Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

White House Punts On Petition To Allow Tesla Direct Sales

Unknown Lamer posted about 4 months ago | from the look-at-those-hands-wave dept.

Transportation 382

First time accepted submitter neanderslob (1207704) writes Last Friday, over a year after the petition gained the required signatures for a response, the White House rejected a We the People petition to "Allow Tesla Motors to sell directly to consumers in all 50 states." The letter went on to defend the administration by citing their initiatives "in promoting vehicle efficiency." In response, Tesla is firing back, blasting the White House for a lack of leadership on the issue and stating "138,469 people signed the petition asking the White House to allow Tesla Motors to sell directly to consumers in all 50 states. More than a year later, at 7.30pm EST on Friday as most of America prepared for the weekend, the White House released its disappointing response to those people. Rather than seize an opportunity to promote innovation and support the first successful American car company to be started in more than a century, the White House issued a response that was even more timid than its rejection of a petition to begin construction of a Death Star." There's a legal issue here: the executive can't just wave state law aside. But they could suggest Congress write new laws instead of just noting that Congress would need to take action.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

He cant or wont? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47458119)

If he can declare war without congressional approval why can't he waive state laws?

Re:He cant or wont? (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | about 4 months ago | (#47458153)

If he can declare war without congressional approval...

When did he do that?

Re:He cant or wont? (4, Informative)

tysonedwards (969693) | about 4 months ago | (#47458245)

As a country, the United States has not Declared War against anyone since World War II, it has however by Executive Order by the Commander in Chief gone to war with several countries.

Re:He cant or wont? (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | about 4 months ago | (#47458327)

OK, so he means Obama and several other administrations over the last ~60-70 years. Seemed specific to Obama to me in the OP but put your way I guess their's a point to be made in there somewhere...

Re:He cant or wont? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47458537)

Obama protection brigade...stand down...for now.

Re:He cant or wont? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47458667)

Obviously Obama invented the idea of executive action, that's why Republicans want to impeach ANYONE who does such things... right? Fair/Balanced?

Re:He cant or wont? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47458411)

Re:He cant or wont? (1)

thaylin (555395) | about 4 months ago | (#47458261)

That seems to be a talking point for some zealots now.

Re: He cant or wont? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47458291)

In Iraq of course.
That was a liberal demOCrat war the the patriotic tea party warned us not to go in to. Don't you watch Fox?

Re: He cant or wont? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47458465)

Why let facts get in the way https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] It's not like any democrats voted against the war in iraq.

Re:He cant or wont? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47458353)

2011 Libya "military intervention" -- I guess it's just not considered a "war" if you expect 99.9% of your soldiers to come home without so much as scraped knees.

Re:He cant or wont? (5, Insightful)

sycodon (149926) | about 4 months ago | (#47458393)

Really, it doesn't matter when he or any other President did that.

What really matters is that the ignorant fool of an AC believes that he should be able to do that. It should scare the shit out of everyone that even an AC would think that a President should be able to cast aside state laws with a mere wave of his hand or executive order. That's fucking dictator shit right there.

People have thrown the Dictator charge around and it's been consider kookville, because there has always been some arguable legal construct supporting it. But for anyone to seriously suggest that a President has unilateral discretion over the laws of individual states is scary and should get everyone's attention.

Re:He cant or wont? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47458433)

If he can declare war without congressional approval...

When did he do that?

When the US bombed Libya in 2011. [wikipedia.org]

Of course, Obama said that wasn't "hostilities": [washingtonpost.com] :

Let’s be honest: President Obama’s claim that U.S. military action in Libya doesn’t constitute “hostilities” is nonsense, and Congress is right to call him on it.

Blasting dictator Moammar Gaddafi’s troops and installations from above with unmanned drone aircraft may or may not be the right thing to do, but it’s clearly a hostile act. Likewise, providing intelligence, surveillance and logistical support that enable allied planes to attack Gaddafi’s military — and, increasingly, to target Gaddafi himself — can only be considered hostile. These are acts of war.

I guess Obama was confused by his plethora of "If you like your plan, you can keep it." and similar lies, and just lied about dropping bombs on Libya out of habit.

Re:He cant or wont? (2)

dudeman2 (88399) | about 4 months ago | (#47458343)

He should declare war on local car dealers. That'll fix em.

Re:He cant or wont? (5, Insightful)

IronOxen (2502562) | about 4 months ago | (#47458493)

That will ensure their success. Anything we declare war on thrives like never before.

Re:He cant or wont? (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 4 months ago | (#47458595)

Oh yeah, let's just not have any democrats on local city councils when you lose all the local petty power brokers .

Re:He cant or wont? (0)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 4 months ago | (#47458373)

Who cares what the WH thinks? Its State Law. Let the voters in each state decide what they want. Its not like you can't go to another state to make the purchase, that's just lost tax revenue for the restricting states. Eventually, it will get worked out. Meanwhile,today, if you can afford a $90,000 car, I doubt there are any real impediments to your making that purchase.

Re:He cant or wont? (4, Informative)

thaylin (555395) | about 4 months ago | (#47458473)

It is actually interstate commerce which congress has a say in under the commerce clause. Also most states charge you sales tax via your EOY tax forms for out of state purchases.

Re:He cant or wont? (1)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 4 months ago | (#47458631)

True, I forgot about the state tax adjustment. Thanks

Re:He cant or wont? (2)

cellocgw (617879) | about 4 months ago | (#47458503)

Meanwhile,today, if you can afford a $90,000 car, I doubt there are any real impediments to your making that purchase.

That's all very nice and snarky, but Tesla's got a Model E in design with a target sticker price of around $30k US. Wouldn't it be nice to fix the problem now, so in a couple years we don't have to order our Tesla-E via Amazon Prime?

Re:He cant or wont? (1)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 4 months ago | (#47458681)

Why is this just a problem now? People have been buying cars under this model for quite some time. The drive train technology makes no difference. People need to recognize that, and make the fight technology neutral, before they'll get anything changed.

What? (5, Funny)

just_another_sean (919159) | about 4 months ago | (#47458125)

An internet petition that went nowhere? Unpossible!

Seriously, the White House petition site is just PR. I'm no Obama hater but anyone who thinks that would ever be an effective way to influence policy is probably still sitting on the edge of their seat waiting for Firefly to come back on television.

Re:What? (5, Funny)

sunking2 (521698) | about 4 months ago | (#47458149)

The Death Star proved that. Overwhelming support. Brushed under the rug. This administration is a joke.

Re:What? (1)

click2005 (921437) | about 4 months ago | (#47458239)

No Death Star so I tried to Kickstarter one.. how the hell do I exploit this for lols?

Re:What? (1)

internerdj (1319281) | about 4 months ago | (#47458601)

I don't know, but I think a libertarian just got his wings.

Re:What? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 4 months ago | (#47458603)

No Death Star so I tried to Kickstarter one.. how the hell do I exploit this for lols?

When you build it, point it at Washington. ;-)

Re:What? (4, Informative)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 4 months ago | (#47458265)

Did you read the response? It's great.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/isnt-petition-response-youre-looking

"Why would we spend countless taxpayer dollars on a Death Star with a fundamental flaw that can be exploited by a one-man starship?"

Re:What? (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 4 months ago | (#47458613)

Lazy government contractors didn't even bother to install blast shielding with the ray shielding.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47458643)

No. The ray shielding had a 24 month lead time. The emperor said he was fine with the wait as long as we got to the gold plated toilet seat off the throne room.

Re:What? (0)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | about 4 months ago | (#47458157)

if your president decides who sells what, where, when, and how... you aren't free.

ditto if your governor, state legislature, or city council is doing it.

this entire thing is bullshit. it isn't up to any of them, for or against.

Re:What? (1)

thaylin (555395) | about 4 months ago | (#47458279)

I think the point of this was for the president to say that no one gets to say who sells what, when, where and how.

Re:What? (-1, Troll)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | about 4 months ago | (#47458383)

...except HE gets to tell you that. Because Master Blaster runs Bartertown.
Like Stalin... Here to administer the equality, not to participate in it.

Re:What? (1)

thaylin (555395) | about 4 months ago | (#47458487)

HE was asked to say it, HE did not actually say it. The point of the article is that they wish HE would have strongly asked CONGRESS to intervene, not create an executive order.

Re:What? (0, Troll)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | about 4 months ago | (#47458591)

The point of the article is that 138,469 wished they lived in a kingdom with a benevolent dictator who can simply make people do stuff because they want it.

Re:What? (2)

ilparatzo (3627897) | about 4 months ago | (#47458175)

If I write a petition asking for something that the President is passionate about, I would expect that I'd get a major response and it would be used to drive policy change.

Otherwise, stamp a form letter in response and move on.

Re:What? (5, Funny)

slashdice (3722985) | about 4 months ago | (#47458335)

Like...

Dear Mr. President, Please play lots of golf.

Dear Mr. President, You seem overworked. Please take another vacation.

Dear Mr. President, Please give another speech calling Republicans meanies.

Re:What? (-1, Troll)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | about 4 months ago | (#47458345)

If there's one thing Obama is passionate about, it is expanding federal power to all aspects of everything.
Why not cut out the middle man and create a petition that asks the White House to assume authority over all levels and government branches? That's essentially what you are asking for.

Ranters gonna rant (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47458517)

If there's one thing Obama is passionate about, it is expanding federal power to all aspects of everything.

This article is about how the WH is not getting involved. So presumably you support this decision of the president not to expand federal powers?

Re:What? (1)

RenderSeven (938535) | about 4 months ago | (#47458197)

... waiting for Firefly to come back on television.

Wait, what? Firefly isnt coming back???

Re:What? (1)

Xenx (2211586) | about 4 months ago | (#47458369)

I'm sure it's still coming! I keep hearing stuff about Netflix looking to bring it back...

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47458217)

This has nothing to do with Obama or some other basterd sitting in white house they are all not very effective rulers. They can still send marines or order of bombing some lesser nations into oblivion but an act of law that would be difficult especially with congress acting like it does.

Re:What? (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | about 4 months ago | (#47458293)

Oh I agree with you. But that's what makes the whole petition thing a great PR machine. I'd argue that almost any change people are requesting will require at least some level of approval from the legislature so Obama can say "Oh, I agree and am as passionate about (insert topic here) as you are, but that do-nothing congress, well, sorry but we can't do much..."

It's not that it's Obama's fault but I find the whole thing disingenuous at best, similar to his campaign messages* that got everyone excited enough to vote for him.

* And here again there are really no differences between either party, or one politician over another.

Re:What? (2)

jellomizer (103300) | about 4 months ago | (#47458305)

People forget that United States is a Democratic Republic. Not a democracy.

Not all popular idea's will go out or should go out, just because the majority wills it. The point of a Democratic Republic, is the Citizens vote for people who will make the decisions, then these people should take a look at all the factors and make one.

However this hasn't been working well, because of the Party system, and too many voters are getting stuck on party ideals and less on voting for the person who would take your interests at heart.

Re:What? (1)

thaylin (555395) | about 4 months ago | (#47458511)

I wish more people would get this. All those who blame "activist judges" for ruling unconstitutional laws unconstitutional just because it was voted on by a direct democracy on the ballot make me weep in bed for this country.

Re:What? (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 4 months ago | (#47458363)

I'm no Obama hater but anyone who thinks that would ever be an effective way to influence policy is probably still sitting on the edge of their seat waiting for Firefly to come back on television.

If you recognize that, then why aren't you an Obama hater? This is emblematic of Obama: make a great public show about being a man of the people, and then surreptitiously ignore them.

I.e., he's playing us all for saps.

For us dummies.... (4, Insightful)

AudioEfex (637163) | about 4 months ago | (#47458145)

....can someone briefly summarize like we are in third grade (OK, maybe junior high) why Tesla can't sell their vehicles anywhere they damn well please? I don't follow car news so I don't know (and I'm asking here because I figure I am not the only one).

Re:For us dummies.... (4, Informative)

Andrew Sterian (182) | about 4 months ago | (#47458209)

Not an easy read but a good backgrounder on this, which also seems to be a Department of Justice advocation of direct manufacturer sales:

http://www.justice.gov/atr/pub... [justice.gov]

Re:For us dummies.... (1)

Motard (1553251) | about 4 months ago | (#47458233)

Most states, prodded perhaps by dealer associations, have forbidden auto manufacturers from selling directly to the public. New York, Ohio and Texas have been among the most prominent battlegrounds so far.

No need to qualify (5, Informative)

sjbe (173966) | about 4 months ago | (#47458483)

Most states, prodded perhaps by dealer associations, have forbidden auto manufacturers from selling directly to the public.

There is no "perhaps" about it. Auto dealer associations are entirely the reason - no need to qualify your statement. They are parasitic middlemen and they know they have a good deal going. They cost both customers and the automakers money. They should have to compete and provide value just like any other business. There should be no legal prohibition against me buying a car directly from Tesla, GM, Toyota or any other car maker if I want. If the dealer can provide me extra value then fine but if they cannot (and most cannot) then they should disappear like the obsolete businesses they are. There is no rational justification I have heard for protecting their business model at my expense. Perhaps you know of a good reason but frankly for me if auto dealers disappear tomorrow it won't be too soon.

Re:For us dummies.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47458269)

Short and only mostly inaccurate summary, the dealerships currently in place have essentially a monopoly protecting them. GM, Ford, etc. don't sell cars to the public. They sell them to dealerships who move them. The dealerships are essentially middle management and they see that their entire existence is threatened if somebody figures out that they can build a car and sell it to somebody without them being involved and making a lot of money.

Re:For us dummies.... (0)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about 4 months ago | (#47458273)

Obligatory XKCD [xkcd.com]

Re:For us dummies.... (5, Informative)

Raseri (812266) | about 4 months ago | (#47458277)

Car dealerships form extremely powerful lobbies in most (all?) states, and have purchased laws in most (all?) states banning the direct sale of vehicles from the manufacturer to the consumer. This, obviously, is a protectionist racket that serves no purpose but to line the pockets of said dealers. I'm not aware of any other consumer good with such a restriction (though I will grant that such a thing is possible and I simply am not aware of it).

Re:For us dummies.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47458423)

Car dealerships provide cities with 1 million dollars in sales tax each year per dealership. Of course they have enormous clout. They're basically paving the streets, paying the garbage men, and lighting the lamps by themselves. The rest of us just pay toward police/firefighter pensions.

Re:For us dummies.... (1)

thaylin (555395) | about 4 months ago | (#47458519)

It depends, my city does not pay for paving streets, all roads are owned by the state.

Re:For us dummies.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47458281)

Car dealerships in many, many areas within the US have gotten laws passed to protect themselves from the manufacturer competing with them by doing exactly what Tesla is doing: selling direct. The laws force the manufacturer to sell to customers through the dealerships.

Re:For us dummies.... (2)

dunkindave (1801608) | about 4 months ago | (#47458339)

Traditional car companies see Tesla as a threat. They see Tesla is using a different sales model, namely that Tesla sells their cars directly to the consumer instead of using a dealership, and then the big guys use this difference to try and block Tesla from selling cars by influencing state legislatures (with things like money) to pass laws that say new cars can only be be sold through a franchised car dealership, not directly. The car companies know that all the new US car companies in the last century that have tried to enter market using dealership have failed for a few reasons, but one big one is that the new guy is too small so the dealership is one that would handle multiple brands, and as the new unproven line, the cars don't get pushed, so wither and die. That is what the big manufacturers want, for Tesla to fail, and they are paying their lawmakers to create laws to make Tesla's job impossible.

Re:For us dummies.... (1)

rdtripp (1057564) | about 4 months ago | (#47458357)

Most states have laws regulating car dealers that make it difficult and expensive to open a new dealership. You also must be a dealer to sell new cars. A manufacturer, by law, must sell through a dealer and cannot sell directly to the consumer. The status quo is reinforced by dealers associations in each state (and nationally) that spend lots of money on lobbying to keep the current system intact. Tesla wants to sell direct and bypass the dealers. The dealers are fighting this tooth and nail.

The real reason (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47458359)

The real reason that the dealerships care isn't about Tesla at all.

Dealerships have worked to create laws that forbid car manufacturers from selling direct to consumers. And if Tesla gets around that, then Ford, GM, etc. will be hot on their tracks and dealerships will see significant impact from this. In the age of the internet anyone would become finally able to purchase goods from the car manufacturers. Their way of life would die off.

That's why they fight Tesla like the fate of the world is at stake.

Re:For us dummies.... (1)

geekmux (1040042) | about 4 months ago | (#47458427)

....can someone briefly summarize like we are in third grade (OK, maybe junior high) why Tesla can't sell their vehicles anywhere they damn well please? I don't follow car news so I don't know (and I'm asking here because I figure I am not the only one).

I'm still struggling to understand why this is a problem with the current offering from Tesla.

I've seen Tesla cars on the road in my state, so we can safely assume DOT has authorized them for US road use, and therefore are legal to drive in any state.

Given that fact, I seriously doubt that anyone who can afford a $100,000 Tesla really has a problem transporting themselves to pick up said car, regardless of limited dealership locations.

Hasn't really seemed to hurt Tesla sales so far. Doesn't hurt the likes of Ferrari or Lamborghini. You sure as hell don't find those dealerships in every state.

Now, when the $30,000 Tesla comes along, it might be a bit of a different story. Then again, we'll be talking about game changers by then, and this political battlefield will become a lot more active.

Re:For us dummies.... (1)

Sechr Nibw (1278786) | about 4 months ago | (#47458615)

I'd imagine one of the biggest factors/problems/differences between buying out-of-state Ferraris/Lamborghinis and out-of-state Teslas is the fact that you can refuel the Ferrari or Lamborghini basically anywhere along the way back to your state. The Tesla? Not so much. You either need to plan charging stops, or get it towed/hauled to within X miles of your home (where X depends on the model of Tesla, obviously).

For us dummies.... (1)

slashdice (3722985) | about 4 months ago | (#47458461)

Once upon a time (think 1920s/1930s) car manufacturers did abuse the third party dealers ("It would be a real shame if we opened a car store right next to yours and put you out of business") so states enacted laws to prevent that. There were also similar problems with alcohol which is why alcohol distribution is so fucked up, too. The laws are "solving" problems that don't apply to Tesla or small microbrewers.

Re:For us dummies.... (1)

tysonedwards (969693) | about 4 months ago | (#47458477)

Technically, it is because laws are on the books to require that only parties that are approved by the State legislatures be authorized to sell, dismantle, repair, or license new or used vehicles in a commercial, for profit setting. Some states went in and made laws to govern Dealerships themselves as being "third parties" from the manufacturers themselves to promote competition and reduce pricing collusion between Dealerships within a geographic region. Sure, the Manufacturer still sets MSRP and even the price at which the Dealership buys the vehicle, but in those states those Dealerships need to operate independently from the Manufacturer to prevent them from artificially limiting supply of products that may sell better but have lower margins to drive people towards higher margin purchases or other non-defined but considered sleazy business practices that make serial killers look like saints compared to the average car salesman.

Basically, think of it like the eBook fiasco that has been going on. Apple let the Publishers set an MSRP versus Amazon saying "everything only costs this price, regardless of writer, content, or what you charge us." Apple's giving Publishers more control over pricing of their products on a minute by minute basis allowed them to increase their pricing for their products while preventing customers from being able to purchase a fungible product at a similar price point as they were able to do previously.

Or on the flip side, Amazon is going in and telling people "nope, you aren't allowed to buy this new title from us because we choose not to sell it to you, but you can buy this completely different product that is more lucrative for us instead", effectively using their customers as pawns against a publisher to negotiate more lucrative terms.

Neither are really directly comparable, but that is as close a comparison as I can find at this time. More of a "let's push through some laws years ago to protect us from some of these horror stories that our friends of friends of friends told us about dealing with a bad used car salesman."

Re:For us dummies.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47458501)

tldr; State laws funded by old car companies.

Why not? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47458173)

"There's a legal issue here: the executive can't just wave state law aside. But they could suggest Congress write new laws instead of just noting that Congress would need to take action."

Why not? He completely bypasses all laws and even our constitution using executive orders, why not for this? Oh, that's right, it would affect his dirty money income from industry lobbies.

Re:Why not? (1)

jandrese (485) | about 4 months ago | (#47458313)

Oh yeah, Obama is a terrible abuser of executive orders [politifact.com] if you believe chain emails and talk radio.

Re:Why not? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47458391)

Number vs content. Sure others have used more, but hes taken them farther. How that isn't glaringly apparent to you is the true mystery.

Re:Why not? (2)

thaylin (555395) | about 4 months ago | (#47458609)

Can you cite the problem ones? I am genuinly interested. The only one people ever seem to want to cite is the ACA delay one, which seems like prosecutional discretion to me.

Re:Why not? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47458659)

It is easy to make bold claims when you don't provide a falsifiable argument.

Re: Why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47458355)

He could suggest that the house eat a healthy breakfast an they would go hungry.
Executive orders have limits. There is a difference between pushing a limit. And tring to rule by fiat.

Note the states that have the limits.
If the president tried to do something they would fight back.
So the current state of nothing continues.

Re:Why not? (1)

hesiod (111176) | about 4 months ago | (#47458437)

And, of course, if Obama suggests congress do something reasonable, they're CERTAINLY not going to wave their arms and scream about what a terrible idea it is, and how it would turn our country into a Socialist state...

Can't wave law? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47458183)

Since when has law, state or otherwise, stopped Obama? Constitution? Nah...He knows better...Obamacare mandates? ( his own fucking law)...nah...its an election year. Drug laws? Nah we won't enforce em. Seriously. No matter what side of the isle you're on and if you like the laws or not, the fact that he picks and chooses what to enforce completely undermines the whole idea of "rule of law". The man is the biggest crony Ive ever seen.

Re:Can't wave law? (2)

thaylin (555395) | about 4 months ago | (#47458641)

Since when has law, state or otherwise, stopped Obama? Constitution? Nah...He knows better...Obamacare mandates? ( his own fucking law)...nah...its an election year.

seems like prosecutional discretion to me

Drug laws? Nah we won't enforce em.

heard of prohibition? To me drug laws are the same as it, they should be prohibition, so I like to think of him not enforcing them because they are unconstitutional.

Seriously. No matter what side of the isle you're on and if you like the laws or not, the fact that he picks and chooses what to enforce completely undermines the whole idea of "rule of law". The man is the biggest crony Ive ever seen.

Not really.. If law A is unconstitutional, and law B is not, then picking to enforce law B but not law A is the proper thing to do to enforce the constitutional rule of law we have.

State Rights (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47458221)

"There's a legal issue here: the executive can't just wave state law aside."

This is one of the funniest things I've seen in some time. This president has pushed the previous precedent to new heights - there is no such thing as state law except at the pleasure of the federal government. Today, there are no federal checks and balances that haven't been so warped out of shape that the checks are rubber stamps and the balances are "you let me do what I want and I'll balance that by making sure you're taken care of".

Re:State Rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47458627)

This whole board has turned into dipshits without bringing any facts or proof to the table - on EITHER side of the fence. You all sicken me.

Not a shocker. (1)

B33rNinj4 (666756) | about 4 months ago | (#47458253)

The automotive industry wields a tremendous amount of power. It's not a surprise that they pushed to have Tesla squashed.

Choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47458263)

Well if I had to choose between a Tesla and a Death Star, I would take the Death Star.

Re:Choice (1)

sycodon (149926) | about 4 months ago | (#47458419)

Because of more leg room and the Killer Traffic Clearing Device?

Really Kids? (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 4 months ago | (#47458267)

You kids are really still posting/signing petitions on the White House site?

Even after several years of them all but telling us "this is purely for show, we will never honor any of the requests in these?"

There's a point where the definition of insanity intersects with the definition of absolutely goddamn brainlessness. That point is, apparently, the We The People petition site.

Re:Really Kids? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47458549)

Maybe we should start a We The People petition to have Obama take the petitions more seriously.

Pen & Phone (1)

CWCheese (729272) | about 4 months ago | (#47458311)

There's a legal issue here: the executive can't just wave state law aside.

Really???? I thought the President said that all needs to make law he has in his hands : a pen and a phone.

Re:Pen & Phone (2, Insightful)

chill (34294) | about 4 months ago | (#47458445)

I thought...

You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.

You parroted without doing any sort of independent analysis or validation.

Ha, made me laugh. (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 4 months ago | (#47458321)

But they could suggest Congress write new laws instead of just noting that Congress would need to take action.

"Congress take action" - Ha.

Online petitions with consequences? (4, Interesting)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about 4 months ago | (#47458325)

The problem with the petition is that it has no consequences.

Would it help if petitioners agreed to vote *against* the incumbent president's party at the next election if the issue isn't addressed?

Some of the petitions net upwards of a quarter-million signatures. Is that enough votes to get Washington to take notice?

Re:Online petitions with consequences? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47458521)

The problem with the petition is that it has no consequences.

And they shouldn't have any consequences. Why should the 0.04% of the population that signed it dictate things over the 99.96% of the population that didn't? In a democracy, the majority rules.

only 138,469 people? (1)

js3 (319268) | about 4 months ago | (#47458329)

lol

Re:only 138,469 people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47458467)

0.04 % of the population and people can't figure out why petitions do nothing.

"They could suggest Congress..." (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47458409)

Why don't I suggest a potato to do my laundry? I'd get the same results as asking congress to do anything. Anything Elon plans to do will be an up-hill battle, and he's in it alone.

Congress write laws???? (1)

romanval (556418) | about 4 months ago | (#47458435)

Especially laws that would place the interests of the individual ahead of the interests of an established industry cartel? That's a laugh.

Not a duty of the Executive Branch (4, Insightful)

ravenscar (1662985) | about 4 months ago | (#47458441)

These White House petitions drive me a little nuts. I appreciate that they bring publicity to an issue, but they also demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of how the US Government is designed to work. The issue is state and local laws. These laws don't contradict federal laws. What do people want the President to do about it? If people are upset about their local laws they need to work at the local level - petitioning state law makers.

The argument could be made that this is interstate commerce. Great, then work with your national representatives to propose federal legislation that would overrule the local laws. It very likely would have to stand up to a court challenge, but the courts have been exceptionally liberal in their interpretation of interstate commerce. If the local governments fail to comply THEN the executive branch will get involved in enforcement.

It seems like people want the Executive and Judicial branches making the laws. This isn't how it's supposed to happen - for good reason. This reflects not only a bad approach to government, but it is also a sign of just how completely broken Congress is. How said that the only ones who seem able to push any sort of legislation through Congress are big businesses. Everyone else is stuck looking for some sort of alternative. Sadly, those alternatives, should they end up successful, will just result in a less representative, more authoritarian government.

the executive can't just wave state law aside??? (1, Insightful)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 4 months ago | (#47458451)

How many times has the President (any President) done exactly this? Since Jackson famously told the Supremes "now go and enforce it" the Executive has been able to give the Judicial the finger. How many times in recent memory has the Executive waived, changed, or broken existing laws regarding the new Health Care act?

Where is his pen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47458453)

Where is his pen?

WH "Petitions" were a campaign scam (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47458457)

They were implemented to fool the young-and-dumb into thinking they'd have input into the Obama administration. Any time the petition agrees with what Obama was going to do anyway, his supporters think they had some input. Whenever the petitions are something the Obama admiinistration does not want to deal with they either ignore them or dismiss them with a little humor or snark - and Obama bots still think they've had "input". When the petitions stuff got too annoying, they simply changed the number of "signatures" needed to evoke a response.

The truly interesting ones are the petitions the Obama administration totally ignores - like the one about the marine vet in Jail in Mexico.

These whitehouse petitions are about as effective as Michelle Obama's selfie with that #bringbackourgirls sign.... the stupid woman is married to the most powerful man on the planet and she thinks a selfie with a hashtag is more-effective than talking to her hubby. OMG! it turns out terrorists are not influenced by "social media campaigns" on twitter....

Washington,Lincoln,FDR,Eisenhower, Reagan, etc must all be face-palming in their graves....

Someone call the waaambulance! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47458475)

Waaaah Obama is the unitary executive, always giving orders and making laws like he is a KING!

Waaaah Obama refuses to make a decision, always making it other people's jobs to do stuff!

WAAAAAHHHHHHH!

The petroleum companies (0)

CosaNostra Pizza Inc (1299163) | about 4 months ago | (#47458527)

I'm sure Big Oil had a hand in the President's decision.

One legit use of the commerce clause (5, Insightful)

istartedi (132515) | about 4 months ago | (#47458531)

Well now, here's an actual legitimate use of the Commerce Clause; but Congress won't use it. Every podunk dealer that ever contributed to their campaigns would ring their phones off the hook, as well as actual corporate lobby from GM, etc.

Jurisdiction: This is actually a great reply (2)

MobyDisk (75490) | about 4 months ago | (#47458585)

Obama gave the only reply he could. It essentially says "I don't control that, I can't help you. Sorry."

When your local state passes a bad law, don't cry to the federal government. Call your local representatives and fix the law yourself. It's easier to get local laws changed, and that is the appropriate level to do it.

Actually, WH can waive state laws (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 4 months ago | (#47458635)

When state laws are a barrier to interstate commerce and prevent a US manufacturer from retailing in a state, the White House can void them.

Interstate Commerce.

All your Red South is belong to plug-in electric cars

Unfortunately, this is a state's issue. (2)

Mysticalfruit (533341) | about 4 months ago | (#47458671)

The reply is actually excellent. I was about to hate all over the page but actually read it first. Frankly, this is an individual states issue... Which only an act of congress can change, or have our local politicians change.

However, the auto dealership lobby is a serious nut to crack. With elections coming, I'm not sure many politicians are going to put their necks out so they can be labeled as against local businesses.

Getting the shaft. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47458675)

Back on topic , having to go through a dealer adds a layer of costs and is totally against the interest of the consumers.
Car dealerships is a mafia and nothing short of organised crime. Free enterprise in the USA ? MY ASS

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?