3 ms·

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

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.

btilly 14y ago
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.
- traeblain 14y ago
  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.
  - bradleyjg 14y ago
    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.
  - shadgregory 14y ago
    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.
  - afarrell 14y ago
    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. """
  - tsotha 14y ago
    >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.
  - btilly 14y ago
    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.

btilly 14y ago

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.

traeblain 14y ago
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.
- bradleyjg 14y ago
  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.
- shadgregory 14y ago
  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.
- afarrell 14y ago
  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. """
- tsotha 14y ago
  >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.
- btilly 14y ago
  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.