So much for states rights

[JVV]

States aren't allowed to block driverless cars?

House unanimously approves sweeping self-driving car measure (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-selfdriving/house-unanimously-approves-sweeping-self-driving-car-measure-idUSKCN1BH2B2)

They should be allowed to discriminate against gays but should have no say in whether driverless cars are allowed on their highways.

Obviously this post is directed at the rightwingers who supposedly fight for states rights "on principle" while claiming it's not about oppressing those they don't approve of.

So much for principle.

[Perianne]

So much for states rights. You are correct. This bill is wrong and demonstrates the power lobbyists have in government.

[Standing Wolf]

Bad, bad law.

Something just occurred to me, and I wonder if anyone here knows the answer. How would a police officer pull over a driverless car?

[AeonPax]

`
`
A driverless police car.

[AZ Jim]

Trump tramples States Rights. Joe Arpaio was convicted in Arizona for a misdemeanor offense for violating STATE law. Trump legally has pardon powers for federal felonies. https://www.justice.gov/pardon/pardon-information-and-instructions

[Ethereal]

Bad, bad law.

Something just occurred to me, and I wonder if anyone here knows the answer. How would a police officer pull over a driverless car?

Driverless cars can be fitted with technology that will recognize law enforcement and pull over in response to them.

[Standing Wolf]

Trump tramples States Rights. Joe Arpaio was convicted in Arizona for a misdemeanor offense for violating STATE law. Trump legally has pardon powers for federal felonies. https://www.justice.gov/pardon/pardon-information-and-instructions

He was convicted for violating a federal court order.

[Standing Wolf]

Driverless cars can be fitted with technology that will recognize law enforcement and pull over in response to them.

Maybe. I'm just thinking of all the times I was able to avoid a bad accident by doing something illegal and/or dangerous, e.g., doing a sudden U-turn, swerving into another lane...that sort of thing. I find it difficult to imagine that a machine could be programmed to use that sort of judgment - to take into account all the nuances of driving that a seasoned and experienced human driver reacts to almost instinctively, and choose the right option. I just don't trust them.

[Green Arrow]

Republicans, Democrats, democraliberals and conservatives, the longer you listen to them the more inconsistent they get.

[Ethereal]

Maybe. I'm just thinking of all the times I was able to avoid a bad accident by doing something illegal and/or dangerous, e.g., doing a sudden U-turn, swerving into another lane...that sort of thing. I find it difficult to imagine that a machine could be programmed to use that sort of judgment - to take into account all the nuances of driving that a seasoned and experienced human driver reacts to almost instinctively, and choose the right option. I just don't trust them.
My reservation about driverless cars has nothing to do with safety, but with social control. If anything, driverless cars will be much safer on average.

[Standing Wolf]

My reservation about driverless cars has nothing to do with safety, but with social control. If anything, driverless cars will be much safer on average.

While that may be true, it will be of little comfort or consequence to the survivors of the people who will inevitably be killed by them. If your wife or child were run over by a driverless car, would you care about safety statistics? Would you take any solace in being told that, on average, fewer people are dying because more driverless cars are on the road?

[Ethereal]

While that may be true, it will be of little comfort or consequence to the survivors of the people who will inevitably be killed by them. If your wife or child were run over by a driverless car, would you care about safety statistics? Would you take any solace in being told that, on average, fewer people are dying because more driverless cars are on the road?

I try to avoid emotionally based arguments when it comes to public policy. Such feelings should not matter.

[DGUtley]

Trump tramples States Rights. Joe Arpaio was convicted in Arizona for a misdemeanor offense for violating STATE law. Trump legally has pardon powers for federal felonies. https://www.justice.gov/pardon/pardon-information-and-instructions

I think he has pardon powers in federal courts. I believe that those crimes were in federal court. He has no jurisdiction to pardon someone in state court.

[Standing Wolf]

I try to avoid emotionally based arguments when it comes to public policy. Such feelings should not matter.

It's a tenuous analogy at best, but I feel the same way about racial preferences in hiring, promotion and school admissions. Yes, they result in an increase in minority representation in some fields, in leadership positions, in university attendance, etc., all worthy goals, but they hurt innocent individuals in the process.

[AZ Jim]

I think he has pardon powers in federal courts. I believe that those crimes were in federal court. He has no jurisdiction to pardon someone in state court.You are correct those trials were in Federal court.

[MisterVeritis]

You are correct those trials were in Federal court.
"More than a month after lawyers wrapped up closing arguments, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton found Arpaio guilty for defying a judge’s 2011 court order to refrain from racially profiling Latinos during patrols and turning them over to federal immigration authorities."

Do you understand what the US District means above?

[Tahuyaman]

States aren't allowed to block driverless cars?

House unanimously approves sweeping self-driving car measure (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-selfdriving/house-unanimously-approves-sweeping-self-driving-car-measure-idUSKCN1BH2B2)

They should be allowed to discriminate against gays but should have no say in whether driverless cars are allowed on their highways.

Obviously this post is directed at the rightwingers who supposedly fight for states rights "on principle" while claiming it's not about oppressing those they don't approve of.

So much for principle.
This is a "right wing" thing?

[JVV]

This is a "right wing" thing?

In the sense that it's the rightwing who are so passionately for states rights ... except when its more lucrative not to be.

[Tahuyaman]

In the sense that it's the rightwing who are so passionately for states rights ... except when its more lucrative not to be.
Tell me how the driverless car issue is a right wing thing?

[JVV]

Tell me how the driverless car issue is a right wing thing?


States' rights.

Republicans in Congress just joined with Democrats to block states from being allowed to say what kinds of vehicles are allowed to be on their roads.

[Tahuyaman]

States' rights.

Republicans in Congress just joined with Democrats to block states from being allowed to say what kinds of vehicles are allowed to be on their roads.
So, what does that have to do with the right wing?

[MisterVeritis]

States' rights.

Republicans in Congress just joined with Democrats to block states from being allowed to say what kinds of vehicles are allowed to be on their roads.
Have States ever exercised that right?

[JVV]

So, what does that have to do with the right wing?


How many ways are there to say this?

The right wing is who typically champions states' rights.

Except not today.

[Tahuyaman]

How many ways are there to say this?

The right wing is who typically champions states' rights.

Except not today.. And who these people you are talking about? If you are equating Republicans to the right wing, you would be quite mistaken. There might be a dozen right wing Republicans in the congress.

[Tahuyaman]

People are duped when they think along partisan lines.

[JVV]

. And who these people you are talking about? If you are equating Republicans to the right wing, you would be quite mistaken. There might be a dozen right wing Republicans in the congress.

And they unanimously joined in with the others voting against states' rights.

[MisterVeritis]

And they unanimously joined in with the others voting against states' rights.
What right do you believe was violated?

[Tahuyaman]

And they unanimously joined in with the others voting against states' rights. Name these "right wingers" who are not respecting states rights?

[Tahuyaman]

What right do you believe was violated?

Yet to be answered....

[Tahuyaman]

The last time Inlooked, driving a car was not a right. Did that change recently?

[JVV]

What right do you believe was violated?

The right of states to determine which vehicles are allowed on their roads.

It doesn't matter what the right is -- to govern schools, to govern roads -- it all falls under the same principle. Today all the members of the House voted to restrict states' right to self-determination.

Not one member of Congress took a stand to protect states' rights.

If they didn't matter to one single member of Congress today, then that means that the ones who will demand states' rights next week, next month or next year will be lying about their dedication to that principle.

[Dr. Who]

Maybe. I'm just thinking of all the times I was able to avoid a bad accident by doing something illegal and/or dangerous, e.g., doing a sudden U-turn, swerving into another lane...that sort of thing. I find it difficult to imagine that a machine could be programmed to use that sort of judgment - to take into account all the nuances of driving that a seasoned and experienced human driver reacts to almost instinctively, and choose the right option. I just don't trust them.
I don't think the law allows them to travel without someone at the wheel who can take over.

[MisterVeritis]

The right of states to determine which vehicles are allowed on their roads.
Why do you believe that "right" has been removed?

[Tahuyaman]

I'm still waiting for JVV to tell me where "right wingers" opposed states rights.

[Tahuyaman]

I don't think the law allows them to travel without someone at the wheel who can take over.


A concept so simple it will go over the head of most.

[JVV]

Why do you believe that "right" has been removed?


I can read.

[JVV]

I'm still waiting for @JVV (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=709) to tell me where "right wingers" opposed states rights.


Are there any right wingers in the House of Representatives?

Any at all?

Whatever that number -- and I realize that number changes depending on who is a RINO on any given day -- but whatever that number was yesterday, that's how many right wingers in the House of Representatives who opposed states rights.


If there are no right wingers at all in the House of Representatives, then this is moot. However, you _seemed_ to agree yesterday that though there were few, there were at least some.



But if there are actually none at all in the House, then never mind.

[JVV]

I don't think the law allows them to travel without someone at the wheel who can take over.

I'll need a link on this.

Why would advocates for the blind consider driverless cars so empowering if they still needed to have someone at the wheel who could take over? This isn't just about intelligent cruise control. This is about cars which are literally without human drivers.

Current federal law may still have restrictions, but the attempts being made now are to let the federal government remove those restrictions and not allow states to put them back.

[Tahuyaman]

Are there any right wingers in the House of Representatives?

Any at all?

Whatever that number -- and I realize that number changes depending on who is a RINO on any given day -- but whatever that number was yesterday, that's how many right wingers in the House of Representatives who opposed states rights.


If there are no right wingers at all in the House of Representatives, then this is moot. However, you _seemed_ to agree yesterday that though there were few, there were at least some.



But if there are actually none at all in the House, then never mind.

So, every congressman voted against respecting states rights? I've noticed that you still can't tell me the name of even one "right winger" who has disrespected to idea of states rights.

[Perianne]

So, every congressman voted against respecting states rights? I've noticed that you still can't tell me the name of even one "right winger" who has disrespected to idea of states rights.

And why is this discussion even about rightwingers? It was unanimously approved.

[JVV]

So, every congressman voted against respecting states rights? I've noticed that you still can't tell me the name of even one "right winger" who has disrespected to idea of states rights.

The vote was unanimous.

There are two choices here.

(a) There are no right wingers in the House.

(b) Right wingers voted against states' rights.


Are there ANY right wingers in the House?

I have to ask you, because I know how slippery it is to call someone a right winger. Give a name and right wingers on internet forums will divert the thread saying how that particular person is not a right winger.



So I am keeping it simple. If you say there are NO right wingers in the House, then we're done here.

But if there are ANY right wingers in the house, then those are the ones who voted against states' rights. Because EVERYONE in the House voted against states rights. All the leftwingers. All the rightwingers. Everyone.

[JVV]

And why is this discussion even about rightwingers? It was unanimously approved.

Because it's the right wingers who supposedly champion states' rights (and who use states' rights as an excuse to discriminate against vulnerable populations) whose votes were hypocritical.

People who say they are fine with federal controls in most areas weren't being hypocritical to vote against states' rights.

The right wing legislators who supposedly care about states' rights joined in with the herd and voted against them. Taking away their excuse for the next time they say that states' rights is their reason for voting for some hateful bill.

[Perianne]

Because it's the right wingers who supposedly champion states' rights (and who use states' rights as an excuse to discriminate against vulnerable populations) whose votes were hypocritical.

People who say they are fine with federal controls in most areas weren't being hypocritical to vote against states' rights.

The right wing legislators who supposedly care about states' rights joined in with the herd and voted against them. Taking away their excuse for the next time they say that states' rights is their reason for voting for some hateful bill.
I understand your point now. Thanks for the explanation.

[Cletus]

The problem with that little rant is that members of Congress are the representatives of the states in the federal government. The House represents the People and the Senate represents the State. So in effect, it was the state voting, through its elected representatives.

I don't like the idea of driverless cars, but it is going to happen and since very few states have major roadway systems that are NOT federally subsidized or are not used for interstate commerce, I understand the interest on the federal level.

[Green Arrow]

The problem with that little rant is that members of Congress are the representatives of the states in the federal government. The House represents the People and the Senate represents the State. So in effect, it was the state voting, through its elected representatives.

I don't like the idea of driverless cars, but it is going to happen and since very few states have major roadway systems that are NOT federally subsidized or are not used for interstate commerce, I understand the interest on the federal level.
The Senate hasn't represented the states since 1913.

[JVV]

The problem with that little rant is that members of Congress are the representatives of the states in the federal government. The House represents the People and the Senate represents the State. So in effect, it was the state voting, through its elected representatives.

I don't like the idea of driverless cars, but it is going to happen and since very few states have major roadway systems that are NOT federally subsidized or are not used for interstate commerce, I understand the interest on the federal level.


Well, that's a good point.

State legislators voting to give away states' rights for generations to come, but the state residents _did_ give them the authority to do so.



Like those countries who have revolutions and then have one democratic election, and they vote to install a restrictive theocracy as their new form of government.

[Cletus]

The Senate hasn't represented the states since 1913.

Of course they do. Going to popular election of Senators didn't change their basic function.

[MrMike]

A bad law promoted and paid for by special interests. And yes, as you already know, I'm a righty.

[Archer0915]

States aren't allowed to block driverless cars?

House unanimously approves sweeping self-driving car measure (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-selfdriving/house-unanimously-approves-sweeping-self-driving-car-measure-idUSKCN1BH2B2)

They should be allowed to discriminate against gays but should have no say in whether driverless cars are allowed on their highways.

Obviously this post is directed at the rightwingers who supposedly fight for states rights "on principle" while claiming it's not about oppressing those they don't approve of.

So much for principle.
So states can grant driver licences and... I guess if a car can pass an oral or written exam, the vision/sign recognition test, pay the fees... Yeah states should decide and I think SCOTUS will agree. Federal overreach. Still has a lot further to go.

[Captdon]

Trump tramples States Rights. Joe Arpaio was convicted in Arizona for a misdemeanor offense for violating STATE law. Trump legally has pardon powers for federal felonies. https://www.justice.gov/pardon/pardon-information-and-instructions

He was convicted of contempt of court by a federal judge. FEDERAL. The President can't pardon for a state conviction. Sorry to spoil your Trump attack.

[MisterVeritis]

I can read.
Have states ever been able to decide which vehicles can be on their roads? Could they, for example, decide no Fords can be on their roads?

[JVV]

A bad law promoted and paid for by special interests. And yes, as you already know, I'm a righty.


Well, hi there.

[MisterVeritis]

The right of states to determine which vehicles are allowed on their roads.

It doesn't matter what the right is -- to govern schools, to govern roads -- it all falls under the same principle. Today all the members of the House voted to restrict states' right to self-determination.

Not one member of Congress took a stand to protect states' rights.

If they didn't matter to one single member of Congress today, then that means that the ones who will demand states' rights next week, next month or next year will be lying about their dedication to that principle.
Are you familiar with Federalism? One of the substantial reasons for establishing a Federal government was to ensure the states would play well with one another. Not allowing fifty different safety standards for vehicles falls under that umbrella, I believe.

[Archer0915]

I read the article... BS! When they create electronics that do no lock up then they can consider it. I mean waiving safety standards is asinine.

[Archer0915]

Are you familiar with Federalism? One of the substantial reasons for establishing a Federal government was to ensure the states would play well with one another. Not allowing fifty different safety standards for vehicles falls under that umbrella, I believe.
There are no standards in this case.

[JVV]

Have states ever been able to decide which vehicles can be on their roads? Could they, for example, decide no Fords can be on their roads?

Yes, the definition of street-legal varies from state to state. For example, some states allow ATV's on their roads. Some don't. And different states require different equipment for ordinary vehicles.

[MisterVeritis]

Why do you believe that "right" has been removed?

I can read.
I congratulate you on your ability to read. Maybe you have a point. In matters of safety maybe each state should have their own safety laws. That way we can manufacture cares specially designed to meet each states differing requirements.

[JVV]

Are you familiar with Federalism? One of the substantial reasons for establishing a Federal government was to ensure the states would play well with one another. Not allowing fifty different safety standards for vehicles falls under that umbrella, I believe.

Except that states DO have different safety standards from each other.

[MisterVeritis]

I'll need a link on this.
Why would advocates for the blind consider driverless cars so empowering if they still needed to have someone at the wheel who could take over? This isn't just about intelligent cruise control. This is about cars which are literally without human drivers.
Current federal law may still have restrictions, but the attempts being made now are to let the federal government remove those restrictions and not allow states to put them back.
At some point it may be illegal to operate a vehicle without a special permit.

[MisterVeritis]

The problem with that little rant is that members of Congress are the representatives of the states in the federal government. The House represents the People and the Senate represents the State. So in effect, it was the state voting, through its elected representatives.

I don't like the idea of driverless cars, but it is going to happen and since very few states have major roadway systems that are NOT federally subsidized or are not used for interstate commerce, I understand the interest on the federal level.
The Senate is superfluous. The Senators are selected, not by the states but by the people just as are their representatives. The states no longer have a role. That is a shame.

[MisterVeritis]

Except that states DO have different safety standards from each other.
Really? So one state may require different headlights than another, or a different configuration of brake lights? Can states determine individually how thick the windows must be?

[Archer0915]

really? So one state may require different headlights than another, or a different configuration of brake lights? Can states determine individually how thick the windows must be?

inspection!

[MisterVeritis]

inspection!
Nonresponsive.

[JVV]

Really? So one state may require different headlights than another, or a different configuration of brake lights? Can states determine individually how thick the windows must be?

That's a rather narrow question. I bet they could, but they probably don't and wouldn't.

Nevertheless, safety standards do vary from state to state. States have different requirements for equipment required on cars. They have different requirements for headlight usage. Some states have laws against modifications of headlights. So, a maker could theoretically create a headlight configuration which would violate one state's standards, and then that car wouldn't be allowed in that state.

In 2013, at least, Mercedes sold in Wisconsin and three other states weren't allowed to be equipped with Splitview because of prohibitions on front seat video. But they were allowed in 46 states. This may have been updated since then, but the principle remains -- states ARE allowed to have different safety standards and different equipment requirements.

[JVV]

inspection!


Yes, some states have safety inspections, and some don't. And different states look for different things in those inspections.

[MisterVeritis]

That's a rather narrow question. I bet they could, but they probably don't and wouldn't.

Nevertheless, safety standards do vary from state to state. States have different requirements for equipment required on cars. They have different requirements for headlight usage. Some states have laws against modifications of headlights. So, a maker could theoretically create a headlight configuration which would violate one state's standards, and then that car wouldn't be allowed in that state.

In 2013, at least, Mercedes sold in Wisconsin and three other states weren't allowed to be equipped with Splitview because of prohibitions on front seat video. But they were allowed in 46 states. This may have been updated since then, but the principle remains -- states ARE allowed to have different safety standards and different equipment requirements.
Uh-huh. That explains why I cannot bring a car I bought in California to the State of Alabama. Right? Oh wait. I can.

[Archer0915]

Nonresponsive.

No - it answered your assertions of the facts and corrected you.

http://www.partsgeek.com/mmparts/car_inspection_requirements_by_state_a_compendium. html

[JVV]

Uh-huh. That explains why I cannot bring a car I bought in California to the State of Alabama. Right? Oh wait. I can.


That car you bought in California could be illegal to operate in Alabama. That Splitview-equipped Mercedes you bought in California in 2013 could have gotten you in legal trouble in Wisconsin.

Different states have different safety standards. I've given you specifics. You've given me mockery.

Later.

[MisterVeritis]

No it answered your assertions of the facts and corrected you.

http://www.partsgeek.com/mmparts/car_inspection_requirements_by_state_a_compendium. html
So I cannot drive a car I bought I some other state in the one I am in?

Can you show me, for example, a car build in one state cannot be driven in another state due to different state laws?

I contend most of the state variation are hidden tax measures.

[JVV]

No it answered your assertions of the facts and corrected you.

http://www.partsgeek.com/mmparts/car_inspection_requirements_by_state_a_compendium. html


Good link.

[MisterVeritis]

That car you bought in California could be illegal to operate in Alabama. That Splitview-equipped Mercedes you bought in California in 2013 could have gotten you in legal trouble in Wisconsin.
Different states have different safety standards. I've given you specifics. You've given me mockery.
Later.
Only, it isn't. Nice try though. Later, indeed.

[Archer0915]

So I cannot drive a car I bought I some other state in the one I am in?

Only for a given amount of time. You residence has a bit to do with it but you can not live in one state and register in another without breaking the law.

Point being the federal government is taking away the rights of states for this but it is discrimination... Hey! Why the hell should I get an inspection and keep my vehicle up to PA standards or NY standards while the self driving cars have no standards.

[MisterVeritis]

Yes, some states have safety inspections, and some don't. And different states look for different things in those inspections.
Do any inspections eliminate entire categories of cars? Can my state decide no one can buy a Lexus, for example? Or decide no one can own a car worth more than $30K? Or decide any car built in Illinois is not welcome in Alabama?

[MisterVeritis]

Only for a given amount of time. You residence has a bit to do with it but you can not live in one state and register in another without breaking the law.
Nonresponsive. The right answer is that a car sold in any state may be driven in any other state. There are no whole categories of cars prohibited by one state that are lawful to drive in another. Are there?

[Archer0915]

Do any inspections eliminate entire categories of cars? Can my state decide no one can buy a Lexus, for example? Or decide no one can own a car worth more than $30K? Or decide any car built in Illinois is not welcome in Alabama?
Ask Bill Gates!

Also CA? You can not take many vehicles to CA when you move there.

[Archer0915]

Nonresponsive. The right answer is that a car sold in any state may be driven in any other state. There are no whole categories of cars prohibited by one state that are lawful to drive in another. Are there?
You may be ticketed in another state for what was allowed in your state. Still, I am saying this is federal overreach.

[MisterVeritis]

Ask Bill Gates!

Also CA? You can not take many vehicles to CA when you move there.
I had no difficulty whatever in taking the cars I bought in Texas to California.

The cry for states rights in this issue is overblown and silly.

And ask Bill Gates what, exactly?

[MisterVeritis]

You may be ticketed in another state for what was allowed in your state. Still, I am saying this is federal overreach.
I see. So one state is not prohibiting vehicles built and sold in another state.

It is not overreaching. It is one of the reasons we have a Constitution.

[Archer0915]

I had no difficulty whatever in taking the cars I bought in Texas to California.

The cry for states rights in this issue is overblown and silly.

And ask Bill Gates what, exactly?
About his personal race track and why he has it.

You can not register modern non CA approved cars in CA.

[MisterVeritis]

About his personal race track and why he has it.
Relevance?

You can not register modern non CA approved cars in CA.
And yet I did it when I moved from Texas to California. And I did it again when I moved from California to Alabama. The big difference was in the amount of taxes California squeezed out of me for the privilege of driving in that horrid state.

[Archer0915]

I see. So one state is not prohibiting vehicles built and sold in another state.

It is not overreaching. It is one of the reasons we have a Constitution.

I think you are missing my point here. For an entire class of vehicles the rules fly out the window but everyone else still needs to obey the laws.

I bet if they said a blacks do not have to pay any taxes you would take issue!

If they said laws only applied to heterosexual white men no matter the state law you would take issue...

[Archer0915]

Relevance?

And yet I did it when I moved from Texas to California. And I did it again when I moved from California to Alabama. The big difference was in the amount of taxes California squeezed out of me for the privilege of driving in that horrid state.
Then those cars met CA standards.

[MisterVeritis]

I think you are missing my point here. For an entire class of vehicles the rules fly out the window but everyone else still needs to obey the laws.
If states are completely free to decide then we ought to see vehicles built specifically for one state versus another. We don't see that. Do we?

[MisterVeritis]

Then those cars met CA standards.
I have driven through about half of the states. At no time was I stopped at the border and told to turn around because my car, sold in Texas was not welcome in New Mexico, Nevada, or in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.

This is a silly argument. It is not about states rights at all.

In the same way, a state may not decide that trains passing through it must operate with a different track width.

[Archer0915]

I have driven through about half of the states. At no time was I stopped at the border and told to turn around because my car, sold in Texas was not welcome in New Mexico, Nevada, or in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.

This is a silly argument. It is not about states rights at all.

In the same way, a state may not decide that trains passing through it must operate with a different track width.

You are arguing for the sake of argument because you are out on a limb. You know damn well what I said.

[JVV]

Nonresponsive. The right answer is that a car sold in any state may be driven in any other state. There are no whole categories of cars prohibited by one state that are lawful to drive in another. Are there?

Your ATV is legal on the road in some states and not in others.

Your mental acrobatics are legal in every state, but they don't change the fact that the House just voted unanimously to limit states rights, with no dissent from the alleged protectors of states' rights.

Safety standards, and legality of equipment, and where this equipment may be used, vary from state to state. Many examples have been provided to address your repeated gotcha attempts.


*bored*

[JVV]

The Senate may provide the dissent which the House did not.

[MisterVeritis]

Your ATV is legal on the road in some states and not in others.
Your mental acrobatics are legal in every state, but they don't change the fact that the House just voted unanimously to limit states rights, with no dissent from the alleged protectors of states' rights.
Safety standards, and legality of equipment, and where this equipment may be used, vary from state to state. Many examples have been provided to address your repeated gotcha attempts.
*bored*
I understand your boredom. I do not accept your fundamental argument. Cars sold in one state may be driven in all states. The Constitution was designed for this kind of issue. We do not have cars built to state specifications. Do we?

[JVV]

I understand your boredom. I do not accept your fundamental argument. Cars sold in one state may be driven in all states. The Constitution was designed for this kind of issue. We do not have cars built to state specifications. Do we?


Yes, we do.

On occasion we do. Cars have been built to different specs to meet California law, without all cars everywhere being built to meet those same, more expensive specs.

It's not common. The market responds to the demands of large states and others are often compelled to conform because of that.

But yes, it has happened.


Can't tell if you're responding this way out of some compulsion to defend Republicans in Congress, or if you really don't know that much about history and different states. Or maybe you just like to argue.

[MisterVeritis]

Yes, we do.
On occasion we do. Cars have been built to different specs to meet California law, without all cars everywhere being built to meet those same, more expensive specs.
It's not common. The market responds to the demands of large states and others are often compelled to conform because of that.
But yes, it has happened.
Can't tell if you're responding this way out of some compulsion to defend Republicans in Congress, or if you really don't know that much about history and different states. Or maybe you just like to argue.
You have chosen a poor hill to die on.

The Constitution's general welfare clauses were designed to make sure commerce could easily flow between the states. Having different cars built to differing state specifications would impede commerce between the states. Under the Federalism construct some decisions fall within the Federal government's role. This, in my opinion, is one of them.

[Archer0915]

You have chosen a poor hill to die on.

The Constitution's general welfare clauses were designed to make sure commerce could easily flow between the states. Having different cars built to differing state specifications would impede commerce between the states. Under the Federalism construct some decisions fall within the Federal government's role. This, in my opinion, is one of them.

I think you have gone off on a tangent.

[Dr. Who]

I'll need a link on this.

Why would advocates for the blind consider driverless cars so empowering if they still needed to have someone at the wheel who could take over? This isn't just about intelligent cruise control. This is about cars which are literally without human drivers.

Current federal law may still have restrictions, but the attempts being made now are to let the federal government remove those restrictions and not allow states to put them back.
I think the new legislation is allowing for more exceptions to the current law for the purposes of R&D, it's not opening up the market to driverless vehicles in general.

Today NHTSA has the power to grant 2,500 FMVSS exemptions each year. This legislation will gradually up that number—by a lot. In year one, the federal agency could grant up to 25,000 exemptions; by year two, 50,000; and by years three and four, 100,000. Meaning: More self-driving cars testing on public roads. It’s about to get much more robot-y up in here.
https://www.wired.com/story/congress-self-driving-car-law-bill/

Self-driving cars will be a reality within the next few years and will drastically reduce injuries due to auto accidents. The statistical data on the test vehicles already shows them to be far better drivers than humans. However, in order for that to be possible, the AI needs more real world experience in terms of variable driving conditions, from weather to traffic patterns.
https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2017/06/14/nvidia-congress-self-driving/

[JVV]

You have chosen a poor hill to die on.

The Constitution's general welfare clauses were designed to make sure commerce could easily flow between the states. Having different cars built to differing state specifications would impede commerce between the states. Under the Federalism construct some decisions fall within the Federal government's role. This, in my opinion, is one of them.


I'm not dying on any hill.

You're ignoring history, denying all the evidence of states having different safety and equipment standards for what is allowed or required on their roads. But it's no skin off my nose. This is just an internet forum.

I've made my point about the selective defense of states' rights.

And I've seen who is willing to bend over backwards to provide cover for supposed states' righters in Congress.

[MisterVeritis]

You have chosen a poor hill to die on.

The Constitution's general welfare clauses were designed to make sure commerce could easily flow between the states. Having different cars built to differing state specifications would impede commerce between the states. Under the Federalism construct some decisions fall within the Federal government's role. This, in my opinion, is one of them.

I think you have gone off on a tangent.
Not at all. Under Federalism most police and safety issues do remain state responsibilities. But commerce does not. Do we have fifty different standards for medicine? Can a medicine lawfully sold in Alabama be outlawed in Georgia? Do we have different requirements for the manufacture of aspirin in each of the 50 states? Should we?

[JVV]

I think the new legislation is allowing for more exceptions to the current law for the purposes of R&D, it's not opening up the market to driverless vehicles in general.

Today NHTSA has the power to grant 2,500 FMVSS exemptions each year. This legislation will gradually up that number—by a lot. In year one, the federal agency could grant up to 25,000 exemptions; by year two, 50,000; and by years three and four, 100,000. Meaning: More self-driving cars testing on public roads. It’s about to get much more robot-y up in here.
https://www.wired.com/story/congress-self-driving-car-law-bill/

Self-driving cars will be a reality within the next few years and will drastically reduce injuries due to auto accidents. The statistical data on the test vehicles already shows them to be far better drivers than humans. However, in order for that to be possible, the AI needs more real world experience in terms of variable driving conditions, from weather to traffic patterns.
https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2017/06/14/nvidia-congress-self-driving/

Thanks for the link.

[JVV]

Can a medicine lawfully sold in Alabama be outlawed in Georgia?



ahem ... medical marijuana

[MisterVeritis]

I'm not dying on any hill.
You're ignoring history, denying all the evidence of states having different safety and equipment standards for what is allowed or required on their roads. But it's no skin off my nose. This is just an internet forum.
I've made my point about the selective defense of states' rights.
And I've seen who is willing to bend over backwards to provide cover for supposed states' righters in Congress.
We disagree on one of the fundamental purposes of a Federal government. That is okay.

You think each state should be allowed to have its own standards for products. We ought to have 50 different standards all manufacturers must meet. A car, or an oven or a computer should be built to a bewildering array of state standards. Why? Well, because.

Can Georgia decide that all cars must have a wheelbase of 20 feet from rim to rim, just because? If not, why not? Can a state decide that all cars driven within the state must be perfectly square? If not, why not? Can a state decide that any car driven there must be at least 20 feet tall?

[MisterVeritis]

ahem ... medical marijuana
States can violate federal law, at the moment. Can a state decide to allow only aspirin designed for that state to be used there?

[JVV]

We disagree on one of the fundamental purposes of a Federal government. That is okay.

You think each state should be allowed to have its own standards for products. We ought to have 50 different standards all manufacturers must meet. A car, or an oven or a computer should be built to a bewildering array of state standards. Why? Well, because.

Can Georgia decide that all cars must have a wheelbase of 20 feet from rim to rim, just because? If not, why not? Can a state decide that all cars driven within the state must be perfectly square? If not, why not? Can a state decide that any car driven there must be at least 20 feet tall?

Do not put words into my mouth.

I do not think that each state should be allowed to have its own standards for products.

I'm calling out as hypocritical those who use states' rights as an excuse to support discriminatory laws but who signed onto a bill disallowing states autonomy in this matter, a type of autonomy which they historically had.

[Archer0915]

You have chosen a poor hill to die on.

The Constitution's general welfare clauses were designed to make sure commerce could easily flow between the states. Having different cars built to differing state specifications would impede commerce between the states. Under the Federalism construct some decisions fall within the Federal government's role. This, in my opinion, is one of them.

Not at all. Under Federalism most police and safety issues do remain state responsibilities. But commerce does not. Do we have fifty different standards for medicine? Can a medicine lawfully sold in Alabama be outlawed in Georgia? Do we have different requirements for the manufacture of aspirin in each of the 50 states? Should we?

You sir may not be as constitutionally conservative as you think you are. Commerece has been abused and used for an excuse for federal overreach for over 1/2 century.

[MisterVeritis]

We disagree on one of the fundamental purposes of a Federal government. That is okay.

You think each state should be allowed to have its own standards for products. We ought to have 50 different standards all manufacturers must meet. A car, or an oven or a computer should be built to a bewildering array of state standards. Why? Well, because.

Can Georgia decide that all cars must have a wheelbase of 20 feet from rim to rim, just because? If not, why not? Can a state decide that all cars driven within the state must be perfectly square? If not, why not? Can a state decide that any car driven there must be at least 20 feet tall?

Do not put words into my mouth.
I do not think that each state should be allowed to have its own standards for products.
I'm calling out as hypocritical those who use states' rights as an excuse to support discriminatory laws but who signed onto a bill disallowing states autonomy in this matter, a degree of autonomy which they have had in the past.
That is exactly what you propose as states right.

I believe you are fundamentally wrong about Federalism. That is okay.

[MisterVeritis]

he Constitution's general welfare clauses were designed to make sure commerce could easily flow between the states. Having different cars built to differing state specifications would impede commerce between the states. Under the Federalism construct some decisions fall within the Federal government's role. This, in my opinion, is one of them.

Not at all. Under Federalism most police and safety issues do remain state responsibilities. But commerce does not. Do we have fifty different standards for medicine? Can a medicine lawfully sold in Alabama be outlawed in Georgia? Do we have different requirements for the manufacture of aspirin in each of the 50 states? Should we?

You sir may not be as constitutionally conservative as you think you are. Commerce has been abused and used for an excuse for federal overreach for over 1/2 century.
One difference between us is I know what I am talking about. There is no overreach when the Constitution is implemented as it was written. Abuse in other areas remains tyrannical. This does not.

[JVV]

We disagree on one of the fundamental purposes of a Federal government. That is okay.

You think each state should be allowed to have its own standards for products. We ought to have 50 different standards all manufacturers must meet. A car, or an oven or a computer should be built to a bewildering array of state standards. Why? Well, because.

Can Georgia decide that all cars must have a wheelbase of 20 feet from rim to rim, just because? If not, why not? Can a state decide that all cars driven within the state must be perfectly square? If not, why not? Can a state decide that any car driven there must be at least 20 feet tall?

That is exactly what you propose as states right.

I believe you are fundamentally wrong about Federalism. That is okay.




I am not a states' rights advocate.

I am calling out those who pretend to be states' rights advocates as cover for egregious practices, but who roll over when it's convenient.

[MisterVeritis]

I am not a states' rights advocate.
I am calling out those who pretend to be states' rights advocates as cover for egregious practices, but who roll over when it's convenient.
Cool. You are still wrong. This is a federalism issue decided as it should have been.

[Archer0915]

he Constitution's general welfare clauses were designed to make sure commerce could easily flow between the states. Having different cars built to differing state specifications would impede commerce between the states. Under the Federalism construct some decisions fall within the Federal government's role. This, in my opinion, is one of them.

Not at all. Under Federalism most police and safety issues do remain state responsibilities. But commerce does not. Do we have fifty different standards for medicine? Can a medicine lawfully sold in Alabama be outlawed in Georgia? Do we have different requirements for the manufacture of aspirin in each of the 50 states? Should we?

One difference between us is I know what I am talking about. There is no overreach when the Constitution is implemented as it was written. Abuse in other areas remains tyrannical. This does not.

You are pulling this out of your ass!We are talking safety standards! PA can fail your car for RUST! No duct tape!

So if one car must meet certain state standards (all cars in a given age range that use a given fuel) and another will not have to meet those same standards because of federal over reach... You get it yet?

Sorry, there is overreach when the Constitution is not implemented as it was written. This abuse remains tyrannical.

[JVV]

One difference between us is I know what I am talking about.


This thread demonstrates your willingness to pontificate when you don't.

You showed yourself quite ignorant of the rights states have historically had and have invoked in the past with regard to the types of motor vehicles allowed on their road and the standards those vehicles are held to.

And you showed yourself unwilling to modify your position when informed of this history -- all you did was to narrow the gotcha questions you asked and then plow on full speed ahead.

And then you decided to put words into my mouth about my position on states rights.



I still don't know where you stand. Are you a states' rights advocate? Are you an apologist for Republicans in Congress? Or do you just like to argue until you "defeat" your opponent through exhaustion?

[Captain Obvious]

I am a states rights guy because I moreso am a small central government guy.

[JVV]

You are pulling this out of your ass!We are talking safety standards! PA can fail your car for RUST! No duct tape!

So if one car must meet certain state standards (all cars in a given age range that use a given fuel) and another will not have to meet those same standards because of federal over reach... You get it yet?


You've just reminded me of a difference I found when I moved from Oklahoma to Wisconsin -- what kinds of cracks are tolerated in windshields. In Oklahoma a crack longer than 12 inches has to be fixed. In Wisconsin you can have a longer crack, but it can't be more than 8 inches from the edge of the windshield.

https://www.yourmechanic.com/article/the-guide-to-cracked-windshield-laws-in-all-states-by-brady-klopfer

Another example: Some states require defrosters. Some don't.

[Cletus]

That car you bought in California could be illegal to operate in Alabama. That Splitview-equipped Mercedes you bought in California in 2013 could have gotten you in legal trouble in Wisconsin.

But it wouldn't be the CAR that was illegal. It would be that particular option. Remove that and the vehicle is legal, right?

[MisterVeritis]

You are pulling this out of your ass!We are talking safety standards! PA can fail your car for RUST! No duct tape!

So if one car must meet certain state standards (all cars in a given age range that use a given fuel) and another will not have to meet those same standards because of federal over reach... You get it yet?

Sorry, there is overreach when the Constitution is not implemented as it was written. This abuse remains tyrannical.
I am showing you your position is absurd. It is okay.

[JVV]

But it wouldn't be the CAR that was illegal. It would be that particular option. Remove that and the vehicle is legal, right?

Yes.

But remove the steering wheel and the car would probably not be legal.

Yet, that's one thing we're faced with for driverless cars.

[MisterVeritis]

This thread demonstrates your willingness to pontificate when you don't.
You showed yourself quite ignorant of the rights states have historically had and have invoked in the past with regard to the types of motor vehicles allowed on their road and the standards those vehicles are held to.
And you showed yourself unwilling to modify your position when informed of this history -- all you did was to narrow the gotcha questions you asked and then plow on full speed ahead.
And then you decided to put words into my mouth about my position on states rights.
I still don't know where you stand. Are you a states' rights advocate? Are you an apologist for Republicans in Congress? Or do you just like to argue until you "defeat" your opponent through exhaustion?
Not one of your examples shows what you intended.Your thinking is fundamentally flawed. I suspect you do not understand Federalism.

[MisterVeritis]

You've just reminded me of a difference I found when I moved from Oklahoma to Wisconsin -- what kinds of cracks are tolerated in windshields. In Oklahoma a crack longer than 12 inches has to be fixed. In Wisconsin you can have a longer crack, but it can't be more than 8 inches from the edge of the windshield.
https://www.yourmechanic.com/article/the-guide-to-cracked-windshield-laws-in-all-states-by-brady-klopfer
Another example: Some states require defrosters. Some don't.
Cars are typically not sold with various sized cracks.

[MisterVeritis]

Yes.
But remove the steering wheel and the car would probably not be legal.
Yet, that's one thing we're faced with for driverless cars.
Remove one wheel and the car would probably not be legal either.

Is your fear a fear of driverless cars?

[JVV]

Remove one wheel and the car would probably not be legal either.

Is your fear a fear of driverless cars?



I don't fear driverless cars.

But thanks for playing.

[MisterVeritis]

I don't fear driverless cars.
But thanks for playing.
And...you do not understand federalism. Thank you for playing.

[JVV]

And...you do not understand federalism. Thank you for playing.


I do understand federalism.

You do not understand, or willfully ignore, what this thread is about.

And you put words into my mouth, showing an additional layer of ignorance.

And you refuse to acknowledge your errors about historical facts and the current landscape of states' rights.

I don't even know why I keep talking to you, except to thwart your obvious desire for the last word.

But you have worn me down. Take your last word -- though it is bound to be mistaken.

[AZ Jim]

Wait till the first driver-less vehicle loaded with high grade explosives does it's deadly work....so easy.

[AZ Jim]

I do understand federalism.

You do not understand, or willfully ignore, what this thread is about.

And you put words into my mouth, showing an additional layer of ignorance.

And you refuse to acknowledge your errors about historical facts and the current landscape of states' rights.

I don't even know why I keep talking to you, except to thwart your obvious desire for the last word.

But you have worn me down. Take your last word -- though it is bound to be mistaken.Count your blessings, he hasn't wished you dead yet.

[Archer0915]

I am showing you your position is absurd. It is okay.

Keep thinking that.

[Archer0915]

I can see 30 terrorists at one time causing big problems in the US with some EMP play. The army is already working on EMP grenades. Now imagin traffic and an EMP goes pop, cars out of control as everything shuts down! And dont get me started on viruses! They need a wheel, manual brakes and driver, no matter what.

[MisterVeritis]

I do understand federalism.
You do not understand, or willfully ignore, what this thread is about.
And you put words into my mouth, showing an additional layer of ignorance.
And you refuse to acknowledge your errors about historical facts and the current landscape of states' rights.
I don't even know why I keep talking to you, except to thwart your obvious desire for the last word.
But you have worn me down. Take your last word -- though it is bound to be mistaken.
This thread is about federalism. The legislature, the House of Representatives, wants to prevent states from creating an array of rules governing a new technology. You wonder why some representatives agree to prevent states from gumming up commerce.

We disagree. It is that simple. I believe the House did its job in accordance with Federalism's Constitutional role. You believe something else.

Where do you believe I am in error?

[MisterVeritis]

I am showing you your position is absurd. It is okay.

Keep thinking that.
I shall. Thank you.

[MisterVeritis]

I can see 30 terrorists at one time causing big problems in the US with some EMP play. The army is already working on EMP grenades. Now imagin traffic and an EMP goes pop, cars out of control as everything shuts down! And dont get me started on viruses! They need a wheel, manual brakes and driver, no matter what.
Do you believe a driverless car will be unable to degrade gracefully?

[Newpublius]

I can see 30 terrorists at one time causing big problems in the US with some EMP play. The army is already working on EMP grenades. Now imagin traffic and an EMP goes pop, cars out of control as everything shuts down! And dont get me started on viruses! They need a wheel, manual brakes and driver, no matter what.

Now imagine real cars driven by real people in traffic and somebody just starts shooting....do you see where I am going with this?

[Archer0915]

Do you believe a driverless car will be unable to degrade gracefully?
I believe that electronics have issues all the time. When those are mass produced more issues occur.

Now many probes has NASA had computer problems with? Plenty. The electronics are not dependable enough for the job. All it takes is one time or a code hack...

[Ethereal]

How many ways are there to say this?

You're wasting your time with Tahu. He is not very smart, or honest.

[Archer0915]

Now imagine real cars driven by real people in traffic and somebody just starts shooting....do you see where I am going with this?

Yeah the people in the real cars have a chance but the robo car will just stop.

Imaging pulling up to rioters in one of those?.. No way to take manual control.

[MisterVeritis]

I believe that electronics have issues all the time. When those are mass produced more issues occur.

Now many probes has NASA had computer problems with? Plenty. The electronics are not dependable enough for the job. All it takes is one time or a code hack...
Given a failure you want to put a human in charge? We do know how to make reliable systems.

[Archer0915]

Given a failure you want to put a human in charge? We do know how to make reliable systems.
Work in manufacturing much? Know much about PC chipsets?

[Ethereal]

And why is this discussion even about rightwingers? It was unanimously approved.
Because conservatives and Republicans are supposed to defend state's rights, yet they just passed a piece of legislation that prevents states from exercising those rights in the form of regulations on transportation.

Madison made it pretty clear in the federalist papers that the powers of the federal government were "few and defined" whereas the powers of the states were "numerous and indefinite".

Therefore, if a state government wanted to prohibit or limit certain types of transportation within their state, then, under the constitution, that would be their prerogative.

[MisterVeritis]

Work in manufacturing much? Know much about PC chipsets?
I know systems. I know reliability, availability, and maintainability. The people who built our systems followed my drawings. If you are dealing with chipsets you are way lower on the totem pole. Although we did send our people to supplier facilities to inspect them.

Do you ever write in whole sentences?

[Archer0915]

Intel just announced that it has identified a bug in the 6-series chipset (http://newsroom.intel.com/community/intel_newsroom/blog/2011/01/31/intel-identifies-chipset-design-error-implementing-solution), specifically in its SATA controller. Intel states that "In some cases, the Serial-ATA (SATA) ports within the chipsets may degrade over time, potentially impacting the performance or functionality of SATA-linked devices such as hard disk drives and DVD-drives.".

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4142/intel-discovers-bug-in-6series-chipset-begins-recall

Intel's Atom C2000 chips are bricking products – and it's not just Cisco hit


https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/06/cisco_intel_decline_to_link_product_warning_to_fau lty_chip/

Let us not forget exploding chargers, cell phones, hover boards and all the automotive recalls...

[Ethereal]

The problem with that little rant is that members of Congress are the representatives of the states in the federal government. The House represents the People and the Senate represents the State. So in effect, it was the state voting, through its elected representatives.

The States no longer elect Senators. And even if they did, it wouldn't matter, since the federal government has no authority under the constitution to limit the internal regulatory prerogatives of the State governments.

[Archer0915]

I know systems. I know reliability, availability, and maintainability. The people who built our systems followed my drawings. If you are dealing with chipsets you are way lower on the totem pole. Although we did send our people to supplier facilities to inspect them.

Do you ever write in whole sentences?
I am an industrial and quality engineer and I know damn good and well what I am talking about.

[Ethereal]

Have states ever been able to decide which vehicles can be on their roads? Could they, for example, decide no Fords can be on their roads?

Unless the constitution delegated such a power to the federal government (which it doesn't), then such a power would be reserved to the states.

[MisterVeritis]

Because conservatives and Republicans are supposed to defend state's rights, yet they just passed a piece of legislation that prevents states from exercising those rights in the form of regulations on transportation.

Madison made it pretty clear in the federalist papers that the powers of the federal government were "few and defined" whereas the powers of the states were "numerous and indefinite".

Therefore, if a state government wanted to prohibit or limit certain types of transportation within their state, then, under the constitution, that would be their prerogative.
No. The Constitution gives power to the federal government to prevent the mess you desire. States do not get to develop specifications for products sold in multiple states. To allow it would end commerce between the states.

[MisterVeritis]

Unless the constitution delegated such a power to the federal government (which it doesn't), then such a power would be reserved to the states.
The general welfare clauses in Article 1 give broad authority to the federal government to prevent the mess you desire. If a state wanted to specify the goods sold exclusively within its state, I suppose a state could do so.

[Archer0915]

No. The Constitution gives power to the federal government to prevent the mess you desire. States do not get to develop specifications for products sold in multiple states. To allow it would end commerce between the states.

Understand, specifications were never the topic, safety inspection and a few other things are.

[Ethereal]

Are you familiar with Federalism? One of the substantial reasons for establishing a Federal government was to ensure the states would play well with one another. Not allowing fifty different safety standards for vehicles falls under that umbrella, I believe.

Where does the constitution delegate such a power to the federal government?

[MisterVeritis]

I am an industrial and quality engineer and I know damn good and well what I am talking about.
We sent our quality teams out to inspect our suppliers.

It does not appear to me that you are familiar with systems. That is okay. Not everybody is.

[Ethereal]

That car you bought in California could be illegal to operate in Alabama. That Splitview-equipped Mercedes you bought in California in 2013 could have gotten you in legal trouble in Wisconsin.

Different states have different safety standards. I've given you specifics. You've given me mockery.

Later.
Mister V does not deal with being wrong very well.

[Ethereal]

No. The Constitution gives power to the federal government to prevent the mess you desire. States do not get to develop specifications for products sold in multiple states. To allow it would end commerce between the states.
You sound like a progressive-Democrat.

Way to prove the OP's point about conservative hypocrisy.

[MisterVeritis]

Where does the constitution delegate such a power to the federal government?
Article 1 Section 8. The purpose of the general welfare clause(s) was to prevent the states from playing unfairly in interstate commerce.

Fortunately, this is an academic exercise. The states do not develop their own specifications for goods sold across state lines.

[Newpublius]

Because conservatives and Republicans are supposed to defend state's rights, yet they just passed a piece of legislation that prevents states from exercising those rights in the form of regulations on transportation.

Madison made it pretty clear in the federalist papers that the powers of the federal government were "few and defined" whereas the powers of the states were "numerous and indefinite".

Therefore, if a state government wanted to prohibit or limit certain types of transportation within their state, then, under the constitution, that would be their prerogative.

Let's not take this too seriously. No state was going to ban driverless cars and currently, whether you agree with it or not, the existing paradigm places motor vehicles in a position where they are subject to federal oversight so this is not a change of any sort. The Constitution does have an interstate commerce clause and you'd be hard pressed to say that motor vehicles, driverless or otherwise, aren't a lynchpin of interstate commerce. Its almost difficult to think of interstate commerce WITHOUT motor vehicles (ships, ferries, trains, walking.....) Its clearly an instrumentality of interstate commerce.

[Ethereal]

The general welfare clauses in Article 1 give broad authority to the federal government to prevent the mess you desire. If a state wanted to specify the goods sold exclusively within its state, I suppose a state could do so.

You sound exactly like a big government Democrat.

[MisterVeritis]

No. The Constitution gives power to the federal government to prevent the mess you desire. States do not get to develop specifications for products sold in multiple states. To allow it would end commerce between the states.

You sound like a progressive-Democrat.Way to prove the OP's point about conservative hypocrisy.
We can agree to disagree. Sometimes you are simply wrong and there is no budging you our of your wrongly held position. This is such a time.

[Ethereal]

Article 1 Section 8. The purpose of the general welfare clause(s) was to prevent the states from playing unfairly in interstate commerce.

Fortunately, this is an academic exercise. The states do not develop their own specifications for good sold across state lines.

So you think the general welfare clause is an enumerated power? When did you become a progressive?

[MisterVeritis]

You sound exactly like a big government Democrat.
Cool. Then we disagree. And you need to have your ears checked.

[Newpublius]

So you think the general welfare clause is an enumerated power? When did you become a progressive?

He noted the GW clause and then the more specific expressly enumerated power-the interstate commerce clause.

[MisterVeritis]

So you think the general welfare clause is an enumerated power? When did you become a progressive?
Now I know you are playing. Article 1 Section 8 covers two kinds of powers. Defense, and general welfare. When did you lose your mind?

[Archer0915]

We sent our quality teams out to inspect our suppliers.

It does not appear to me that you are familiar with systems. That is okay. Not everybody is.

You are actually ignorant. I always thought you just liked to mess around with the leftists around here but you are actually pretty damn ignorant.

[JVV]

Mister V does not deal with being wrong very well.


I'm figuring that out.

I haven't yet committed to learning what everyone's quirks are, but that one made its presence known today in a big way.

[MisterVeritis]

You are actually ignorant. I always thought you just liked to mess around with the leftists around here but you are actually pretty damn ignorant.
Cool. You know chips. I know systems. I must seem like a deity to you.

[Newpublius]

As aan aside trains were seen as properly belonging under the interstate commerce clause well before the New Deal expansion of federal powers to interpret interstate commerce to encompass essentially anything.

[JVV]

You sound like a progressive-Democrat.

Way to prove the OP's point about conservative hypocrisy.


Yeah, I'd be curious to know what this poster's past positions on the commerce clause have been. That's another thing which is not generally a favorite with rightwingers .

[MisterVeritis]

I'm figuring that out.
I haven't yet committed to learning what everyone's quirks are, but that one made its presence known today in a big way.
There are rare occasions when I am wrong. I learn from my mistakes when they occur. This is not one of those times.

[MisterVeritis]

As an aside trains were seen as properly belonging under the interstate commerce clause well before the New Deal expansion of federal powers to interpret interstate commerce to encompass essentially anything.
The massive, unconstitutional use of the commerce clause does not invalidate its correct usage.

[Ethereal]

Let's not take this too seriously. No state was going to ban driverless cars and currently, whether you agree with it or not, the existing paradigm places motor vehicles in a position where they are subject to federal oversight so this is not a change of any sort. The Constitution does have an interstate commerce clause and you'd be hard pressed to say that motor vehicles, driverless or otherwise, aren't a lynchpin of interstate commerce. Its almost difficult to think of interstate commerce WITHOUT motor vehicles (ships, ferries, trains, walking.....) Its clearly an instrumentality of interstate commerce.

The interstate commerce clause was meant to stop states from erecting things like tariffs. It was never meant to give the federal government regulatory authority over anything and everything that could be connected in some way, shape, or form to interstate commerce.

I must say, it is quite unfortunate to see otherwise stalwart conservatives and federalists citing the exact same legal rationale that progressives use when they want to justify federal encroachment on state's rights.

[Archer0915]

Cool. You know chips. I know systems. I must seem like a deity to you.
Systems? I have worked from sweeping floors to facilities manager. If you actually knew systems then you would totally understand what I am talking about.

I know chips to networks to operations and distribution to the effing cost accounting.

[Newpublius]

Now I know you are playing. Article 1 Section 8 covers two kinds of powers. Defense, and general welfare. When did you lose your mind?

There is the prefatory clause which is now the law making general welfare an independent substantive power. From a conservative point of view that is obvioualy wrong. Beyond that the two powers are those which are expressly enumerated.....ie interstate commerce and those which are implied by the necessary and proper clause.

[Ethereal]

We can agree to disagree. Sometimes you are simply wrong and there is no budging you our of your wrongly held position. This is such a time.

I am wrong sometimes, but this is not one of those times.

You are using the exact same big government interpretation of the general welfare clause that progressive Democrats subscribe to.

The exact same interpretation that Jefferson and Madison expressly rejected.

[MisterVeritis]

Yeah, I'd be curious to know what this poster's past positions on the commerce clause have been. That's another thing which is not generally a favorite with rightwingers.
This poster understands the difference between the general welfare provisions of the Constitution and the massive, unconstitutional usurpation of the commerce clause to create the federal monster we contend with today. Preventing states from destroying interstate commerce falls within the Federal government's role.

[Ethereal]

Cool. Then we disagree. And you need to have your ears checked.
You are trying to tell me that the general welfare clause is an enumerated power. It is not. That is a legal construction progressive Democrats concocted as a means of justifying their unconstitutional welfare state. It is a construction that Madison and Jefferson rejected.

[MisterVeritis]

I am wrong sometimes, but this is not one of those times.
You are using the exact same big government interpretation of the general welfare clause that progressive Democrats subscribe to.
The exact same interpretation that Jefferson and Madison expressly rejected.
Untrue. The Federal government has as one of its primary roles, the "easing" of interstate commerce. This bill does that.

[MisterVeritis]

You are trying to tell me that the general welfare clause is an enumerated power. It is not. That is a legal construction progressive Democrats concocted as a means of justifying their unconstitutional welfare state. It is a construction that Madison and Jefferson rejected.
No. You misunderstand. Article 1, Section 8 contains a number of clauses. Those clauses either fulfill the defense (and foreign policy) purpose of the Constitution or the general welfare purpose of the Constitution. The general welfare clause does not stand alone.

[Newpublius]

The interstate commerce clause was meant to stop states from erecting things like tariffs. It was never meant to give the federal government regulatory authority over anything and everything that could be connected in some way, shape, or form to interstate commerce.

I must say, it is quite unfortunate to see otherwise stalwart conservatives and federalists citing the exact same legal rationale that progressives use when they want to justify federal encroachment on state's rights.

No, it wasn't. The ability to erect tariffs was a power expressly denied to the states in Art I, Sec 10.

[MisterVeritis]

There is the prefatory clause which is now the law making general welfare an independent substantive power. From a conservative point of view that is obvioualy wrong. Beyond that the two powers are those which are expressly enumerated.....ie interstate commerce and those which are implied by the necessary and proper clause.
I do not believe we disagree. Read each of the subordinate clauses in Article 1 Section 8. Do you agree that each clause either falls within the Constitution's defense (and foreign policy) purpose or its general welfare purpose? If not what other category do you see?

[Ethereal]

He noted the GW clause and then the more specific expressly enumerated power-the interstate commerce clause.
Actually, he conflated the general welfare clause with the interstate commerce clause. A subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless.

But even if we take the most favorable view of his legal opinion, it is still a progressive construction of the constitution.

Using the general welfare clause and/or the interstate commerce clause, either in combination or separately, to justify federal regulation of a state's internal affairs merely because the target of that regulation has some connection to interstate commerce is the hallmark of progressive jurisprudence. It takes a seeming ambiguity in the legal language of the constitution and errs in favor of bigger, more centralized government when the conservative/libertarian approach would be to err in favor of smaller, more decentralized government.

[MisterVeritis]

Systems? I have worked from sweeping floors to facilities manager. If you actually knew systems then you would totally understand what I am talking about.
I know chips to networks to operations and distribution to the effing cost accounting.
And yet, I do know systems engineering. One can create a reliable, available system from occasionally unreliable parts. And we frequently do. Cost accounting. I had almost forgotten about cost accounting.

[Ethereal]

Now I know you are playing. Article 1 Section 8 covers two kinds of powers. Defense, and general welfare. When did you lose your mind?
All I'm doing is asking you a simple question.

Do you think the general welfare clause is an enumerated power? Yes or no?

[Ethereal]

As aan aside trains were seen as properly belonging under the interstate commerce clause well before the New Deal expansion of federal powers to interpret interstate commerce to encompass essentially anything.
Of course they were. By the time trains became an important aspect of interstate commerce, the train lobbyists had already effectively taken over the federal government along with the bankers and the industrialists. We need to understand that Lincoln destroyed republican, federal government, and that everything that came after was the poisoned fruit of his tyrannical war on the south.

[Ethereal]

Yeah, I'd be curious to know what this poster's past positions on the commerce clause have been. That's another thing which is not generally a favorite with rightwingers .
They were the exact opposite of what he is saying right now.

[Newpublius]

I do not believe we disagree. Read each of the subordinate clauses in Article 1 Section 8. Do you agree that each clause either falls within the Constitution's defense (and foreign policy) purpose or its general welfare purpose? If not what other category do you see?

You are contorting it. The general welfare clause, the prefatory clause, is a general power, which is then defined by the expressly enumerated powers under it. The liberals make general welfare an independent power nakibg the enumerated powers moot. The conservatives look at the list as the list, but that is still subject to necessary and properly, they are not 'split' into defense and general welfare. The list is the list, express powers, bolstered by necessary and proper, implied powers. Transportation devices have always been interstate commerce. Their inclusion in interstate commerce is not a New Deal contrivance.

[MisterVeritis]

Actually, he conflated the general welfare clause with the interstate commerce clause. A subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless.
Let's try this again. Do you agree that Article 1 Section 8 contains a small number of subordinate clauses? Do you agree that the Federal government's role is Constitutionally limited to two primary areas, defense and foreign policy, and the general welfare? Do you agree that each subordinate clause falls within either the defense and foreign policy area of responsibility or it fulfills the federal requirement to provide for the general welfare?

[Newpublius]

Of course they were. By the time trains became an important aspect of interstate commerce, the train lobbyists had already effectively taken over the federal government along with the bankers and the industrialists. We need to understand that Lincoln destroyed republican, federal government, and that everything that came after was the poisoned fruit of his tyrannical war on the south.

It goes back to the ferries as well, ie the Mississippi. Regulating the means and modes of interstate commerce was not a New Deal contrivance, it goes back to the founding. The ICC of 1887 was meant to attack railroad monopolies and what was perceived as unfair pricing. Whether the legislation was wise is a secondary question as to who gets to answer that question. Interstate commerce, trains, planes and automobiles (boats too of course). Not really disputed in most conservative circles.

[Ethereal]

Untrue. The Federal government has as one of its primary roles, the "easing" of interstate commerce. This bill does that.
How a state chooses to regulate transportation within its territory is not interstate commerce. It is intrastate commerce. The fact that this intrastate commerce has a connection to interstate commerce does not magically transform it into interstate commerce.

[Newpublius]

"Do you agree that Article 1 Section 8 contains a small number of subordinate clauses?"

Those are the 'expressly enumerated powers'

Don't group them further.

[Ethereal]

No. You misunderstand. Article 1, Section 8 contains a number of clauses. Those clauses either fulfill the defense (and foreign policy) purpose of the Constitution or the general welfare purpose of the Constitution. The general welfare clause does not stand alone.

The general welfare clause merely provides an end to the foregoing powers of taxation and spending. It is not an enumerated power in its own right.

[MisterVeritis]

Using the general welfare clause and/or the interstate commerce clause, either in combination or separately, to justify federal regulation of a state's internal affairs merely because the target of that regulation has some connection to interstate commerce is the hallmark of progressive jurisprudence. It takes a seeming ambiguity in the legal language of the constitution and errs in favor of bigger, more centralized government when the conservative/libertarian approach would be to err in favor of smaller, more decentralized government.
The general welfare clause is just a bucket for the subordinate clauses involving the general welfare federal responsibilities. The commerce clause was intended to ease the ability of the states to conduct interstate commerce. This bill does that. Nothing more.

[Ethereal]

No, it wasn't. The ability to erect tariffs was a power expressly denied to the states in Art I, Sec 10.
I stand corrected.

But I still maintain that the interstate commerce clause was never meant to give the federal government regulatory power over something merely because it was connected, however substantially, to interstate commerce. Only interstate commerce per se fell under the regulatory power of the federal government, otherwise what objective limitation would exist on that power?

And when encountered with any ambiguity in the language or intent of a particular clause or section within the constitution, shouldn't a conservative err on the side of state's rights and/or liberty?

[MisterVeritis]

The general welfare clause merely provides an end to the foregoing powers of taxation and spending. It is not an enumerated power in its own right.
Not merely.

The States granted two primary areas of responsibility to the Federal government. One was primarily an external responsibility for defense and foreign policy (and external commerce as well). The other was to promote the general welfare is some narrow, specific ways. The commerce clause falls into the general welfare area of responsibility.

We agree the general welfare clause is not an enumerated power. It establishes one area of responsibility granted to the Federal government by the states.

[MisterVeritis]

"Do you agree that Article 1 Section 8 contains a small number of subordinate clauses?"
Those are the 'expressly enumerated powers'
Don't group them further.
Why not? Of the subordinate clauses which ones do NOT fulfill either the defense and foreign policy obligations or the general welfare obligations? Do you believe the defense and general welfare preamble was there for some other reason?

[Ethereal]

Let's try this again. Do you agree that Article 1 Section 8 contains a small number of subordinate clauses? Do you agree that the Federal government's role is Constitutionally limited to two primary areas, defense and foreign policy, and the general welfare? Do you agree that each subordinate clause falls within either the defense and foreign policy area of responsibility or it fulfills the federal requirement to provide for the general welfare?

No, I do not agree that the federal government's role is limited to defense/foreign policy AND the general welfare. The general welfare clause is merely an end to which the foregoing powers of taxation and spending are directed. In other words, any taxes and spending originating with the federal government must be general in nature, both in terms of their burden and in terms of their benefits. It was never meant to imbue the federal government with any kind of power or mandate.

[MisterVeritis]

I stand corrected.
But I still maintain that the interstate commerce clause was never meant to give the federal government regulatory power over something merely because it was connected, however substantially, to interstate commerce. Only interstate commerce per se fell under the regulatory power of the federal government, otherwise what objective limitation would exist on that power?
In general, we agree. The point of the commerce clause was to make it easier, not harder to conduct interstate commerce. The vast expansion of the Federal government's power was a usurpation of powers and authorities not granted to the federal government. This bill prevents the individual states from gumming up the works. Nothing more.

And when encountered with any ambiguity in the language or intent of a particular clause or section within the constitution, shouldn't a conservative err on the side of state's rights and/or liberty?
Maybe. One should first look to federalism. Preventing one state from damaging interstate commerce falls within the Constitutional obligations the Federal government was given by the states.

[Ethereal]

It goes back to the ferries as well, ie the Mississippi. Regulating the means and modes of interstate commerce was not a New Deal contrivance, it goes back to the founding. The ICC of 1887 was meant to attack railroad monopolies and what was perceived as unfair pricing. Whether the legislation was wise is a secondary question as to who gets to answer that question. Interstate commerce, trains, planes and automobiles (boats too of course). Not really disputed in most conservative circles.

Well I do not attribute the destruction of federalism to the New Deal. I attribute it to Lincoln's war on the south. And Lincoln was a corporate attorney with deep connections to the railroad industry. All roads lead to Rome, and all tendencies towards consolidation and uniformity within the context of the US Constitution originate primarily with large corporate actors like banks, industrialists, railroads, law firms, etc.

[MisterVeritis]

No, I do not agree that the federal government's role is limited to defense/foreign policy AND the general welfare. The general welfare clause is merely an end to which the foregoing powers of taxation and spending are directed. In other words, any taxes and spending originating with the federal government must be general in nature, both in terms of their burden and in terms of their benefits. It was never meant to imbue the federal government with any kind of power or mandate.
If the Federal government's role is not limited to those two primary areas what other areas do you see? And where, in the Constitution might I find those other responsibilities?

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts (https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#IMPOST) and Excises (https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#EXCISE), to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence (https://www.usconstitution.net/constmiss.html) and general Welfare (https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#WELFARE) of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts (https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#IMPOST) and Excises (https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#EXCISE) shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I see only defense and general welfare. I do not see another purpose.

[Ethereal]

The general welfare clause is just a bucket for the subordinate clauses involving the general welfare federal responsibilities. The commerce clause was intended to ease the ability of the states to conduct interstate commerce. This bill does that. Nothing more.

It was meant to apply to interstate commerce, not intrastate commerce that has a connection to interstate commerce.

If intrastate commerce becomes interstate commerce merely because a connection between the two can be found, then there is no meaningful or objective difference between them and literally everything that happens within a state's territory falls under the purview of the federal government's totalitarian regulatory power.

[Newpublius]

"But I still maintain that the interstate commerce clause was never meant to give the federal government regulatory power over something merely because it was connected, however substantially, to interstate commerce. "

I am not sure why you would think that. Consider your first objection, ie that commerce clause passed to prevent 'tariffs' and why not interpret that to prevent back door embargoes favoring local manufacturers?

The state does retain concurrent jurisdiction here which is why there are speed limits, inspection stations and driver's licenses.

[Newpublius]

It was meant to apply to interstate commerce, not intrastate commerce that has a connection to interstate commerce.

If intrastate commerce becomes interstate commerce merely because a connection between the two can be found, then there is no meaningful or objective difference between them and literally everything that happens within a state's territory falls under the purview of the federal government's totalitarian regulatory power.

Then you're going too far the other way. The federal government authority would exist in transit solely at the line. Other than at that tangent point, everything occurs intrastate.

[Ethereal]

This discussion presupposes that the constitution was a good idea in the first place, and that even in its most limited form it represents a federal form of government that can be reconciled with its ostensible purpose to secure the blessings of liberty. But people like Sam Adams and Patrick Henry made very good arguments against that, arguments that we should give the respect they deserve.

[MisterVeritis]

It was meant to apply to interstate commerce, not intrastate commerce that has a connection to interstate commerce.

If intrastate commerce becomes interstate commerce merely because a connection between the two can be found, then there is no meaningful or objective difference between them and literally everything that happens within a state's territory falls under the purview of the federal government's totalitarian regulatory power.
As far as I can tell we have no disagreement.

[Ethereal]

I am not sure why you would think that.

Because literally everything an individual does or even intends to do can be connected to interstate commerce in some way, shape, or form.


Consider your first objection, ie that commerce clause passed to prevent 'tariffs' and why not interpret that to prevent back door embargoes favoring local manufacturers?

If we're talking about something that is interstate commerce per se, then I probably wouldn't object.

[Ethereal]

Then you're going too far the other way. The federal government authority would exist in transit solely at the line. Other than at that tangent point, everything occurs intrastate.

Well, yes. That's what Madison seemed to suggest in Federalist 45:


...The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government...

Madison's only mistake was in assuming the US would maintain her republican character in perpetuity. He failed to foresee the audacious tyranny of Lincoln and company.

[Ethereal]

As far as I can tell we have no disagreement.

Except I am against this bill and you are not.

[MisterVeritis]

Well, yes. That's what Madison seemed to suggest in Federalist 45:
Madison's only mistake was in assuming the US would maintain her republican character in perpetuity. He failed to foresee the audacious tyranny of Lincoln and company.
It actually started with (Washington and) Adams. And Jefferson was a pragmatic monster. Of course, Jefferson did double the size of the US and ensured that France and England would not be in a position to harm us on the continent.

[MisterVeritis]

Except I am against this bill and you are not.
LOL. That is because you are wrong and I am not. :-)

[Archer0915]

I actually had to write a mock brief in a constitutional law class and I use this exact clause to show why marijuana legalization in many states could fall under the federal umbrella. I researched the Heart of Atlanta case and I actually changed the opinions of many people in that class. Not toward legalization but towards real federal powers. I can not see where this move to take away states authority over what is safe to be on the highways of their state, in any way, has anything to do with interstate commerce.

[Ethereal]

It actually started with (Washington) and Adams. And Jefferson was a pragmatic monster. Of course, Jefferson did double the size of the US and ensured that France and England would not be in a position to harm us on the continent.
Sure. One could argue the constitution itself was an usurpation of liberty, and many estimable patriots argued exactly that. And many of the warnings they issued at the time have come to fruition over the years. In other words, the opponents of the constitution were right all along.

[MisterVeritis]

I actually had to write a mock brief in a constitutional law class and I use this exact clause to show why marijuana legalization in many states could fall under the federal umbrella. I researched the Heart of Atlanta case and I actually changed the opinions of many people in that class. Not toward legalization but towards real federal powers. I can not see where this move to take away states authority over what is safe to be on the highways of their state, in any way, has anything to do with interstate commerce.
Could a state decide that no car manufactured in another state is safe enough to be driven on their roads?

[MisterVeritis]

Sure. One could argue the constitution itself was an usurpation of liberty, and many estimable patriots argued exactly that. And many of the warnings they issued at the time have come to fruition over the years. In other words, the opponents of the constitution were right all along.
We agree to give up a bit of sovereignty to do things in common that would be very hard to do individually.

We have the opportunity to provide the sort of teeth the Constitution requires. An Article V convention of States to propose amendments could repair much of the damage the politicians have wrought over the last century and a half.

[Newpublius]

Because literally everything an individual does or even intends to do can be connected to interstate commerce in some way, shape, or form.



If we're talking about something that is interstate commerce per se, then I probably wouldn't object.

That is why law speaks of 'balancing' tests. So you weigh the totality of the circumstances. At the end of the day interstate commerce really is all intrastate commerce except at that point. If you have a rule which would create contradictory and confusing local/state regulation.....you have a decent commerce clause situation. At the end of the day the New Deak is the worm but if you see that topic in federal hands BEFORE the New Deal....then its likely properly in federal hands. Yes, the interstate commerce clause DOES empower the federal power to do things. Not all things, but many things and this is definitely one of them.

[Archer0915]

Could a state decide that no car manufactured in another state is safe enough to be driven on their roads?

Do you understand that the guidelines are for all cars? Ferrari or Ford Fusion makes no difference. If it has a busted horn it will not pass in NC. Less than 2/32 tire tread, busted lights/no working lights, non working signals, failed OBD2 test, no seatbelts,.. no steering wheel and it fails the NC inspection.

A car that does not meet cali emissions is the same.

You must be a closet leftist because you argue like one. You take what another says and spit back something totally different.

[MisterVeritis]

Do you understand that the guidelines are for all cars? Ferrari or Ford Fusion makes no difference. If it has a busted horn it will not pass in NC. Less than 2/32 tire tread, busted lights/no working lights, non working signals, failed OBD2 test, no seatbelts,.. no steering wheel and it fails the NC inspection.

A car that does not meet cali emissions is the same.

You must be a closet leftist because you argue like one. You take what another says and spit back something totally different.
To have standards for a safely functioning car is different than to prevent an entire class of vehicle from being used.

[Perianne]

...The states do not develop their own specifications for good sold across state lines.


Could a state decide that no car manufactured in another state is safe enough to be driven on their roads?

Doesn't California do this all the time?

[Tahuyaman]

[QUOTE=JVV;2143310]The vote was unanimous.

There are two choices here.

(a) There are no right wingers in the House.

(b) Right wingers voted against states' rights.


Are there ANY right wingers in the House?

I have to ask you, because I know how slippery it is to call someone a right winger. Give a name and right wingers on internet forums will divert the thread saying how that particular person is not a right winger.



So I am keeping it simple. If you say there are NO right wingers in the House, then we're done here.

But if there are ANY right wingers in the house, then those are the ones who voted against states' rights. Because EVERYONE in the House voted against states rights. All the leftwingers. All the rightwingers. Everyone.[/QUOTEthe authority or right to impose or ignore any federal law they want?

Do you believe a state has the authority or right to ignore any federal law they wish?

Should a state be able to raise their own army and invade another state? Would it be a violation of states rights for Congress to step in and act on that?

[MisterVeritis]

Doesn't California do this all the time?
No.

[MisterVeritis]

Donyiu belueve stares fights gives individual
stares the authority or right to impose or ignore any federal law they want?
Should a state be able to raise their own army and invade another state? Would it be a violation of states fights for Congress to step in and act on that.
There is something wrong with this? Editor, This needs a cleanup!

[Archer0915]

To have standards for a safely functioning car is different than to prevent an entire class of vehicle from being used.
If it does not meet the standards of every other legally registered vehicle in the state then there is an issue. I could see a few for testing but thousands is something else. The federal government is potentially endangering others. Do they even crash test these things at the federal level? Do they meet emissions standards? They do not need lights, brakes nothing... These vehicles must meet state standards.

They are excluding this class of cars from state inspection.

[Dr. Who]

This thread demonstrates your willingness to pontificate when you don't.

You showed yourself quite ignorant of the rights states have historically had and have invoked in the past with regard to the types of motor vehicles allowed on their road and the standards those vehicles are held to.

And you showed yourself unwilling to modify your position when informed of this history -- all you did was to narrow the gotcha questions you asked and then plow on full speed ahead.

And then you decided to put words into my mouth about my position on states rights.



I still don't know where you stand. Are you a states' rights advocate? Are you an apologist for Republicans in Congress? Or do you just like to argue until you "defeat" your opponent through exhaustion?

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) currently defines the minimum standard for motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment performance. The new legislation only extends that umbrella to include driverless vehicles. States do not currently control motor vehicle safety standards.

§ 30111. Standards(a) General requirements.--The Secretary of Transportation shall prescribe motor vehicle safety standards.Each standard shall be practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms.(b) Considerations and consultation.--When prescribing a motor vehicle safety standard under this chapter,the Secretary shall--(1) consider relevant available motor vehicle safety information;(2) consult with the agency established under the Act of August 20, 1958 (Public Law 85-684, 72 Stat. 635),and other appropriate State or interstate authorities (including legislative committees);(3) consider whether a proposed standard is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the particular type ofmotor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed; and(4) consider the extent to which the standard will carry out section 30101 of this title.(c) Cooperation.--The Secretary may advise, assist, and cooperate with departments, agencies, and instrumentalitiesof the United States Government, States, and other public and private agencies in developing motor vehicle safety standards

§ 30103. Relationship to other laws(a) Uniformity of regulations.--The Secretary of Transportation may not prescribe a safety regulation relatedto a motor vehicle subject to subchapter I of chapter 135 of this title that differs from a motor vehiclesafety standard prescribed under this chapter. However, the Secretary may prescribe, for a motor vehicleoperated by a carrier subject to subchapter I of chapter 135, a safety regulation that imposes a higher standardof performance after manufacture than that required by an applicable standard in effect at the time of manufacture

(b) Preemption.--(1) When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a politicalsubdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect ofperformance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standardprescribed under this chapter. However, the United States Government, a State, or a political subdivision of aState may prescribe a standard for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment obtained for its own use thatimposes a higher performance requirement than that required by the otherwise applicable standard under thischapter.
(2) A State may enforce a standard that is identical to a standard prescribed under this chapter.

https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/motor_vehicle_safety_unrelated_uncodified_provisio ns_may2013.pdf

Note: The Supremacy Clause nullifies state or local law that “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the fullpurposes and objectives of Congress.” See Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941)

[MisterVeritis]

If it does not meet the standards of every other legally registered vehicle in the state then there is an issue. I could see a few for testing but thousands is something else. The federal government is potentially endangering others. Do they even crash test these things at the federal level? Do they meet emissions standards? They do not need lights, brakes nothing... These vehicles must meet state standards.

They are excluding this class of cars from state inspection.
Despite your worry, I think we will be fine.

[Tahuyaman]

There is something wrong with this? Editor, This needs a cleanup!
The first sentence got effed up.

[Archer0915]

Despite your worry, I think we will be fine.
It is discrimination and will fail in court. You can not charge one person a fee while not charging another.

[MisterVeritis]

All I'm doing is asking you a simple question.

Do you think the general welfare clause is an enumerated power? Yes or no?
I seem to have missed this.

No. The general welfare clause is one of the two primary purposes for having a federal government. To see what fits into the purpose look at all of the subordinate clauses in Article 1 Section 8. Those that do not fill a defense and foreign policy role fulfill the general welfare clause.

[MisterVeritis]

Yeah, I'd be curious to know what this poster's past positions on the commerce clause have been. That's another thing which is not generally a favorite with rightwingers.

They were the exact opposite of what he is saying right now.
I am consistent. You have misunderstood.

[JVV]

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) currently defines the minimum standard for motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment performance. The new legislation only extends that umbrella to include driverless vehicles. States do not currently control motor vehicle safety standards.

§ 30111. Standards(a) General requirements.--The Secretary of Transportation shall prescribe motor vehicle safety standards.Each standard shall be practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms.(b) Considerations and consultation.--When prescribing a motor vehicle safety standard under this chapter,the Secretary shall--(1) consider relevant available motor vehicle safety information;(2) consult with the agency established under the Act of August 20, 1958 (Public Law 85-684, 72 Stat. 635),and other appropriate State or interstate authorities (including legislative committees);(3) consider whether a proposed standard is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the particular type ofmotor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed; and(4) consider the extent to which the standard will carry out section 30101 of this title.(c) Cooperation.--The Secretary may advise, assist, and cooperate with departments, agencies, and instrumentalitiesof the United States Government, States, and other public and private agencies in developing motor vehicle safety standards

§ 30103. Relationship to other laws(a) Uniformity of regulations.--The Secretary of Transportation may not prescribe a safety regulation relatedto a motor vehicle subject to subchapter I of chapter 135 of this title that differs from a motor vehiclesafety standard prescribed under this chapter. However, the Secretary may prescribe, for a motor vehicleoperated by a carrier subject to subchapter I of chapter 135, a safety regulation that imposes a higher standardof performance after manufacture than that required by an applicable standard in effect at the time of manufacture

(b) Preemption.--(1) When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a politicalsubdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect ofperformance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standardprescribed under this chapter. However, the United States Government, a State, or a political subdivision of aState may prescribe a standard for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment obtained for its own use thatimposes a higher performance requirement than that required by the otherwise applicable standard under thischapter.
(2) A State may enforce a standard that is identical to a standard prescribed under this chapter.

https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/motor_vehicle_safety_unrelated_uncodified_provisio ns_may2013.pdf

Note: The Supremacy Clause nullifies state or local law that “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the fullpurposes and objectives of Congress.” See Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941)

This is interesting. I appreciate it.

It doesn't nullify everything I said about how vehicle-related regulations differ from state to state. However, it will be used to refine what I say going forward.

[MisterVeritis]

Read each of the subordinate clauses in Article 1 Section 8.
Do you agree that each clause either falls within the Constitution's defense (and foreign policy) purpose or its general welfare purpose?

If not what other category do you see?

You are contorting it. The general welfare clause, the prefatory clause, is a general power, which is then defined by the expressly enumerated powers under it. The liberals make general welfare an independent power making the enumerated powers moot. The conservatives look at the list as the list, but that is still subject to necessary and properly, they are not 'split' into defense and general welfare. The list is the list, express powers, bolstered by necessary and proper, implied powers. Transportation devices have always been interstate commerce. Their inclusion in interstate commerce is not a New Deal contrivance.
You may call the general welfare clause a general power if you wish. I prefer to call it what it actually is. It is one of the two primary purposes for having a federal government. The other primary purpose is defense and foreign policy.

Think of the two purposes as buckets. Every subordinate clause fits into one of the two buckets. The necessary and proper clause does not give additional powers. If it did Article 1 Section 8 could have been written very simply. "Congress can do whatever it chooses to."

[MisterVeritis]

It is discrimination and will fail in court. You can not charge one person a fee while not charging another.
While this is a different issue of course states can, and do charge different fees to different people. A fee is just a tax. I had to pay far more in taxes than my neighbors in California. I was a white engineer. So I paid a lot. They were non-white non-engineers. They paid far, far less.

[Archer0915]

While this is a different issue of course states can, and do charge different fees to different people. A fee is just a tax. I had to pay far more in taxes than my neighbors in California. I was a white engineer. So I paid a lot. They were non-white non-engineers. They paid far, far less.
In NC your registration, inspection and taxes are all linked. If I have to pay a 35 dollar inspection fee but the robo car owner does not even have to get an inspection there is an issue. Why should I have to get a inspection?

[pjohns]

States aren't allowed to block driverless cars?

House unanimously approves sweeping self-driving car measure (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-selfdriving/house-unanimously-approves-sweeping-self-driving-car-measure-idUSKCN1BH2B2)

They should be allowed to discriminate against gays but should have no say in whether driverless cars are allowed on their highways.

Obviously this post is directed at the rightwingers who supposedly fight for states rights "on principle" while claiming it's not about oppressing those they don't approve of.

So much for principle.
Why would you suppose that all (or even most) "rightwingers" were thrilled by this decision?

Most of us probably considered it government overreach--as I do--but are not terribly worked up as concerning its practical effects (especially if we do not plan to purchase such an automobile).

[Ethereal]

We agree...

Debatable.


We have the opportunity to provide the sort of teeth the Constitution requires. An Article V convention of States to propose amendments could repair much of the damage the politicians have wrought over the last century and a half.

If the consensus needed to effectuate that convention existed, it probably wouldn't even be necessary. The "union" is broken, irreparably. You see proof of that every day on this forum and in the media.

[Ethereal]

That is why law speaks of 'balancing' tests. So you weigh the totality of the circumstances. At the end of the day interstate commerce really is all intrastate commerce except at that point. If you have a rule which would create contradictory and confusing local/state regulation.....you have a decent commerce clause situation. At the end of the day the New Deak is the worm but if you see that topic in federal hands BEFORE the New Deal....then its likely properly in federal hands. Yes, the interstate commerce clause DOES empower the federal power to do things. Not all things, but many things and this is definitely one of them.

Then there is no objective limitation on the regulatory power contained with the interstate commerce clause. It could conceivably apply to anything an individual or state government does. And experience shows us that's exactly how the federal government has interpreted and applied it.

[JVV]

Why would you suppose that all (or even most) "rightwingers" were thrilled by this decision?

Most of us probably considered it government overreach--as I do--but are not terribly worked up as concerning its practical effects (especially if we do not plan to purchase such an automobile).


Didn't say all or even most.

But the so-called rightwingers in Congress undermined their claims to stand for states' rights. The next time they try to pass an objectionable law in the name of states' rights, we know it's something else motivating their vote.

[Hoosier8]

States rights were undermined and eventually overtaken by government starting in 1913 by the progressive Woodrow Wilson. Now we have a behemoth central control that often dictates what states can do and often unfunded. Thanks progressives.

[Newpublius]

Then there is no objective limitation on the regulatory power contained with the interstate commerce clause. It could conceivably apply to anything an individual or state government does. And experience shows us that's exactly how the federal government has interpreted and applied it.

You're not the first, nor will you be the last to note the fuzzy logic underpinnings of law. Indeed, law strives for very objective standards and often fails because that is what happens with words like 'reasonable', right?

But in this circumstance, you can say that the 'fuzzy logic' of law makes an objective, brightline test difficult to apply, but where that objection fails in this particular circumstance is that we're not really close to the fuzzy area. Indeed, if the body be the country and the infrastructure be the veins and arteries, then the motor vehicles (along with trains, planes and ships) are the blood of interstate commerce.

[MisterVeritis]

In NC your registration, inspection and taxes are all linked. If I have to pay a 35 dollar inspection fee but the robo car owner does not even have to get an inspection there is an issue. Why should I have to get a inspection?
Perhaps you should ask your representative.

[Archer0915]

Perhaps you should ask your representative.

Yeah, ask why they did this. Regulations are also set by states. If the fed starts overruling (as they are doing regularly these days and sometimes it is justified) all the time we may as well abolish states and state constitutions.

[donttread]

States aren't allowed to block driverless cars?

House unanimously approves sweeping self-driving car measure (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-selfdriving/house-unanimously-approves-sweeping-self-driving-car-measure-idUSKCN1BH2B2)

They should be allowed to discriminate against gays but should have no say in whether driverless cars are allowed on their highways.

Obviously this post is directed at the rightwingers who supposedly fight for states rights "on principle" while claiming it's not about oppressing those they don't approve of.

So much for principle.


This is why I've stopped using terms like "United States" or "Union of States" , because those terms meant something that no longer exist. So we are simply America . Our "great experiment" has become nothing more than a chapter in history as we are now just one more centrally dominated nation in a world broken by centrally dominated nations.

[Newpublius]

Then there is no objective limitation on the regulatory power contained with the interstate commerce clause. It could conceivably apply to anything an individual or state government does. And experience shows us that's exactly how the federal government has interpreted and applied it.

From a New Deal perspective, the test is irrelevant of course, if the Commerce Clause fails, its backed up by General Welfare anyway, so your legal tests lose crispness, no doubt. That's not because there isn't a conservative sense of what the commerce clause is and we can see that applied pre-New Deal. If we liken it to crossing the goal line in football, the goal line itself is an objective brightline test, but, as applied, we often quibble whether or not the plane has been broken in a game because sometimes its not entirely clear. But if you're on the 5 yard line or 5 yards in the end zone, you are clearly in or out. And noting fuzziness on the goal line doesn't really change that.