You’ve probably heard about the turf war between the federal government – Donald Trump – and the state of California’s Air Resources Board (CARB) over who gets to decree “emissions” requirements for motor vehicles sold in California.
And not just in California.
CARB is a state-level bureaucracy that operates effectively as a national one by emitting regulations for California that are followed by the vehicle manufacturers because so many other states have aped CARB’s regulatory emissions that they are effectively obliged to manufacture only “California compliant” vehicles. It would be too expensive to make cars for California and the dozen other states (including New York and most of the New England states as well as western states such as Oregon and Washington) that have aped California’s regulatory regime and then make another batch and sell those in the other states that have not aped California’s regulatory regime.
It would have been much better for the manufacturers if they’d not kowtowed to California in the first place, which is just what they did a long time ago.
CARB began emitting regulations back in the ’70s. The regs required additional hardware be added to new vehicles in order for them to be legal to sell in the state. The regs also limited what could be sold in the state. For example, while GM’s Pontiac division could sell you a new 1979 Trans-Am with the 400 Pontiac V8 and a manual transmission in 49 states, you could only buy the car with the Oldsmobile 403 V8 and an automatic in California, because it was the only drivetrain that was compliant with CARB’s regs. Similarly, certain parts could not be legally sold in CA either unless they carried a “CARB” approved number. (This is still the case today, by the way. There are a plethora of parts that cannot be purchased in CA and that are illegal to install, even if it can be proved they do not increase emissions. Legally, ther only thing that matters is whether they’re . . . legal.)
GM’s mistake – the industry’s mistake – was to play along to begin with. That never works out – except to the benefit of your enemy. Arguably, what the vehicle manufacturers ought to have done – back in the ’70s – was to tell California its additionally onerous emissions regulations – which exceeded the federal EPA’s requirements – rendered it unfeasible for them to sell new vehicles in the state of California. That they could not justify the additional expense of adding equipment to cars sold only in California in order to be able to sell them legally in the state. This would very quickly have imparted pressure on California’s politicians to yank CARB’s chain because millions of Californians wanting to be able to buy a new car would have demanded it.
Instead, GM and the rest decided to pass the expense along to everyone else – by making all of the vehicles they sold everywhere else “California compliant.” This included the expense of the winnowing of choices, such as the option to buy a new vehicle with a certain engine or a manual transmission. If it could not be made “California compliant,” it could not be purchased anywhere – because it was no longer available for sale anywhere.
This worked – for awhile – in that car buyers in other states just dug a little deeper and paid more for vehicles that were now all of them “California compliant” even if they didn’t legally have to be. But as always happens whenever you comply with bullies, the bullying increased. CARB decreed new regs requiring “zero emissions” (i.e., battery powered) vehicles be sold in ever-increasing percentages until only “zero emissions” vehicles can be (legally) sold in the state by 2035 . Other states aped CARB, setting the stage for a national de facto electric vehicle mandate, since the only vehicles that can comply with the “zero emissions” regulatory requirement are electric vehicles. (It doesn’t matter, legally speaking, that the manufacture of electric vehicles and the generation of the electricity that powers up their battery packs results in lots of “emissions” – of the dread gas carbon dioxide that some insist is causing the “climate” to “change.” All that matters, legally speaking is that these “emissions” do not emanate from a vehicle’s exhaust pipe.)
This does not work – or rather, won’t – because most people who do not live in California do not want to be forced to buy an EV and couldn’t afford one, even if they did. The vehicle manufacturers are aware of this, but they have complied themselves into a corner. How do they walk it back? It is no easy thing to do. It is on par with getting out of a bad marriage you knew going into it wasn’t going to be good. How much easier it would be now if you’d never reluctantly said “I do” to begin with.
Well, maybe Trump will undo it. He – his EPA administrator, Lee Zeldin – has made the point that federal authority pre-empts state authority and by dint of this, CARB has no authority to function as a de facto national regulatory apparat. The problem with this is of course the fact that the other states are not being made to ape CARB’s regulatory emissions. They have aped them on their own. Also, the vehicle manufacturers haven’t fought any of this; rather, they have eagerly complied up to now.
Put another way, they are so painted in a corner they want to remain there.
There is also the matter of the regs themselves – at the federal level. So long as the EPA continues to operate on the premise that carbon dioxide is an “emission” and for that reason, vehicle manufacturers must make vehicles that emit less and less of it, it won’t matter except trivially whether CARB’s emissions of regulations pertaining to that are throttled back a little. All it will mean is a transference of supreme regulatory authority back to the federal apparat – and a one-size-fits all device for everyone.
. . .
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
If you like items like the Baaaaaa! baseball cap pictured below, you can find that and more at the EPautos store!
They bitch about car emissions while they spray you like bugs with chemtrails. Fuck ZOG.
Government…the last time it worked for the citizen was in 1803? The Louisiana Purchase? That’s my guess. We should have let Mexico keep cally or sell it to Canny or trade it for
Alberta, even up. While we have temporarily unplugged leftism in the DC Swamp, it is thriving on the leftist coast. Most times, the auto companies have been dumber than a pile of rocks in the back of a P/U over the last 40 years.
[…] https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2025/05/27/the-big-mistake-they-made/ […]
This is too easy to deal with making it a real head scratcher that it’s an issue. Use the Constitutional Interstate Commerce Code. California can not legally pass and enforce laws that violates Interstate Commerce. The automobile manufacturers need to collectively back out of the CA style cars and say take it or leave it because the rest of America is spending X amount of money because California is interfering with Interstate Commerce. If CA wants to go to court, actually they can’t because California can’t override federal law and force the other 49 states to make people spent thousands of dollars extra to buy a new car. Also California not prove that carbon is a dangerous pollutant, which it isn’t. Just make it clear that California’s law is part of the New Green Scam that is ripping off all the other Americans. Bottom line: effectively California has created a tariff that dramatically affects Interstate Commerce, it’s unconstitutional, period.
[…] Read the Whole Article […]
Eric-
IMO, you are entirely mistaken on this topic.
To begin with, California is the single largest market for new cars in the U.S.
Based on 2023 data:
https://www.factorywarrantylist.com/car-sales-by-state.html#:~:text=%E2%80%8B%E2%80%8BCalifornia%20ranked%20%231,for%202023%20delivering%201%2C775%2C916%20vehicles.
California, at 1.77×10^6 units, has ~11% of the total of 15.6×10^6 units, with Texas in 2nd place @ 1.52×10^6 units.
No manufacturer is going to bite its nuts off by kissing off its most lucrative market.
Then there is the matter of interstate sales of used vehicles. I once owned a 2006 BMW 3 series which was originally sold in Arizona. Would it be illegal to resell such a vehicle in California, under the 1 + 49 scenario? Quite possibly. Is this in restraint of interstate Commerce? IANAL. Is it desirable ? IMO, hell, no.
To the nitty gritty.
As Opposite Lock has observed, (and I concur, having actual professional experience in this area) it is local meteorology which should determine the appropriate level of pollution control for any given pollutant. The appropriate level of control for the cornfields of Iowa is not necessarily (and probably is not) the correct remedy for the Chino Valley Basin, where I live.
I assert that it is not as simple as you make it out to be.
I welcome further discussion on this topic.
I mean that’s an easy one from a legal precedent standpoint
The FedGov already legally has the power to regulate “interstate commerce”
The takeaway here confirms my entire life’s philosophy NEVER and I mean NEVER cooperate with the government or try to beg favor. They view cooperation as weakness and will come after you like rabid hyenas. Just as VW, they threw themselves at the mercy of the court. The court has no mercy. The final result could very well still be the end of the company.
The could have fought that for years and probably to a stalemate for less than 1% of what the government squeezed out of them.
The old adage comes to mind, if you cannot do anything, at least serves as a bad example. Hopefully others will learn, but not any time soon.
Today MAUI EAST COAST MIDWEST LA
WEATHER MANUFACTURED
OH MANY CALL BULLCHIT
THE FEDCOATS EVEN BRAG
And still hyphenated a mericans still believe
The FEDCOATS DO NOT PRACTICE UNCIVIL WAR
Born 1959 in commiefornia raised to UNDERSTAND
THIS FEDCOATS GOVERNMENT LIES
MY FAMILY FISHED TUNA
And THE FED COATS KILLED THE LIVELY-HOOD
FOR NETS CATCH EVERYTHING
EVERY DAMN THING OUT OF GOVERNMENT IS A
LIE
AUTO PEN ,STOLEN TAXS , FJB WAS REAL
TODAY SOONER NOW THEN EVER
SO MANY ARE AWAKE
TO WHAT IS HAPPENING
RIGHT NOW
I WORKED FOR AN PAID MY DUES
TWO 45–47
AND CAN SEE NOTHING WILL CHANGE
WARP SPEED AHEAD TO RUSH INTO A WAR
THINK MY FELLOW AMERICANS
FENCES KEEP PEOPLE OUT
AND THE FENCES CAN KEEP YOU IN
SHOW THEM THE PAPERS !!!!!
AGAIN I WORKED THE FIRST TIME TO ELECT 45
WORKED THE SECOND TIME
I AM A VERY OLD MAN WHO CAN FISH ALL DAY
FIX ANY TRUCK OR CAR
CAN HIT WHAT I AIM AT
TOOK THE LEAP OF FAITH
1976
CAN SEE AND HEAR CLEARLY
RED DIPER DOPER BABYS
COMMIE RATS
ARE IN FOOL CON-TROLL
Carbs days are numbered
So is the co 2 “emissions” garbage.
Manufacturer can’t stay in business “complying” with religious regs.
https://www.wweek.com/news/2025/01/13/daimler-will-resume-selling-diesel-trucks-in-oregon/
They stopped selling earlier
https://www.opb.org/article/2025/01/10/daimler-trucks-oregon-deq-diesel-ev/
At some point the manufacturers will refuse to sell in those areas because they can’t.
The cars are going to be deregulated.
https://www.opb.org/article/2025/01/10/daimler-trucks-oregon-deq-diesel-ev/
Does anybody know anything about insurance rate blocks?
Hubby just bought me a used car (older vehicle, actually comes with key and physical emergency brake).
Our auto insurance just skyrocketed, not because of the older car, but apparently we have “too many cars” and our insurance “rate block” kicked in/kicked out.
The insurance agent was trying to explain to me that a car that is to be insured annually for $520 per year is now costing us an additional $1000 instead. All she kept saying was we had too many cars. Are we limited on the amount of cars that we own? Who deems what is “too many”?
This is very specific to each state and its insurance regulations. Where I live in CA, my auto insurance rates are based on my “zone” and the risk within that zone, and the cost to insure the average car. As the area gentrifies, and people buy lots of EV’s – maybe 40-50% EV in my neighborhood, my prices go up because of this, even if my cars don’t change and lose value.
I didn’t get hit for having too many cars (I have 6), since there are only 2 drivers. The insurance checks up from time to time to make sure we’re not hiding additional drivers. When my son turns 16, it’s going to get really exciting.
Thanks, OL.
It’s going to get real expensive!
The insurance mafia, you and your other/better half can only drive two cars at any one time. As Eric has waxed poetically, they have you by the short curlys . You have to pay for all the other idiots driving and the profits, and the brokers.
P.s. Giving in to bullies and other cretins does never play out well.
I feel lucky to have been born when I was, to much freedom… if there is such a thing
Indeed, Nova –
I think that mass noncompliance – with insurance requirements – is now the only way to deal with this. I may write another article on the matter.
Auto insurance is a scam that cheats people at every turn. I can go down the list of the criminal thief’s but is completely overlooked by insurance commissioners in most every state if not all states. The simple way to undo the ripoff is, increase the cost of gasoline and diesel fuels 15 to 20 cents per gallon and every one buys no-fault insurance at the pump. The state governments can run it because the states sure as hell don’t run auto insurance. The trial lawyers and the insurance boardrooms do.
Have an expensive vehicle, buy a floater from an insurance with isn’t mandated by law so the insurance companies have less leverage to cheat and steal.
Most people in CA support the CARB because the CARB was instrumental in cleaning up the smog that plagued CA. CA has this geography where huge urban centers are in valleys, and often there is no wind, so pollution just collects in the valleys like water would in a bowl. CA has massive smog problems, and cars were a major cause. This stopped being a problem in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s when cars all but stopped emitting smog forming emissions.
When you look at it more reasonably, and say that the CARB has grown beyond that, people always make the argument, “so, you want smog back?”. When I explain that there’s a shakedown racket for certifying parts like air filters, or that fixing older cars becomes extremely expensive since aftermarket parts are banned for no good reason, it’s the same argument; “that’s the price to pay for clean air”. It’s bonkers. People are unable to look at this with any nuance. Is this kind of brain death a symptom of end-stage democracy?
>often there is no wind
The key concept is the temperature profile of the atmosphere.
Ordinarily, atmospheric temperature decreases with altitude. The rate of decrease is known as the temperature lapse rate. If the lapse rate becomes negative, that is known as a temperature inversion, and effectively puts a lid on the air below, because higher temperature means higher pressure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate
OL wrote, “This stopped being a problem in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s”
True.
But, do you think that a bureaucracy that is created to “solve a problem” will simply fold up their tent when the initial job is done? Again from Josey Wales, “Doin’ right ain’t got no end.” – Capt. Red Legs Tyrell.
Bureaucrats are Red Legs’ spawn.
You miss the elephant in the room, completely. First off the California pollution you talk about did exist decades ago. However California has more state representatives than any other state and could have gotten the federal laws to clean up the air. Here’s the second elephant in the room. Auto pollution has been removed by 94% if not a bit more. That’s where it needs to stop but California elected criminals can’t let go of the golden goose from the lobbyists on the topic. The cost of removing the pollution out of the remaining 4 or so percent is a monumental and expensive task that becomes an oxymoron. It’s time to shut down California’s auto pollution scam and let federal cars be the single standard. Again, California has more representatives then any state in the union, let them do it there.
Not true.
California Emissions haven’t cleaned up any smog. Anyone in the San Gabriel Valley can tell you that, because they still have it. What actually happens is that the cargo ships in Long Beach and San Pedro continually run their non-compliant engines to keep their ships balanced while they’re being unloaded and reloaded, all that pollution drifts north, hits the southern edge of the San Gabriel Mountains, and stops. It’s not the cars and trucks, it’s the ships, and to a lesser extent, the freight trains. You can actually see it from above in the Los Angeles National Forest and a drive up the 2.
How do I know? I lived in exile in that area for 7 years. I saw it (and breathed it, unfortunately) firsthand.
CARB is populated by idiots. They claimed at one point that dark paint jobs increased latent heat of cars (true), which then caused people to run their air conditioning more (also true), which caused more pollution and freon leaks (demonstrably false). They also think that carpool lanes in L.A. reduce pollution when in fact they increase it because one HOV lane gets 25% of the lane space and only 17% of the traffic, overloading the other 3 and causing traffic jams and more pollution. Just drive the 91 or the 405 and you’ll see it every day.
Ugh, I can believe it, Michael. But sadly, that gives the Commies in Cali all the excuses they need to ban cargo ships from entering state waters completely, and effectively destroying the country with their emissions craziness.
The states rights advocate in me says let them. Since our federal government and Californias state government are both full of Bolshevik lawyers and scum, I cant feel for either. The crap coming out of California is beyond ridiculous. Maybe they should focus on their train to nowhere. Put a regional FEMA camp at the end of the line, or, confiscate and convert one of Gates bug farms. I’d like to see the MAGA move of making nut hatches great again.
The remaining few, semi-free states, should encourage California to secede. Then when the feds crack down, their hand is overplayed, their wad shot, and the real secessions can begin in earnest.
States don’t have rights, they have powers.
Rights are for individual humans.
Individual humans and (sadly) corporations. If I recall correctly, wasn’t it John Kerry who said, “Corporations ARE people!”?
(Just to be clear, I disagree STRONGLY with that idea of corporate “personhood”.)
I will believe that businesses have rights when I see a 7-11 in a church pew praying or a Kroger bleeding.
Businesses and other artificial entities have granted revocable privileges, not in-a-lien-able rights–those are reserved to individual humans.
I have the distinct privilege of owning cars from the 40s, 50s, and 60s. They are wonderful, simple, maintainable. They have 2,4, and 2×4 barrel carbs, and road draft tubes. They have simple points and condenser ignition systems.
They are great, but they also stink. Under certain conditions the unburned hydrocarbons will make your eyes water, and the oil smoke coming off a road draft tubes is also a problem.
In most of the world, and certainly in my area, this doesn’t matter. Other places like the Los Angeles basin, the unique geography concentrates them- and in the late 60s there were times when asthmatics and others couldn’t breathe the air.
Having said all that, simple controls and advancing technology had all those problems cured by at least the early 90s. In the hinterlands we ditched our catalytic converters, electronic carbs, and smog cams and got much more efficient and powerful engines.
Most of California is rural, and this freedom affects no one with a legitimate complaint. Unfortunately, what is needed for the LA basin is bad for the rest of the country. If LA locally wants to ban internal combustion, and rely on electrics and mass transit, let them. But they cannot let others live free.
It’s not about air quality and life in the Los Angeles Basin. It’s about CONTROL. CARB, like much of the CA State government, is dominated by a gaggle of Eco-Freaks from the “Ivory Tower”, most of whom never turned a wrench in their lives. They’ve no connection with any sense of practicality nor what it’s like to work with one’s hand. Indeed, they’re drunk with power at the notion of making first California, then the rest of the United States, then the WORLD, the way they THINK things ought to be.
The first sign of this insanity was about 45 years ago, when the LA (what irony) 360 cube V8, by then the largest engine availble in Chrysler automobiles and light pickup, couldn’t pass then then smog standards for California, a waiver for police vehicles was denied. Really. How affected would the California air quality be, over, say, 2,000 to 3,000 “squid cars” equipped with the barely adequate engine, instead of the wholly unpowered 318? CARB couldn’t even give in on that, and Governor “Moonbeam” was too idealistic and out of touch to intervene.
Years later, in the process of restoring a similar Chrysler product, a 1966 Plymouth Fury II, my son sought a replacement truck latch. It could be had from Summit Racing, of all places, as NOS, but he had to have a friend, then living in Reno, adjacent to Sparks, NV, where a Summit store is located, pick it up and then bring it on one of his visits. The problem was that Summit, as part of a consent decree with CARB, agreed to not ship ANY pre-1976 parts by mail order to CA customers. Not even a TRUNK LATCH. Please explain how a latch sold for a 59-year old car affects CA air quality.
As the Fella once said, the law, Sir, is an ass.
All politicians are criminals, and those in California are among the worst of the bunch. So by all means, let’s copy them.
CARB is an unbelievably fascist organization that desperately needs to be disbanded, overthrown, and locked up.
‘I have never understood why California’s regulations have not violated the Commerce Clause in the US Constitution.’ — Doug
I have never understood why the Port Authority of NY & NJ can collect tolls on all the cross-Hudson bridges and tunnels within 25 miles of lower Manhattan, and use those funds for its local subway trains and commuter lines.
Forbidding such toll booths from shaking down interstate travelers was those whole point of the commerce clause. But the state’s brigands and highwaymen strut about in broad daylight.
Eric is right, the vehicle manufacturers should have told Commiefornia to get stuffed and simply refused to sell cars there; would have put a quick end to this BS. I think it’s probably too late now but the auto companies should have launched a PR blitz when all the CAFE and NHTSA regulations started to bite. Take out full page ads everywhere spelling out how much your choices are being limited and how much more expensive your vehicle will be because of them – call your Congressman to stop this. All these agencies are infested with control freaks and should be abolished completely.
Yes. I believe it could work to a limited degree today as well. Definitely 40 to 50 years ago. The NHTSA regulations started to bite beginning in the early 1990s with airbags. The gas mileage and emissions rules bit beginning in the early 1970s.
I still think it could be done because Mobil Corporation did this very thing in the middle 1970s to build public consensus against existing price controls on oil and gas. It helped change the political environment enough to get Carter to partially deregulate and then Reagan to complete the job. We learned about squirrels saving up their nuts for the winter and ants building their hills and all sorts of stuff. Herbert Shertz wrote up some pretty good stuff. The only thing I disagreed with was Mobil’s support of the 55 mph speed limit. At the time about 95 percent of the public hated oil companies and blamed them for the fuel shortage. If not 95 percent, a significant majority. By the 1980s shortages were a distant memory and all was ok fuel wise.
I agree with calling congress critters. We need to get busy to the extent we can. Bitching about it is good, but time to plan for action. As a whole, congress can be swayed by a few calles. I actually did it myself during the 55 mph days.
In this case, we need to get through to a few people in the Trump administration as well…….
That’s quite a large building. I wonder how many people “work” there?
Ah, Wikipedia says 1,994 employees as of 2024.
That’s how many people are dedicated to figuring out the proper amount of CO2 that is acceptable to Mother Earth. Thank goodness they are here to make sure that only the ideal amount of air pollution is emitted, and to punish the evildoers who roll coal!
But the picture looks like they might be building an addition, perhaps for a larger workforce. That’s good because I’m sure there’s a need for more research, more fine tuning, more enforcement. If a little bit of government meddling is good, a whole lot is better.
All hail the central committee!
It’s a pretty small base of employees compared to teh amount of damage it does on a daily basis. Remember East Palestine, OH
The last paragraph spells it out perfectly. Taking it even further, who says that the “emissions” of a perfectly tuned 1970 vehicle were at all dangerous? The answer is that they weren’t. The EPA itself operates in an unconstitutional way in that it is making up its own rules. Just like the NHTSA which is actually worse. You can make some argument that driving down tailpipe emissions (HC, CO, NOX) might be a benefit to public health. The same argument cannot be made for NHTSA, whose regulations which did nothing to improve the highway fatality rate. Most of the improvements took place during a low period of NHTSA regulation 1971-1991. The rate dropped from 4.74 deaths per 100 mvmt to 2.0 by 91. Without any special interference. The improvements can be attributed to the completion of the interstate system (1985), improved vehicle handling and predictibility due to independent suspensions and sway bars, radial tires, widespread adoption of rack and pinion steering, and disc brakes. There is no NHTSA regulation mandating these. In any case, I digress. Automakers willingly comlplied with EPA’s emissions standards and it has gotten them into trouble. Caterpillar no longer makes diesel engines, there are 100 different blends of summertime gasoline sold year round, diesel fuel and diesel engine efficiency has plummeted. All the while, the EPA tells the people of East Palestine OH to eat shit and continues to insert itself in everything else. This agency needs to be burned down.
Hi Swamprat.
Let’s not forget that the higher the ethanol content is in a blended gasoline the lower the fuel economy is. Sure the farmer and Ag companies benefit, but do the car owners benefit from lower fuel economy and water induced corrosion in the fuel system? NO.
Yes. Ethanol in gasoline is largely bad. It cuts fuel efficiency by about 3.5 percent and it takes more energy to manufacture than straight gas.
The upside of ethanol is that its a pretty good octane booster.
The problem with it is that oil companies are refining gas to shit levels of octane and relying on the ethanol to boost it to the current pump numbers 87 89 and 93. In areas where ethanol free is served up, pump octane numbers are 87 89 and 91, indicating that the gas-ethanol blended gas is inferior to the non ethanol blends (by the fact they can’t get the extra two octane points for the premium).
In addition, just because is ethanol free doesn’t mean that it is oxygenate free. Oxygenates trick your cars fuel injection system to richening the mixture because the O2 sensors say that the fuel mixture is leaned out.
We were better off when gasolne smalled strong, was red in color and we had a tiger in the tank instead of detergents in the gas. Detergents are meant to clean clothes, not gasoline.
I have never understood why California’s regulations have not violated the Commerce Clause in the US Constitution.
Probably the same reason why some states have highly regulated alcohol sales and blue laws.
Thing is, no one is looking at Utah’s screwy liquor laws and thinking they should adopt them too.
Yes but Utah’s Alcohol Laws are Intrastate. I don’t think Utah is allowed to ban a Product from another State as long as it is allowed Federally.
I doubt that most of those porn sites that those good little LDS boys are peering at are put together in “Yew-Tah”, but I’m sure that state requires some form of age verification, or presumes to regulate it on the basis of “obscenity”. IDK the source, but I’ve read that Utah County is, per capita, the highest consumer of adult entertainment in the USA. I guess those blonde Utah honeys aren’t putting out.
> some states
And even some counties:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_county
>Moore County, Tennessee, the home county of Jack Daniel’s, a major American producer of whiskey, is a dry county and so the product is not available at stores or restaurants within the county.
Hi Doug,
I agree with you 100%. Unfortunately, if the Feds (or some individual sues in court) and take up the argument, what will likely happen is the Federal government will set regulations as one size fits all solution. What should happen is no solution other than telling states they can’t set arbitrary rules that restrict commerce…period. That is what the constitution says. The Founders knew some jerkweed would try that someday. (let’s stop calling it regulations since these arbitrary rules do not *make regular* commerce nor were these voted upon by the state representatives)
The original intent was to stop states from banning importation or levying tariffs against each other, which was strangling Interstate trade. In effect, the states agreed to leave the tariff issue to importing FOREIGN goods, to protect American producers and provide a revenue stream for the new Federal Government. Having honest-to-goodness FREE trade is what helped “Murica” to prosper. However, the Constitution said nothing about “local flavor” when it came to Blue Laws and/or Morals legislation.
I also do not understand why Commie-fornia should regulate and tell the rest of us what kind of vehicles we are “allowed” to have. Screw them, if they want EV’s, fine but the rest of us want our 8-cylinder gas guzzling muscle cars, thank you! Completely safety-free, as well
RE: “I also do not understand why Commie-fornia should regulate and tell the rest of us”
Because, we are ruled. We are not a free people.
To think otherwise, is to have been deceived.