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).
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 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?
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.
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.
I thought...
You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.
You parroted without doing any sort of independent analysis or validation.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
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
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.
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.
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.
seems like prosecutional discretion to me
Drug laws? Nah we won't enforce em.
heard of prohibition? To me drug laws are the same as it, they should be prohibition, so I like to think of him not enforcing them because they are unconstitutional.
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.
Not really.. If law A is unconstitutional, and law B is not, then picking to enforce law B but not law A is the proper thing to do to enforce the constitutional rule of law we have.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
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.
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.
When you can't grow feed on your own farm to feed your own animals because somehow the Commerce Clause means that that's taking away some other farmers 'right' to sell you their feed you know the system is beyond screwed.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
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
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.
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.
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?
... 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".
Then they got bought and are no longer on the market.
Congress authorized Iraq under GWB.
Congress did not authorize Libya.
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.
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?
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