Skip to main content

View Diary: Tesla charging ahead in North Carolina (99 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Isn't legislation like that a violation (19+ / 0-)

    of the commerce clause in the Constitution?

    Voting is the means by which the public is distracted from the realities of power and its exercise.

    by Anne Elk on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 09:11:42 AM PDT

    •  No. The Commerce Clause empowers the (12+ / 0-)

      federal government to regulate interstate commerce. This is a state regulating commerce within its borders. These dealership laws have been around forever and the new bill is really an extension of them.

      I wonder, though, if it violates the 14th amendment equal protection clause since car sellers are treated differently than other businesses. It probably isn't since 14th amendment arguments for commercial activities are very hard to make but Musk is trying.

      Further, affiant sayeth not.

      by Gary Norton on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 10:23:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe Musk can claim "Cars are People" (5+ / 0-)

        seems like that is the only way to argue equal protection.  I believe he could easily have a special mailer sent to everyone in the state of NC that would allow them to return a coupon that states they want to buy a Tesla.  Then the NC Senate would have to declare all mailers illegal.  At some point, maybe Musk could hire off election year phone bank telemarketers to call every listed phone in NC to offer an opportunity to buy a Model S.  At some point, the NC legislature would be stumbling under their own "pay to play" bribery laws that might get a bunch of them thrown out of office.  I would love to get a Tesla.  I would drive 10 miles to get one.  I'm lucky because I live in Silicon Valley and could pick mine up at the factory.  Unfortunately, there is this small thing called money that prevents me from getting one.  Other than that and the waiting list, I'd do it in a flash.  I wish all the people of NC great success in getting their dealership free Teslas.  I'd join them if I could.

        "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength", George Orwell, "1984" -7.63 -5.95

        by dangoch on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 11:27:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I wouldn't be so sure about the Commerce Clause. (12+ / 0-)

        With the current Supreme Court, nothing is sure--especially the Commerce Clause, which was scaled back in the Obamacare decision.

        But--Teslas are not manufactured in NC. Thus selling them in NC is interstate commerce.

        In the 1960s, the Supreme Court held Ollie's BBQ in Alabama was engaged in interstate commerce because its ketchup came from out of state. So the Commerce Clause is pretty doggone broad.

        For now.

        "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

        by HeyMikey on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 11:32:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes it is broad, but Commerce questions (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ginny in CO

          relate to federal laws, ie., does the federal law regulate interstate commerce. This is a state law. It regulates commerce in NC that can affect interstate commerce but there is no federal law it conflicts with as far as we know. By its terms, the CC does not govern state laws unless they conflict with properly enacted Federal laws.

          Further, affiant sayeth not.

          by Gary Norton on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 11:59:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Dormant commerce clause. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Gary Norton, radical simplicity

            I'm not an expert in this area. But I know enough to doubt that the answer is that simple.


            "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

            by HeyMikey on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 12:59:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You are right. I was disinclined to get (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              into much detail including the dormant commerce clause issue because I thought , possibly incorrectly, that the question was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the CC.

              Bottom line is that dormant CC has most often been used in tax cases; these franchise laws have been around forever and never successfully challenged as far as I'm aware; the current court has shown real animas to the regular CC (except for criminalizing pot and a few other favored Republican bet noires) and seems to not put much store in the dormant CC.

              Further, affiant sayeth not.

              by Gary Norton on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 01:21:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  the courts use a "Traditional regulation" test (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Gary Norton

        in heavily regulated industries,
        if the state changes the rules,
        it's often times supported as long as their is a
        rational basis.

        Say for instance, Banks,  the state chooses to regulate
        that all bank branches must close on a friday by 3 PM
        and cannot be open until Monday AM.

        Now why would they do that?

        They could argue it's important to get in and check the books
        when the bank is dead stopped, no transactions are occurring
        and the regulators can verify balances and accounting.

        it may be discriminatory to bank, but given banks are
        traditionally heavily regulated and there is a rational basis,
        i'd say they are in good shape.

        now it would be kind of silly to require that of say Tailors
        and not dressmakers, but,  the states have a broad
        power to regulate trade and commerce in state equitably.

      •  But... but... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Gary Norton

        Corporations are people too, my friend!

      •  except that it IS interstate commerce (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        radical simplicity

        TSLA is a headquartered in California. It's cars are manufactured in Fremont California. Even in a direct to consumer relationship, this is by definition an interstate sale.

        --United Citizens defeated Citizens United...This time. --

        by chipoliwog on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 01:55:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Actually ... (3+ / 0-)

        this probably would DEFINITELY fall within the CC. By requiring physical local presence, they are necessarily impeding business outside of NC from doing business within their borders. This would be a textbook slam dunk case. I'd be surprised if SCOTUS didn't rule unanimously if this had passed and Tesla sued.

      •  Car dealers are not a suspect class. nt (0+ / 0-)
      •  Except that Tesla's not within the state's borders (0+ / 0-)

        Commerce to the state from another state would, therefore, be interstate commerce by definition. The law wouldn't stand if challenged.

      •  If the cars are brought across the state line (0+ / 0-)

        from another place, then the Commerce Clause applies.  Only items manufactured and sold within the state would be free from Commerce Clause.  Since Tesla is manufactured in California and shipped across state lines, the Commerce Clause applies.

        Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world--and never will. Mark Twain

        by whoknu on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 09:34:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Stock Republican response (0+ / 0-)


    •  nah, just hypocrisy. (0+ / 0-)

      good thing they're such staunch believers in the free market. wouldn't want the gub'mint picking winners.

      If only Michael Phelps hadn't smoked that pot...imagine what he could have accomplished with motivation and good lung capacity.

      by papa monzano on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 12:32:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site