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.
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).
If he can declare war without congressional approval...
When did he do that?
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
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".
As a country, the United States has not Declared War against anyone since World War II, it has however by Executive Order by the Commander in Chief gone to war with several countries.
Thirty four characters live here.
The automotive industry wields a tremendous amount of power. It's not a surprise that they pushed to have Tesla squashed.
That seems to be a talking point for some zealots now.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
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!
Oh yeah, Obama is a terrible abuser of executive orders if you believe chain emails and talk radio.
I read the internet for the articles.
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?
OK, so he means Obama and several other administrations over the last ~60-70 years. Seemed specific to Obama to me in the OP but put your way I guess their's a point to be made in there somewhere...
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
lol
did you forget to take your meds?
He should declare war on local car dealers. That'll fix em.
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.
Really, it doesn't matter when he or any other President did that.
What really matters is that the ignorant fool of an AC believes that he should be able to do that. It should scare the shit out of everyone that even an AC would think that a President should be able to cast aside state laws with a mere wave of his hand or executive order. That's fucking dictator shit right there.
People have thrown the Dictator charge around and it's been consider kookville, because there has always been some arguable legal construct supporting it. But for anyone to seriously suggest that a President has unilateral discretion over the laws of individual states is scary and should get everyone's attention.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
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.
Because of more leg room and the Killer Traffic Clearing Device?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Especially laws that would place the interests of the individual ahead of the interests of an established industry cartel? That's a laugh.
And, of course, if Obama suggests congress do something reasonable, they're CERTAINLY not going to wave their arms and scream about what a terrible idea it is, and how it would turn our country into a Socialist state...
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.
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.
It is actually interstate commerce which congress has a say in under the commerce clause. Also most states charge you sales tax via your EOY tax forms for out of state purchases.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
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.
That will ensure their success. Anything we declare war on thrives like never before.
Meanwhile,today, if you can afford a $90,000 car, I doubt there are any real impediments to your making that purchase.
That's all very nice and snarky, but Tesla's got a Model E in design with a target sticker price of around $30k US. Wouldn't it be nice to fix the problem now, so in a couple years we don't have to order our Tesla-E via Amazon Prime?
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
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?
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 protection brigade...stand down...for now.
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.
Oh yeah, let's just not have any democrats on local city councils when you lose all the local petty power brokers .
Can you cite the problem ones? I am genuinly interested. The only one people ever seem to want to cite is the ACA delay one, which seems like prosecutional discretion to me.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
True, I forgot about the state tax adjustment. Thanks
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! --
It is easy to make bold claims when you don't provide a falsifiable argument.
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
Why is this just a problem now? People have been buying cars under this model for quite some time. The drive train technology makes no difference. People need to recognize that, and make the fight technology neutral, before they'll get anything changed.
It was my understanding that "he" in the OP's context was more the "title" rather than this specific man, since this specific man has in fact not "declared war, gone to war, ..."
There have been "authorizations to use military forces in peacekeeping operations in compliance with guidelines of UN Resolutions" but not a "Declaration" by the Executive and in the eyes of the law there is a pretty gigantic distinction (Morally, there is none).
States do have some degree of sovereignty when it comes to making their own laws.
The President has the authority to enact an Executive Order which will have with it the full force of law with it, but only within the confines of Federal Law.
So, the OP is completely wrong in that the President can't legally do either of those two things due to the Separation of Powers for the Executive Branch.
There is something to be said for the Interstate Commerce Clause placing this into Federal jurisdiction rather than State, but that would be a very massive change and would probably be better suited for the Supreme Court rather than either the Legislative or Judicial branches.
Thirty four characters live here.
> so in a couple years we don't have to order our Tesla-E via Amazon Prime?
Why not? The shipping is free (or at least unmetered)
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
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.
There is something to be said for the Interstate Commerce Clause placing this into Federal jurisdiction rather than State, but that would be a very massive change and would probably be better suited for the Supreme Court rather than either the Legislative or Judicial branches.
Finally a legitimate use for the Interstate Commerce Clause, and the ball is dropped.
Move Tesla to Canada. The rules of NAFTA trump this local dealer baloney.
I guess we'll have to wait and see if that day ever arrives.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
Why is the government allowed to stop the guy from selling a legal product?
The problem is that Elon Musk thought that Car Salesman are typically third rate scum and didn't want their kind in a typical "Dealership" model where there is not a damn thing that he can do to correct the problem should a Dealership be dragging down his brand, so he went the Apple route where they own the entire chain... Design, Marketing, Support, Servicing, Sales, Finance, ... In the process, giving people an exceptional experience where they get what they want rather than being told "No, I will not sell this to you, and please leave!"
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.
The American constitution grants their federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce. Laws forbidding an out-of-state manufacturer from selling directly in a state would seem to fall under that category. The constitution does not expressly forbid such activity, so far as I can tell, but it does mean that the federal government has the jurisdiction to override them.
The problem is that Elon Musk thought that Car Salesman are typically third rate scum
You mean they aren't? In all seriousness from my experience they mostly range from mildly incompetent to circus carny levels of dodgyness. There has only been one that I had dealt with that I would say was a good guy but that was at a high end dealer.
Time to offend someone
You mean the ones where we had AUMFs issued by congress?
Laws forbidding an out-of-state manufacturer from selling directly in a state would seem to fall under that category.
Those laws apply to in-state manufacturers as well, AFAIK.
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.
Is it New Years? I didn't see the ball drop. Why is it so warm?
Authorizations to Use Military Force are intended to be joint efforts taken by multiple members of the United Nations and specifically for the purpose of engaging in "Peace Keeping" (boy, is that a wonderful euphemism!) operations.
Still, legally a separate distinction from a "Declaration of War" or other incidents of just "Going to War".
Semantics, I know, but the thread ultimately revolves around the Legal Powers assigned to each Branch of Government, and those semantics do matter in that regard, even more so when talking about superseding the legal authority for State Sovereignty amidst conflicting interpretation of laws as to whether something like Tesla's Sales Practices should be able to function under the terms of Federal Jurisdiction due to the Interstate Commerce Clause or whether it should be controlled by individual State laws due to customers "residing" within a State and them purchasing an automobile.
Thirty four characters live here.
Maybe it's for the best. Anything the current President tries to push forward gets a 99.999% chance of opposition. He's taking one for the team by feigning disinterest and this may actually go somewhere. (Yes I am in Dreamland).
Beware of those who profit off the docile and persecute the unbelievers.
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.
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!!!
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.
Indeed. With creative interpretation this law (singular) can be found to prohibit even growing food for your own consumption... Or anything else the Executive pleases.
Along with the "general welfare" clause — another loophole unfortunately left in the Constitution by its framers (the slave-owning gang of White men, you know) — this lets the President do anything — legally.
That some of the Executives hesitate, is a sign, that other things still sort-of work in this country. The Constitution does not, unfortunately...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
> "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?
He should tell Congress that Tesla should be blocked from direct sales, that's the only way to ensure that a law allowing direct sales in all 50 states will be passed =)
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
The reason it's a problem now, is the fact that the dealership method conflicts with anything new. Normal dealerships don't want anything to do with Tesla. Especially when they basically sell one model of car right now and there is no stratification. If Tesla offered the Roadster, S, and their upcoming E it still would probably not appeal to most dealerships. So for Tesla to sell it's cars it needs it's own method for getting sales.
The last example of this I can think of is Saturn. Saturn was not sold in my state because it did a bit of an end run around conventional dealerships as well. However Saturn is still much closer to a dealership experience then what Tesla wants and that scares the dealerships shitless.
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
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?
All you have to do is change the legal definition of "ordnance" to that of "fireworks"
... better suited for the Supreme Court rather than either the Legislative or Judicial branches.
It doesn't work like that. The Supreme Court can only rule on cases brought before it. So someone has to sue the states to invalidate these laws. Tesla doesn't have the resources, and private companies should not have to individually fight for their basic rights. We all have an interest in competitive markets. The attorney general should sue the states. That's his job, and Obama can and should order him to do it. He's willing to squander billions on subsidies, but unwilling to spend a penny on a simple free market solution that will accomplish far more.
As a country, the United States has not Declared War against anyone since World War II, it has however by Executive Order by the Commander in Chief gone to war with several countries.
Fixed that for you...
As a country, the United States has not Declared War against anyone since World War II, it has however by Executive Order by the Commander in Chief gone to war with several dozen countries.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
... 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.
Presidents (and federal officials) can browbeat states into changing state law pretty easily by threatening to revoke federal funds.
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.
I wasn't aware that Jackson had ever performed with The Supremes.
No exhaust port on the Tesla.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Congress authorized Iraq under GWB.
Congress did not authorize Libya.
He is to busy trying to get hundreds of thousands of future democrats strategically placed to swing the vote when they get their amnesty for illegals passed.
We should never forget: Even if you feel the sitting President is the messiah in the flesh, can never do any wrong, and is sincerely and intelligently capable of making decisions that are the absolute best in every situation...
The powers you grant this President will be provided to the next. And the next one may not be so good.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
And the next one may not be so good.
And by this, I meant the next one may be another Hitler.
(In before "But Godwin!"... talk of Hitler is perfectly logical when the subject is dictatorship.)
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Seeking leadership from Obama? More likely to get blood from a stone..
Organization? You must be joking..
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.
Explain please then how what you call a 'semantics' difference is also 'legally a separate distinction'.
We aren't talking the difference between murder & manslaughter (both legally defined in law as well as their conditions that must be).
Care to point out which section of the US Constitution or other bit of international law which legally shows the difference?
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
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?
You're confusing military action with an actual war.
The last formal declaration of war was WWII, since then everything else has been military engagements and police actions.
Semantics: the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.
Not the US Constitution, however the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548) is Federal Law of the United States, and acknowledged by the UN Security Council. The United States Constitution creates the Separation of Powers as well as the mechanisms for the Legislative Branch to enact new laws, which themselves become part of the United States Code. In this case, the Legislative Branch wanted the law, the Executive (Nixon) vetoed it, and was then overridden by a 2/3 vote in both Legislative Houses at which point it became law.
There is a clear distinction between a "Declaration of War", the use of an "Authorization of Military Force" provision by Congress, or simply "Going to War", as is possible without Congressional Approval under the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the President can commit our Armed Forces to any act that seen fit without authorization from Congress in the form of an Authorization of Military Force or a formal Declaration of War with the following restrictions placed on it:
- the President must notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action.
- armed forces are forbidden from remaining for more than 60 days + a 30 day withdrawal period.
Thirty four characters live here.
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.'"
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.
And liberty and justice for all...who can afford it. I think our pledge of allegiance should be changed to that because that is the 100% truth.
Jack of all trades,master of none
> 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
your making a false dichotomy out of the two like there is any real diffrence.
and regulating interstate commerce is the power of congress. unilateral action by the president here, would be....foolish.
It would be outside of the bounds of the presidents power.
When you own the CIA, you're a little bit more responsible than the people in Congress who don't know anything about the supposed "threat" but what they're told.
The AG can't sue them unless the States are in violation of some Federal statute, which they are not, since their is no Federal law prohibiting the practice. Not defending the WH, or anyone else, but the statement that Congress must take action is in fact entirely accurate. There just isn't any Federal law regarding this topic for there to be any action from any agency of the Executive.
He didn't need them to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
There is a legitimate contention however regarding whether or not it's OK to have troops in the area not engaged in "military action" after the sunset of the non-authorized force allowance expires.
I also wouldn't try too hard to draw a lot of parallels between the Iraq War, and the super limited Libyan intervention, you'll sprain your brain.
And when demonstrating how a democratically elected government can fall into dictatorship.
Ultimately, it's not inconceivable that with enough resources and power, some day a US executive could... dismiss Congress.
On the contrary, actual Congressional declarations of war have ended Empires.
It's our little corporate military-backed expeditions that seem to work out in the favor of the targets... and the defense industry.
No., you are not. the pub try to block anything that President Obama wants to put forward. There have been 1 or 2 exceptions.
We are talking about a party that will refuse to back their bills and ideas when Obama thinks they are a good idea. A party that sets a compromise, then when it's agreed on moves the goal post. Over and Over again.
It's really bad, and It's all documented.
Really, if you are unhappy with congress not doing anything, you should not vote republican. If that happens one time in mass, they will change. AS long as they can count on people falling for FUD, they will only get worse.
You can talk about both parties., but right not, th pub are far wars then an y group for over 60 years.
And yes, it the dem were simply blocking, whining and them blaming others, I'd be call for people to vote pub
Of course if you like science you should be voting for them anyways.,
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
They are.
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.
*shrug* I don't see why that would be a big deal. I'm Canadian, where in a majority government, the prime minister can basically do whatever he wants for four years. The limitations are what the supreme court says will fly with the constitution, and the knowledge that if you do something too unpopular, your party will lose the next election and somebody else will get to form the government. Or if you go way too far overboard, you might have a cabinet revolt to pick another party leader (and by extension prime minister).
The american system where the leader of the country is at odds with the representatives seems very inefficient to me. Why is the person ostensibly leading the country not the one deciding what the government should do? Why else are they the leader of the country? I don't see how American governments can get anything done without the stability of a leader empowered to make decisions that have impact.
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
A superficially cool idea... However, it ultimately defeats the purpose of a representative democracy. That's more like a random sampled direct democracy. One could argue that may be a better system (I wouldn't), but it certainly wasn't how the country was framed... Though I suppose in all fairness, much of the government has changed just as radically over time.
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
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.
Also the ones where he appointed people to positions without Congressional approval, because without people in the positions the government agency could not operate and Republicans didn't like those agencies and was withholding nominations to effectively cripple them.
But really, the ones that go "too far" are simply the orders that Obama has signed. The fact that he signed them makes them automatically disastrous power grabs by an out of control executive bent on total domination. They need a return to the careful and thoughtful exercise of executive power we saw under George W.
I read the internet for the articles.
>Or if you go way too far overboard, you might have a cabinet revolt to pick another party leader (and by extension prime minister).
in the USA, the president picks his cabinet, and they are basicly his apointees. Party leadership has no direct control over a sitting politician, but can only exert influence financially or with brand name support durring elections.
Metaphorical war not actual Congressional declarations of war ... I was thinking: War on drugs, poverty, terrorism, cars, gangs, graffiti... off the top of my head.