state law was always intended.
- marcinzm 3y ago
  And the constitution has a mechanism for determining what falls within the scope of the constitution and that mechanism says this falls within the scope of the constitution.
deathanatos 3y ago
I think the more nuanced argument here is that while there are often federal agencies regulating various things, states have long been able to add additional requirements more stringent than the federal ones, so long as they do not conflict with the federal ones. CA has stricter environmental regulations. Numerous states have stricter minimum wage laws. Labor laws. Etc. (And yes, these can get challenged in court. In fact, the MA right to repair bill is being challenged presently.) But these are the same bad-faith arguments (FUD around remote vehicle takeover, which is not required by the MA bill) the voters of MA heard during the election season that this bill was (overwhelmingly) passed during. MA voters do not expect auto-makers to not uphold their federal obligations: MA voters expect them to uphold both.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > MA voters do not expect auto-makers to not uphold their federal obligations: MA voters expect them to uphold both If they’re in conflict, they cannot. State laws being stricter than federal ones don’t conflict.
  - deathanatos 3y ago
    Sure, but I haven't seen a salient argument that they do conflict yet, until then I'm Hitchen's razor on that; it's just been FUD about people doing remote takeovers of cars and crashing them.
- tzs 3y ago
  > CA has stricter environmental regulations. Numerous states have stricter minimum wage laws. Labor laws. Etc. A lot depends on how the federal law is written. Federal law can be written to completely preempt state law in some given area or it can be written to only preempt state law in the specific things in that area that the federal law actually provides rules on. For wages federal law sets a minimum wage but does not prohibit states from setting their own higher minimum wage. For many environmental laws federal law is written to completely preempt state law. States in those areas cannot set stricter standards. For some of those, such as car emissions, the federal law completely preempts (which would stop California from having stricter regulations) but the EPA is authorized to issue waivers to allow states to be more strict. There is such a waiver for California that allows them to set their own stricter standards and allows other states to choose to follow the California standard. The Trump administration revoked California's waiver. (And then when several car companies announced they were going to continue to meet California's standard even if no longer required to do so the Trump administration threatened to sue them for antitrust). The Biden administration restore California's waiver.