[traeblain]

Actually Congress cannot pass a law regulating it per the 10th amendment. They can pass laws governing other things that effectively regulate this--often by withholding federal funds from states that do not comply--but have no power over this specific issue.

If Musk wants the US Congress to interfere, maybe he should sell liquor in the most lavish and expensive and functional "bottle case" ever conceived. But selling liquor in a car "case" might not be the best PR move. hehe.

[bradleyjg]

That may be a plausible reading of the commerce clause in conjunction with the 10th amendment, but it is not the one currently in force.

In cases such as Wikard v Filburn and Raich v Gonzalez, the Supreme Court has held that Comgresses power to regulate extends to any activity which, in the aggregate, substantially effects interstate commerce. Such a test is trivially met by state laws forbidding the sale of automobiles directly from manufacturers to the public.

[btilly]

Actually Congress cannot pass a law regulating it per the 10th amendment.

Have you read the Constitution?

Here is the 10th amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If you read Article 1, Section 8, clause 3 you will find the Commerce Clause that grants Congress the following power.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

When a manufacturer is in one state, and a customer is in another, the power to regulate business transactions between the two is clearly given to Congress by that clause. The 10th does not take that away. Therefore Congress should have power to regulate that commerce in any Constitutional way it wants.

(Note, your suggestion of selling liquor goes the wrong way. The 21st amendment expressly gives state laws supremacy in that case. But if no liquor is involved, then Congress should have authority.)

I am not a lawyer, but my lay understanding is that in this case the interpretation of the courts fits my reading of the text.

[afarrell]

Selling alcohol in violation of state liquor laws is one of the few ways a private individual can violate the US constitution. Quoth the 21st Amendment: """ Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited. """

[shadgregory]

I'm sure that if Congress really wanted to directly regulate the sell of automobiles, they can find a way to appeal to the constitution's commerce clause. I know the courts have tended leaned more towards the 10th amendment in recent decades, but they still tend to give the commerce clause a very broad interpretation.

[tsotha]

>Actually Congress cannot pass a law regulating it per the 10th amendment.

As bradleyjg points out, the Supreme Court copy of the constitution doesn't seem to include the tenth amendment. Between the commerce clause and the 14th amendment Congress can do pretty much whatever it wants.