[baddox]

This wouldn't be a violation of the commerce clause per se. The commerce clause just says that the federal government has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. In other words, the US legislature could pass a law prohibiting these restrictions on Tesla sales, and that law would be constitutional.

[abcabc321321123]

> The commerce clause just says that the federal government has the authority to regulate interstate commerce.

This is not completely correct. Let me expand a little bit even though it is not applicable here. There is something called the "dormant" commerce clause (also referred to as the "negative" commerce clause) doctrine. This doctrine basically prohibits states from favoring in state commercial actors at the expense of out of state actors. Think protectionist legislation. Therefore, there is a lot more to the commerce clause than simply allowing the federal government to regulate interstate commerce.

[baddox]

Ah yes, I have read about that before, but had forgotten it. It basically seems like a shortcut whereby federal courts can rule against certain state laws without the need of a specific federal law. It seems in practice to be as if Congress, as authorized by the Commerce Clause, had passed some blanket law banning protectionist state laws.

[ctdonath]

"Regulate interstate commerce" was sent to hallucinogenic new levels with the Supreme Court ruling in the Raich case. TL;DR - feds can "regulate" (via SWAT-type police raid) a terminally ill old lady's doctor-prescribed-and-monitored state-legal for-personal-use-only marijuana plants because her doing so decreased demand in an illegal interstate market.