Forums

Whitehouse Petiton

Whitehouse Petiton

There is a new We The People petition.

"Travis Cochran of Ravenna, Mich. on Friday created a new petition on WhiteHouse.gov, which calls on the Obama administration to "put an end to state legislatures banning direct vehicle sales."
The petitonmust receive 150 signatures to become searchable on the White House website and Cochran has set a goal of reaching 100,000 signatures by Nov. 30, which would require a White House response.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/put-end-state-legislature-bann...

Brian10 | 31. Oktober 2014

I've signed it.

Bighorn | 31. Oktober 2014

The same type of petition garnered over 100,000 signatures last time it made the rounds. The White House has no jurisdiction over state legislatures.

AmpedRealtor | 31. Oktober 2014

Waste of time. Sorry.

renwo S alset | 31. Oktober 2014

Petition for redress? You should have dressed right in the first place.

Grinnin'.VA | 31. Oktober 2014

I don't expect anything good from this petition in the near future. Hopefully, it will make more people aware of the ridiculous anti-Tesla nonsense that is currently in vogue, most in states controlled by Republican politicians.

I signed it.

Ron :)

damonmath | 31. Oktober 2014

signed

Bighorn | 31. Oktober 2014

Come on people--this petition has been asked and answered. Stop wasting bandwidth and peoples' time.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/response-we-people-petition-te...

Haggy | 31. Oktober 2014

I'd sign a petition if it "put an end to state legislatures banning direct vehicle sales unless the manufacturer has a dealer network in place." i.e. I don't think manufacturers should compete with their own franchisees, and wouldn't want to see manufacturers selling directly unless they had to sell at sticker price, while dealers still paid a wholesale price that left room for profit similar to what the existing system allows. Franchisees also handle repairs for manufacturers with dealer networks and I wouldn't want to see manufacturers buying up franchisees by forcing them into bankruptcy unless they sell out. I'm fine with any manufacturer that doesn't have or doesn't want franchises in the first place.

genedr @ny-us | 31. Oktober 2014

Its a state matter. Waste of time.

I am more terrified about the next SCOTUS appointee IF Mitch McConnell becomes Senate majority leader.

Anthony J. Parisio | 31. Oktober 2014

I'm in!

Haggy | 31. Oktober 2014

Getting a presidential appointment isn't so easy. Apparently, getting onto the board at Tesla isn't easy either. Who would have known that you can't simply ask Elon at the annual meeting?

bcimae.co.us | 31. Oktober 2014

Done!

Daro346 | 31. Oktober 2014

Done!

Dramsey | 31. Oktober 2014

Why don't all you folks who signed this petition create a little poster about it and post it on your Facebook pages, and ask people to share it if they agree.

It will do about as much good-- i.e. none-- but it might make you feel better.

RU64 | 31. Oktober 2014

Congress could enact pertinent legislation which, under the Interstate Commerce clause, should have the desired effect nationally.

Pettifogger.ca.us | 31. Oktober 2014

True, Congress could. Think that Congress will, especially if the GOP takes the Senate?

Dramsey | 31. Oktober 2014

RU64, can you explain how this would fall under the Interstate Commerce clause?

Brian H | 01. November 2014

If you're gonna send this pointless paper off, at least spell "Petion" right.

Bikezion | 01. November 2014

Maybe all of the Americans need to study the difference between a federal government and a national government, and what made America special in the first place.

There are seriously 100,000 Americans ignorant enough to demand an unconstitutional executive order? We truly do deserve what we get. In the last 150 years we've taken the best government known to man and squandered it to this! Disgusted. Are Americans really that ignorant to freedom?

While you're studying the above, pay special attention to the differences between a republic and a democracy.

logicalthinker | 01. November 2014

@Bikezion, +1000

AmpedRealtor | 01. November 2014

Individual states cannot be trusted to do what's best for their citizens. Open up any newspaper or go to any news site and I think you'll find plenty of evidence. Thank god that we have the Federal Government to overturn discriminatory state laws and practices. Thank god we have a federal constitution that requires equal protection under the law. If we didn't have the equal protections clause, imagine what our country would be like, especially in the South.

Rheumboy | 01. November 2014

I think we need a "dealer" czar. Look how effective the Ebola czar is or was.....who?

Captain_Zap | 01. November 2014

Czar? What do you think this is? Russia?

mcdonalk | 01. November 2014

I believe that the Federal Government could do this. There is an hierarchy of law, and federal law supercedes state laws. The Civil Rights Act in the 1960's is an example of this.

Rheumboy | 01. November 2014

het

amatiych | 01. November 2014

Last thing we want is another Federal government intervention into states' affairs. This needs to be handled on a state level. One state at a time.

Red Sage ca us | 01. November 2014

This is me again, being AmpedRealtor's personal 'Ditto Man'.

amatiych: The problem is that it is highly likely that 100% of the 'independent franchised dealerships' that bind together to form a state coalition to combat the 'threat' that Tesla Motors poses to their livelihood are also members of the National Automobile Dealers Association. It may be argued that: 1) The individual states are violating interstate commerce law; and 2) NADA is engaged in Antitrust/Anticompetitive practices through their support of those violations.

Personally, I don't think the franchise laws should necessarily be abolished, so much as I believe they should not be applied toward Tesla Motors, or any other company that has not made the specific choice to use 'independent franchised dealerships'.

I am not a lawyer, but if I represented one of the traditional automobile manufacturers, I would urge them to lobby for the relaxation of certain provisions of those franchise laws, due to the proven viability of direct sales through the internet. If a manufacturer wanted to sell to the public at their published MSRP, I don't see why that would be a problem.

Grinnin'.VA | 01. November 2014

@ mcdonalk | November 1, 2014

I believe that the Federal Government could do this. There is an hierarchy of law, and federal law supercedes state laws.

Have you not noticed that Republicans have been routinely blocking almost all Obama's initiatives, even those based on the Republicans' own policy proposals?

Damn the torpedoes.

Go Tesla!

Sudre_ | 01. November 2014

I would be willing to place money on the assumption that if California past a law that no product from another state could be sold in California if for any reason that state blocked a Californian product from being sold that the Federal Government would get involved in a heart beat.

There has to be a better way to write that but I hope it makes enough sense.

Haggy | 01. November 2014

Amped,

What's a newspaper?

Pricee2 | 01. November 2014

Waste of time. Like flatulence in a tornado, no one will hear it or smell it.

Brian H | 01. November 2014

Obama's initiatives have nothing to do with the law, except insofar as he is attempting to violate it. He believes in a malleable "Living Constitution", which is the functional equivalent of none.

Dramsey | 01. November 2014

I would be willing to place money on the assumption that if California past a law that no product from another state could be sold in California if for any reason that state blocked a Californian product from being sold that the Federal Government would get involved in a heart beat.

Sure, because that's interstate commerce, which the Feds do get to regulate. No gray area there.

Dealer franchise laws, though, apply only to intra-state sales. No Federal interest there.

Granted, the Feds have been quite inventive about what comprises "interstate commerce". But Jesus, man, we don't need to beg them to torture the definition any more!

Individual states cannot be trusted to do what's best for their citizens. Open up any newspaper or go to any news site and I think you'll find plenty of evidence. Thank god that we have the Federal Government to overturn discriminatory state laws and practices.

Seriously? You must be very young. Remember the Tuskegee syphilis experiments? The Japanese internment camps in WWII? "3/5 of a vote?" Et cetera.

mclary | 01. November 2014

Lets start a petition to shut down the Tesla Forums!!!

What is the point to this thread?

Flagged!!!

jbunn | 02. November 2014

Brian,

I realize you don't live in the US, but the US Constitution IS malliable. It is subject to amendment, a good example is referred to as our Bill of Rights, which was not part of the origional Constitution. It is also subject to refinement by case law. The Supreme Court while not being given the specific authority to determine the constitutionality of a law, took that role to itself in Marbury v Madison in 1803. Finaly, the constitution is subject to interpertation. Automatic weapons, the internet, television, and the current education system were did not yet exist at the drafting of our Constitution. Our Constitution is not intended to cover every possible contingency, but is a general framework that can and does adapt as required.

Brian H | 02. November 2014

There are high hurdles to adaptation and alteration. The "Living Constitution" advocates want to lower them to the point of making it a collection of trendy rulings and laws. Not the purpose or intention; quite the opposite.

AmpedRealtor | 02. November 2014

@ Brian H,

Of course the Constitution is a living document. In case you haven't noticed, it had to be written. Someone took pen to paper. Hemp paper, to be exact. Then it was amended, and continued to be amended through 1992. I doubt very much you have even read it, as you are pretty loose with the lips and express opinions on subjects of which you have no actual knowledge.

Do you honestly believe the 2nd Amendment foresaw the creation of a terrorist organization known as the NRA? Do you honestly believe that a "well regulated militia" meant no background checks at the time it was written? Do you even know the historical context? That amendment has been the one aspect of the Constitution that has been bastardized and abused beyond belief.

And again, I know this is extremely difficult for you, but can you cite a single reputable and factual source for your ridiculous statement? Of course not.

renwo S alset | 02. November 2014

Brian. Most of your posts are the mental equivalent of projectile vomiting.

Pungoteague_Dave | 02. November 2014

Beyond stupid. Patently Unconstitutional.

Worthy of a Federal lawsuit, but only by interested parties, not the WH. Tesla has a legit claim for restraint of interstate trade. They need to get on with it.

Brian H | 02. November 2014

Look up the requirements for amendments.

Article V of the U.S. Constitution establishes the means for amending that document according to a two-step procedure: proposal of amendments, followed by ratification. Amendments may be proposed in two ways: by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress or by a special convention summoned by Congress on the petition of two-thirds (34) of the state legislatures.

Not intended to be casual or easy.

Brian H | 02. November 2014

And the above is just for the first step, proposals.

In the long history of the U.S. Constitution, over 5,000 amendments have been introduced in Congress. Only 33 of these have been formally proposed by Congress, and none has ever been proposed by a special convention.
.
No matter which method is used for the proposal of a constitutional amendment, Congress retains the power to decide what method will be used for ratification: approval of three-fourths (38) of the state legislatures, or approval of three-fourths (38) of special state conventions. Congress may also place other restrictions, such as a limited time frame, on ratification.
.
Of the 33 amendments proposed by Congress, 27 were ratified. Of the amendments ratified, only one—the Twenty-First Amendment, which repealed a Prohibition on alcohol—was ratified by the state convention method. The rest have been ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures.