Slashdot Mirror
White House Punts On Petition To Allow Tesla Direct Sales
First time accepted submitter neanderslob (1207704) writes Last Friday, over a year after the petition gained the required signatures for a response, the White House rejected a We the People petition to "Allow Tesla Motors to sell directly to consumers in all 50 states." The letter went on to defend the administration by citing their initiatives "in promoting vehicle efficiency." In response, Tesla is firing back, blasting the White House for a lack of leadership on the issue and stating "138,469 people signed the petition asking the White House to allow Tesla Motors to sell directly to consumers in all 50 states. More than a year later, at 7.30pm EST on Friday as most of America prepared for the weekend, the White House released its disappointing response to those people. Rather than seize an opportunity to promote innovation and support the first successful American car company to be started in more than a century, the White House issued a response that was even more timid than its rejection of a petition to begin construction of a Death Star."
There's a legal issue here: the executive can't just wave state law aside. But they could suggest Congress write new laws instead of just noting that Congress would need to take action.
If he can declare war without congressional approval why can't he waive state laws?
An internet petition that went nowhere? Unpossible!
Seriously, the White House petition site is just PR. I'm no Obama hater but anyone who thinks that would ever be an effective way to influence policy is probably still sitting on the edge of their seat waiting for Firefly to come back on television.
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
....can someone briefly summarize like we are in third grade (OK, maybe junior high) why Tesla can't sell their vehicles anywhere they damn well please? I don't follow car news so I don't know (and I'm asking here because I figure I am not the only one).
"There's a legal issue here: the executive can't just wave state law aside. But they could suggest Congress write new laws instead of just noting that Congress would need to take action."
Why not? He completely bypasses all laws and even our constitution using executive orders, why not for this? Oh, that's right, it would affect his dirty money income from industry lobbies.
Since when has law, state or otherwise, stopped Obama? Constitution? Nah...He knows better...Obamacare mandates? ( his own fucking law)...nah...its an election year. Drug laws? Nah we won't enforce em. Seriously. No matter what side of the isle you're on and if you like the laws or not, the fact that he picks and chooses what to enforce completely undermines the whole idea of "rule of law". The man is the biggest crony Ive ever seen.
"There's a legal issue here: the executive can't just wave state law aside."
This is one of the funniest things I've seen in some time. This president has pushed the previous precedent to new heights - there is no such thing as state law except at the pleasure of the federal government. Today, there are no federal checks and balances that haven't been so warped out of shape that the checks are rubber stamps and the balances are "you let me do what I want and I'll balance that by making sure you're taken care of".
The automotive industry wields a tremendous amount of power. It's not a surprise that they pushed to have Tesla squashed.
Well if I had to choose between a Tesla and a Death Star, I would take the Death Star.
You kids are really still posting/signing petitions on the White House site?
Even after several years of them all but telling us "this is purely for show, we will never honor any of the requests in these?"
There's a point where the definition of insanity intersects with the definition of absolutely goddamn brainlessness. That point is, apparently, the We The People petition site.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
There's a legal issue here: the executive can't just wave state law aside.
Really???? I thought the President said that all needs to make law he has in his hands : a pen and a phone.
Have a Day!
But they could suggest Congress write new laws instead of just noting that Congress would need to take action.
"Congress take action" - Ha.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
The problem with the petition is that it has no consequences.
Would it help if petitioners agreed to vote *against* the incumbent president's party at the next election if the issue isn't addressed?
Some of the petitions net upwards of a quarter-million signatures. Is that enough votes to get Washington to take notice?
lol
did you forget to take your meds?
The real reason that the dealerships care isn't about Tesla at all.
Dealerships have worked to create laws that forbid car manufacturers from selling direct to consumers. And if Tesla gets around that, then Ford, GM, etc. will be hot on their tracks and dealerships will see significant impact from this. In the age of the internet anyone would become finally able to purchase goods from the car manufacturers. Their way of life would die off.
That's why they fight Tesla like the fate of the world is at stake.
Why don't I suggest a potato to do my laundry? I'd get the same results as asking congress to do anything. Anything Elon plans to do will be an up-hill battle, and he's in it alone.
Especially laws that would place the interests of the individual ahead of the interests of an established industry cartel? That's a laugh.
These White House petitions drive me a little nuts. I appreciate that they bring publicity to an issue, but they also demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of how the US Government is designed to work. The issue is state and local laws. These laws don't contradict federal laws. What do people want the President to do about it? If people are upset about their local laws they need to work at the local level - petitioning state law makers.
The argument could be made that this is interstate commerce. Great, then work with your national representatives to propose federal legislation that would overrule the local laws. It very likely would have to stand up to a court challenge, but the courts have been exceptionally liberal in their interpretation of interstate commerce. If the local governments fail to comply THEN the executive branch will get involved in enforcement.
It seems like people want the Executive and Judicial branches making the laws. This isn't how it's supposed to happen - for good reason. This reflects not only a bad approach to government, but it is also a sign of just how completely broken Congress is. How said that the only ones who seem able to push any sort of legislation through Congress are big businesses. Everyone else is stuck looking for some sort of alternative. Sadly, those alternatives, should they end up successful, will just result in a less representative, more authoritarian government.
How many times has the President (any President) done exactly this? Since Jackson famously told the Supremes "now go and enforce it" the Executive has been able to give the Judicial the finger. How many times in recent memory has the Executive waived, changed, or broken existing laws regarding the new Health Care act?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Where is his pen?
They were implemented to fool the young-and-dumb into thinking they'd have input into the Obama administration. Any time the petition agrees with what Obama was going to do anyway, his supporters think they had some input. Whenever the petitions are something the Obama admiinistration does not want to deal with they either ignore them or dismiss them with a little humor or snark - and Obama bots still think they've had "input". When the petitions stuff got too annoying, they simply changed the number of "signatures" needed to evoke a response.
The truly interesting ones are the petitions the Obama administration totally ignores - like the one about the marine vet in Jail in Mexico.
These whitehouse petitions are about as effective as Michelle Obama's selfie with that #bringbackourgirls sign.... the stupid woman is married to the most powerful man on the planet and she thinks a selfie with a hashtag is more-effective than talking to her hubby. OMG! it turns out terrorists are not influenced by "social media campaigns" on twitter....
Washington,Lincoln,FDR,Eisenhower, Reagan, etc must all be face-palming in their graves....
Once upon a time (think 1920s/1930s) car manufacturers did abuse the third party dealers ("It would be a real shame if we opened a car store right next to yours and put you out of business") so states enacted laws to prevent that. There were also similar problems with alcohol which is why alcohol distribution is so fucked up, too. The laws are "solving" problems that don't apply to Tesla or small microbrewers.
Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
Waaaah Obama is the unitary executive, always giving orders and making laws like he is a KING!
Waaaah Obama refuses to make a decision, always making it other people's jobs to do stuff!
WAAAAAHHHHHHH!
Most states, prodded perhaps by dealer associations, have forbidden auto manufacturers from selling directly to the public.
There is no "perhaps" about it. Auto dealer associations are entirely the reason - no need to qualify your statement. They are parasitic middlemen and they know they have a good deal going. They cost both customers and the automakers money. They should have to compete and provide value just like any other business. There should be no legal prohibition against me buying a car directly from Tesla, GM, Toyota or any other car maker if I want. If the dealer can provide me extra value then fine but if they cannot (and most cannot) then they should disappear like the obsolete businesses they are. There is no rational justification I have heard for protecting their business model at my expense. Perhaps you know of a good reason but frankly for me if auto dealers disappear tomorrow it won't be too soon.
This article is about how the WH is not getting involved. So presumably you support this decision of the president not to expand federal powers?
I'm sure Big Oil had a hand in the President's decision.
Well now, here's an actual legitimate use of the Commerce Clause; but Congress won't use it. Every podunk dealer that ever contributed to their campaigns would ring their phones off the hook, as well as actual corporate lobby from GM, etc.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Obama gave the only reply he could. It essentially says "I don't control that, I can't help you. Sorry."
When your local state passes a bad law, don't cry to the federal government. Call your local representatives and fix the law yourself. It's easier to get local laws changed, and that is the appropriate level to do it.
When state laws are a barrier to interstate commerce and prevent a US manufacturer from retailing in a state, the White House can void them.
Interstate Commerce.
All your Red South is belong to plug-in electric cars
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The reply is actually excellent. I was about to hate all over the page but actually read it first. Frankly, this is an individual states issue... Which only an act of congress can change, or have our local politicians change.
However, the auto dealership lobby is a serious nut to crack. With elections coming, I'm not sure many politicians are going to put their necks out so they can be labeled as against local businesses.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
Back on topic , having to go through a dealer adds a layer of costs and is totally against the interest of the consumers.
Car dealerships is a mafia and nothing short of organised crime. Free enterprise in the USA ? MY ASS
Who cares what the WH thinks?
Because what the occupants of the White House think matters. Same with Congress. We don't have to like it but we're idiots if we pretend their opinion doesn't matter. If there is a problem that they can solve and the States are unwilling (wouldn't be the first time) then I'm fine with the Feds taking care of it. I just care that the right thing happens.
Its State Law. Let the voters in each state decide what they want.
State law that may very well interfere with interstate commerce. Auto dealers do not (generally) source their vehicles locally and so you can make a pretty good argument that interstate commerce applies here. I can also very easily argue that the Auto Dealer Associations are engaging in a form of racketeering. They are pretending to "protect" us from the big bad auto companies while providing no discernible value to customers or to auto companies generally and they have influenced politicians to protect their business model to the detriment of others. Sounds an awful lot like racketeering to me.
I'm not a big fan of the federal government abusing the interstate commerce clause but this seems like a case where it likely applies. IANAL of course but it doesn't pass the smell test to me.
How many times has the President (any President) done exactly this? Since Jackson famously told the Supremes "now go and enforce it" the Executive has been able to give the Judicial the finger. How many times in recent memory has the Executive waived, changed, or broken existing laws regarding the new Health Care act?
The problem is that this isn't a federally enforced law, it's a state enforced law. Obama can tell federal agents to no longer enforce any of these laws, but that won't change anything in since the feds aren't the ones supporting these laws to begin with.
Basically you'd be down to what the government had to do to force racial integration: Send in the army to keep Tesla dealerships open and protect the Tesla dealerships against state law enforcement. While I'd like to see you, you can understand why that might cause problems in this political climate. There is also a decent argument that Obama might not have this authority because their is no Federal counter law to the state law. Any way you look at this, Congress needs to pass a law for Obama to do anything. The example you're giving is the reverse: a President ignoring existing federal law. Here, it's the opposite: Obama would have to make up new a new federal law to override state law that does not exist. Not really the same thing.
Move Tesla to Canada. The rules of NAFTA trump this local dealer baloney.
Why is the government allowed to stop the guy from selling a legal product?
Tesla could sell the car as a kit where you order one or more of N components to complete the car.
Eg, the car body, the batteries, the clip-on steering wheel.
Make your own dealership network.
Get enthusiasts to sign up to set up a shell of a dealership.
They just operate a web site taking orders and passing back the sale to the Tesla
for say 0.1% commission - would work for everybody.
unfair restraint of trade. Auto Dealers are NOT necessary.
The executive branch didn't do any of that. Congress is the legislative branch.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
It took me a minute to parse this for context. I was grasping at straws for when Michael Jackson and/or the Jackson Five was giving orders to Diana Ross.
Take it to the limit, everybody to the limit, come on, everybody fhqwhgads.
The only president of the last twenty years who is generally considered to have been reasonably good is Clinton. What did Clinton do? Not much. Pretty much, he entered the White House during a time of economic growth and got a blowjob. For that (doing nothing) he's considered to be better than Bush Jr. or Obama. Before Clinton, George HW Bush wasn't bad and what did he do? Domestically, pretty much nothing. He was all foreign policy - START I, Noriega, beginning NAFTA.
Obama's legacy probably would be better if he'd play even more golf, throw another blowout party, and stop messing with the country.
... why can't he waive state laws?
The last time the president did that, hundreds of thousands of Americans lost their lives in the resulting conflict.
NO! WE CAN"T!
But hey! He'll save us all! Right?
Face it. We're stuck with YAP (Yet Another Politico).
Screw what The People want. It's all about that special interest fat cash!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Why can't Elon Musk set up a Tesla dealership in each state that requires them?
I don't like the dealer laws either, but I can't be comfortable in setting the threshold of federal commerce intrusion on an issue by issue basis to suit my personal preference.,/quote>
How do you think the threshold gets set? Congress and states pass laws and it gets hashed out on a case by case basis through regulations and lawsuits on a case by case basis. There is no other way to settle what that the threshold should be. If the States are interfering with interstate commerce as I've theorized then they should have their hand slapped. The entire purpose of the interstate commerce clause is to keep crap like this from happening to the detriment of all.
States are already too encumbered.
If the State is encumbered in this case then it is the fault of the State for protecting a group of middlemen at the expense of the rest of the citizenry. The option with the least encumbrance is for the State to have no law protecting dealerships. If they insist such a law is necessary (as is their right) then they have the obligation to defend their position if necessary when it appears to violate the Constitution.
> "Oh, I agree and am as passionate about (insert topic here) as you are, but that do-nothing congress, well, sorry but we can't do much..."
> It's not that it's Obama's fault but I find the whole thing disingenuous at best, similar to his campaign messages* that got everyone excited enough to vote for him.
It's not his _fault_ on a moral level, but I'd argue that it his ineffectiveness. From 2009-2011 the Democrats controlled the house, the Senate, and the Presidency. They got darn little accomplished. The dems didn't even pass a budget when they were in full control of everything.
On the other hand, Reagan had the leadership skills to get stuff done with the democrats controlled the house, and therefore the purse strings.
Where are all the Conservatives cheering on the Administration for respecting States Rights?
O is just doing what his controllers tell him to do. You don't think he really runs the country between his golfing vacations do you?
Eliminating the middle man puts people out of work! If people can't work, the economy will wither and die!
Of course...the only jobs the politicians are interested in protecting are the ones at the very top of the middle-man industry, which is to say, the rich people who lobby. Nobody in power gives a hoot about the jobs of the low-end functionaries who are barely clearing minimum wage. THOSE people can take the stick they are given!
WTF? I know US has its problems, and I doubt I'd want to live there, but isn't it supposed to be a free market economy? Isn't this (not being allowed to sell legal goods to people) about as anti-American as it gets? What happaned to "the Land of the Free" etc? Free, except not free to buy a car?
Basically, 100 years ago the big mean car companies were sometimes mean to local dealers. Here's a list of things dealers claimed that manufacturers did, as codified in New York law:
http://ypdcrime.com/vt/article...
If the car dealer fought back, the manufacturer would either a) threaten to open a new dealership next door or b) stop delivering cars to the dealership.
Like laws that force companies to work with unions, these laws force manufacturers to work with local dealers. If the manufacturer cut off the dealer's sales they'd be cutting off their own sales too.
This grew out of earlier laws that said you had to be licensed to be a car dealer, much as real estate agents are licensed. It was easy enough to tack on the sentence "manufacturers can't be licensed as dealers".
Post-prohibition most states regimented the alcholic beverage distribution chain into a three-tier system: producers, distributors, and retailers. As you can see this is even worse than with cars. For example, vinyards often cannot sell directly to the public, and they can't sell directly to pubs or wine stores. The middlemen must be paid ...
Is the opposition coming just from the dealers?
Largely yes from what I can tell. I think the big autos are staying largely out of the argument to avoid pissing off their dealer networks. The auto companies are in a tough spot - they need the dealers because they are required to need the dealers and thus have no alternative. I think the auto makers would prefer to do away with many of the dealers but cannot. The justice department published an interesting study on the relevant economic effects.
Many industries sell only through distributors, dealers, or otherwise "authorized" retail outlets.
Usually when the cost to reach/serve the customer is too large to justify the expense of interacting with customers directly. In years past having the dealer network allowed the auto makers to concentrate on making the vehicles without the distraction and expense of trying to sell the end product too. Now however much of the profits is in service and financing so requiring a dealer network makes considerably less sense than it did 40 years ago.
The dealers don't want people coming to their stores and test-driving cars only to lose the sales to some tax-free Internet site. A valid issue, except I don't think there are any Tesla dealerships that would lose out this way. I expect the Tesla dealerships are owned by....Tesla.
The justification seems even worse on things like motorcycles since I don't think people even test drive those.
Then they got bought and are no longer on the market.
HW got the shaft because his foreign policy programs forced him to go back on one of his biggest campaign pledges: no new taxes.
Gulf War I was fucking expensive, dammit!
I wasn't aware that Jackson had ever performed with The Supremes.
...and corruption is endemic in Washington.
Seeking leadership from Obama? More likely to get blood from a stone..
Organization? You must be joking..
The White House Petition site is a joke. Basically the site is a publicity stunt.
You are right about Clinton doing nothing. Osama bin Laden noticed this during Al Qaida's Yemen campaign and observed the Americans are "paper tigers".
... Sept 11 happens.
... I'll give you that he was a whole lot better than Obama.
2 years after leaving office
Thank you, president Clinton.
So, healthcare is an interstate activity, subject to federal regulation, but selling a car isn't?
The title and the summary is very hard for me to read. Too much mixing political and football jargon for me. So I made my own headline based on Street Fighter lingo. Enjoy.
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution clearly takes the power to regulate commerce out of the hands of the Executive and gives it to Congress. And if it's not interstate commerce then it's up to the states.
Total number of substantive results from the petition site? Zero.
-Styopa
This article leaves me very, very confused.
FYI, I am not American.
Why is it illegal for a car company to sell....cars...to people?
Isnt that kinda like it being illegal for HP to sell printers to people? Or it being illegal for an orchard to sell apples to people?
If its illegal, there must be some moral wrong going on, but after much thinking, I simply cannot think of any possible thing that is wrong with a car company selling cars to people. Why is this so?
Is it to do with religion? Like, is it against somebodys religion that a car company sells cars to people?
Is it a union or labor thing? Or is it due to the lobbying(bribery) that happens in the US Govt?
Im at a loss here, can anybody please explain?
Before Clinton, George HW Bush wasn't bad and what did he do? Domestically, pretty much nothing.
Wait, what? Desert what? This will not be another what? CIA death squad what? George Herbert Walker Bush is evil right down to the tiny black pellet referred to as his 'heart', and we know that because he did evil.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Clinton signed the DMCA into law. He also lied under oath to Congress and the entire nation. Those two crimes alone put him solidly in the "suck" category. W sucked even more, and now Obama is sucking his way into the history books. Why do all our leaders suck?????
Pretty sure you're making reference to foreign policy items there, not domestic programs. Everyone has their own opinions, but compare Clinton and HW approval ratings to junior and Obama.
Maybe they could allow direct sales, but require that any company performing direct sales both have some minimum in-state physical presence for sales/service proportionate to the volume of cars they sell as well as allowing third party establishments to perform those tasks for them in some mutually agreed upon way?
This way, Tesla can sell cars direct but has to have some kind of bricks-and-mortar presence in states they sell them. They could all be owned by Tesla, but they wouldn't have to be if someone wanted to run the physical presence for them in the way Tesla wanted it done.
Since the existing car makers now sell a huge volume of cars in order to do direct sales they would have to duplicate the existing dealership network they have now, which would be hugely expensive. This would be the "save" for existing car dealers -- they wouldn't necessarily have to fear GM/Toyota/Ford suddenly selling direct because in order to do so, those makers would have to build out huge bricks-and-mortar presences. It would make so much more sense for the existing makers to stick with the existing dealerships.
> Why do all our leaders suck?????
Everyone has their own opinions, of course, but looking at both objective and subjective data such as economic growth, approval ratings, etc. it looks like the suckage started in 2000. Economic growth crashed from 8% to 0.3%, and the president's approval rating went from 57 to 39.
There's certainly hope that we can get another Kennedy/Reagan/Eisenhower* next time. Maybe if we try to choose based on COMPETENCE rather than just whoever most extremely mirrors our favored ideology.
* (Not an actual Kennedy of course, the good one is dead. HW Bush / Bush Jr. should have taught us something about electing a guy because he was related to a decent president.)
Direct sales itself is the threat. If people want change, they need to get off of the notion that this is about Tesla and learn a little more of the history behind the law.
That's a bit like arguing that the Civil War was about states' rights. True, but only because states rights were invoked to support slavery. In the same vein here, it's the auto and petroleum industry fighting a war against electric cars. If electric cars happen, the future arrives and the entire petroleum distribution chain will eventually have to transform (without the corresponding profit margin increases for the current players) and get commoditized as nuclear, wind, and solar can fully power the economy and people's transportation needs (no need to convert back to gas or diesel for transport).
Elon Musk and Tesla believe the time has come, and have done a lot to prove it. Now it's time to see if Big Oil and their auto cronies can stop an idea whose time has come.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
You mean to tell me a Bush fought a war in Iraq and didn't lower taxes to pay for it?
I jest. Mostly.
"For fiscal year 2003, the Senate, under Democratic control in 2002, failed to pass a budget resolution of any kind. For fiscal years 1999, 2005 and 2007, the House and the Senate failed to reconcile their different bills and pass a compromise measure. In these latter three cases, the Republicans were in the majority in both chambers of Congress."
I guess the Dems finally caught up with the Republicans.
Also, the Democratic congress did pass a joint budget resolution for FY2010 (in 2009).
Is the budget really that big of a deal though? Whether it's implemented in one single continuing resolution, or 8 of them, does it really matter?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
Single budgets are kind of a joke starting in 2001, anyway, with the "war supplementals".
2 budget resolutions died while Reagan was in office, as well. I never thought to criticize him for his bad leadership at the time.
We have to create a non-party, "NoParty", where the people elected will be nominated randomly from previous voting data (either registration roles or who actually voted in the last election). A computer (running open source software) will simply pick from a voter list for all offices in State and Federal elections, and the nominees have the opportunity to decline. The computer will simply pick more candidates to replace those that refuse.
The person accepting the nomination would take a pledge to only accept the wage accompanying that office. There would also be no campaining. Just enough funds would be raised to put candidates on the ballot in all 50 states. Their party would not matter, nor would their gender, race, opinions, background, etc. The premise is that a warm body will do a better job representing the country than our batch of millionaire elected cronies. We are also much more likely to get people who are representative of the population, not 60% lawyers.
Since a computer will pick different people each time, it would be unlikely that there would be any incumbants.
Unlike Michael Moore's ficus tree campaign, protest votes for NoParty candidates have the ability to unseat elected officials. ElephantAss Party incumbants that have NoParty candidates running against them, might actually listen to their consituents. Maybe then, we can have our representative democracy back.
Don't forget the DMCA.
The commerce clause doesn't seem to apply within a state, only between states.
Cars are not usually made in the same state they are sold in. Dealers are basically (unnecessary) middlemen in a transaction between an automotive manufacturer and a car buyer. Its pretty easy to make the argument that this transaction is effectively an interstate transaction. The transaction between the dealer and the auto manufacturer is also usually an interstate transaction. The only thing that is "local" is transaction between the car dealer and the car buyer and that is a largely artificial construct.
There's certainly hope that we can get another Kennedy/Reagan/Eisenhower* next time. Maybe if we try to choose based on COMPETENCE rather than just whoever most extremely mirrors our favored ideology.
* (Not an actual Kennedy of course, the good one is dead. HW Bush / Bush Jr. should have taught us something about electing a guy because he was related to a decent president.)
Good fucking luck. It's looking like 2016 is going to be Hillary (yet ANOTHER person who's only qualification for president is that she is related to one) and whatever republican manages to out-crazy the rest of them. It's going to be yet another episode of giant douche vs. shit sandwich. You can vote for the corporate tool or the corporate tool.
Enigma
You can look at it another way. Good presidents sort things out, even if it makes them unpopular. Then someone else gets in a benefits from all the hard choices and improvements their predecessor made, so doesn't need to do much. Eventually though things start to be neglected and you need another unpopular president to fix things.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
From the summary:
[quote]There's a legal issue here: the executive can't just wave state law aside. But they could suggest Congress write new laws instead of just noting that Congress would need to take action.[/quote]
And we all know how dysfunctional Congress is right now. If the President came out today and said anything in favor of allowing Tesla to sell directly to customers *anywhere*, the House would start voting to make sure it never happened.
They haven't waived, changed, or broken the law regarding the ACA. The head of the Executive branch simply informed the Executive branch that they were not to enforce a particular portion of said law until a specified point of time in the future when they expected that the entities affected by said portion of said law would have had sufficient time to become compliant with the required changes.
This is no more or less illegal than a police officer *not* writing a ticket for someone jaywalking.
My publican just draws pints for the public, down the pub. I don't understand how your public houses got such amazing powers!
There's a legal issue here: the executive can't just wave state law aside. But they could suggest Congress write new laws instead of just noting that Congress would need to take action.
What difference would it make if the WH suggested this to Congress or not? The House isn't going to do anything. Why is it the WH that's punting on this issue?
Are you sure about that? I seem to recall something about DEA agents making pests of themselves in states which legalized marijuana dispensaries.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
There was a time when manufacturers didn't have to even publish MSRP. The dealer network rather than direct sales was an early attempt at consumer protection. You probably take for granted the Monroney sticker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroney_sticker) on the window but it's not a voluntary disclosure.