Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Commerce Clause by not allowing the importation and sale of Federal standards vehicles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
The DOJ is using the antitrust provision to go after the auto manufacturers because Trump threw a fit that they worked out a compromise, they were already able to scare off Mercedes with the threat.
That's not how it works.
Where there is concurrent jurisdiction the Supremacy Clause dictates that federal standards are supreme.
If a State chooses to use concurrent jurisdiction -- and they don't have to do that -- then the State standards must meet or exceed the federal standards, and the Supreme Court has upheld that consistently.
A good example is reformulated gasoline.
Federal regulations require its use in June, July and August, but some States like Kentucky mandate the use of reformulated gasoline year round.
Because reformulated gasoline costs more to produce, and because it cannot be mixed with non-reformulated gasoline, it costs more to transport and store.
For that reason, people in Kentucky came across the river to get cheaper gasoline in Ohio.
However, that's no longer true, since Ohio increased the excise tax on gasoline to fund the short-falls in highway maintenance and construction, so the prices are the same.
Kentucky is not the only State that does that, but the point is those States do not impose any costs on other States.
But, here's the thing: CARB's regulations do impose higher costs on other States.
See the difference?
State's use of reformulated gasoline year-round doesn't cost other States anything, but CARB regulations do.
People in California pay higher prices for vehicles, because those vehicles are specially made to conform to CARB's excessive standards.
So, forcing people in other States to pay the same is what violates the Commerce Clause.
What California needs to do is use tax-payer money to build auto plants in California to produce cars specifically for California.
If that costs too much, then California needs to subsidize automakers to entice them to build plants in California specifically for California.
If that costs too much, too, then California can offer tax breaks and other incentives to get automakers to build plants in California to make cars to meet whatever fantasy requirements CARB has.
That's the proper way to do it instead of violating the Constitution by having one State impose itself on the other States.
Do you have any proof of this assertion that cars are becoming less reliable and more costly to maintain? Cars are so reliable these days that the stereo system being confusing to use counts as a mark against it. Most are good for 100k+ with nothing but fluids, brakes, and tires.
It’s been a long time since I’ve had a breakdown of any sort. And that was in a 90s era car. Heck haven’t had to do anything but maintenance for the last couple decades.
What I'm saying none of the recent things intended to improve mileage increased reliability or lowered vehicle costs. Vehicles would be more reliable and have better drivability than now with the pre-2012 type designs. You can google the problems with CVTs, direct injection, throttle by wire, cylinder deactivation systems, turbo system failures, close coupled catylist destroying motors etc.
When I read this the other day, I was in shock. How on earth can anyone, regardless of your political leanings, support something like this? This is, quite possibly, the worst example of the pathology of Donald Trump.
All because the successful previous President engineered this. The man is truly mentally defective.
Do you have any proof of this assertion that cars are becoming less reliable and more costly to maintain? Cars are so reliable these days that the stereo system being confusing to use counts as a mark against it. Most are good for 100k+ with nothing but fluids, brakes, and tires.
It’s been a long time since I’ve had a breakdown of any sort. And that was in a 90s era car. Heck haven’t had to do anything but maintenance for the last couple decades.
He has zero proof, as usual....I’ve repeatedly asked for it and get nothin but deflections and unfounded opinions.
On that note, Consumer Reports has frequently noted that the Prius is one of the most reliable cars in the past fifteen years, despite direction injection, electric power-steering, a CVT, and an entire hybrid system.
He has zero proof, as usual....I’ve repeatedly asked for it and get nothin but deflections and unfounded opinions.
On that note, Consumer Reports has frequently noted that the Prius is one of the most reliable cars in the past fifteen years, despite direction injection, electric power-steering, a CVT, and an entire hybrid system.
CR is not data proving reliability of systems vs other systems. The actual warranty repair rates are protected information. Of course one maker's car could be more reliable than another's when they are using much of the same technology. But CVT, direct injection and electric power steering, and hybrid drive systems are not making the vehicle more reliable or durable or affordable or improving drivability. No one will rebuild the CVT when it eventually fails and the hybrid battery packs are very expensive to replace. And a Prius is about as far from a driver's car as it gets, and not the most affordable model. A lot of people would not want to own and drive one, but the government with its regulations wants us all to be driving a Prius. You are drinking the government's and automaker's Kool-aide.
CR is not data proving reliability of systems vs other systems. The actual warranty repair rates are protected information. Of course one maker's car could be more reliable than another's when they are using much of the same technology. But CVT, direct injection and electric power steering is not making the vehicle more reliable or durable. No one wil rebuild the CVT when it eventually fails and the hybrid battery packs are very expensive to replace. And a Prius about as far from a driver's car as it gets, and not the most affordable model. A lot of people would not want to own and drive one, but the government with its regulations wants us all to be driving a Prius. You are drinking the government's and automaker's Kool-aide.
Where is your proof? I’ve been asking repeatedly and you can’t provide squat. Stop lying.
Where is your proof? I’ve been asking repeatedly and you can’t provide squat. Stop lying.
Where is your proof that CVTs are more reliable than conventional automatics? Where is your proof that direct injection is more reliable and cost less to manufacture? Or that 1.5 turbo motor is more reliable and economical to manufacture than a 2.5 NA motor? The larger NA motor has better drivability too.
What your claiming is implausible. Automotive design is a trade off and compromises. There is no free lunch. The government is encouraging and requiring everything be traded off and compromised for the smallest of fuel economy increases in their driving cycle fuel mileage lab test.
Where is your proof that CVTs are more reliable than conventional automatics? Where is your proof that direct injection is more reliable and cost less to manufacture? Or that 1.5 turbo motor is more reliable and economical to manufacture than a 2.5 NA motor? The larger NA motor has better drivability too.
What your claiming is implausible. Automotive design is a trade off and compromises. There is no free lunch. The government is encouraging and requiring everything be traded off and compromised for the smallest of fuel economy increases in their driving cycle fuel mileage lab test.
I’ve been repeatedly asking you to prove the statements WHICH YOU ORIGINALLY MADE.
You cannot, and instead, insist on repeating a bunch of unfounded nonsense.
Indeed. They're trying to make their own standards, that's not the way it works. Commiefornia should NEVER have been given an exemption. More snowflakes fell into line behind them. Some things are federal control, some are not. This is federal.
Obama jump-started the new regs, that was supposed to happen sometime into the next president's term but Obama, like DACA, made his own rules.
Trump has a pen and a phone too. And no court has the real authority to countermand an executive action which reverses another executive action by another executive. That is executive branch stuff, NOT judicial.
Courts have gone too far, this was nothing like our Founders' intent. Nothing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
