Comment by jigglesniggle | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jigglesniggle | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

There is an example I am aware of that was in my history book (but that I am having trouble finding now). States would set conflicting sizes for tractor trailer mudflaps in what seemed to be a de facto attempt to regulate trade between states. This was found to be a violation of the interstate commerce clause.

The actions California takes may be considered similar, especially (as someone below mentioned) if previously acceptable cars are not grandfathered in. There is also probably a good case to be made if California law has an effect, intended or not, on non-Californian states.

There is also a federal rule (good faith and something) that states must, in general, recognize the licenses of other states (marriage, drivers, etc; but notably not concealed carry, which I think will be tested again).

Personally, on the one hand I am for states rights and the environment and very much do not like how the interstate commerce clause is used. On the other, a lack of agreeable regulation is detrimental to the states (and having one state force that regulation does not seem fair).

Oh cool! That’s an interesting point. Of course things are always more nuanced than they seem on the surface, thanks for sharing this.

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause and look at my other comment in the parent's chain.

Since it's about commerce, can California allow the purchase and sale of the less stringent vehicles but only allow vehicles/engines to operate on its roads that meet the higher standards?

No, that is "more against" the application of the interstate commerce clause than the logic I outlined above as it de facto is a prohibition on travel and interstate commerce. This is also explicitly covered by the full faith and credit clause (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause, the thing I couldn't remember). It follows that states must recognize each other's vehicle registration, driver's licenses, and marriage licenses. It also sees use in chasing people across state lines for bogus tickets and for removing people's rights via protection orders. It lends itself to contradictory outcomes because it essentially says "all states are right."

If you were to instead ask "can you sell a vehicle that can't be registered" the answer is "yes." You can also make your own car and in so doing ignore most safety and emissions requirements.

There is a notable lack of small car manufacturers and a lack of case law on some of this. Some do mostly cosmetic work on existing models, and some sell "kits" and may help you assemble it "yourself" so as to qualify for a shopbuilt title.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com