We've had decades of the commerce clause being used to massively expand federal powers. I don't see that changing any time soon.
Then you haven't been paying attention.
Commerce clause has largely been pulled BACK in recent decades by SCOTUS.
Thought your reply is pretty weird given it was about my pointing out that "making a right on red"
does not involve any commerce
States charge people for a license to operate a motor vehicle, too. Clearly commerce by that definitinon.
Again you seem to be conflating unrelated things.
Nobody gets charged money for traffic laws. Nobody pays extra to have a right to turn right on red.
There
is no commerce here
The feds can regulate SELLING a gun. Because that's commerce. They
can not regulate if you're allowed to carry one or not in a given state-- because that's a power reserved for the states under the 10th amendment.
The feds can regulate
safety regs to manufacture liquor for sale. Because that's commerce. They
can not regulate if you're allowed to drink it in public in your home town, because that's a power reserved for states (and often delegates to local governments).
Regardless of timing, a federal law preempting a state licensure law over transportation. And I think you'll find that the exact same situation will occur when conflicts come up between states that have granted particular automakers and/or owners approval to operate their vehicles in self-driving mode and states that have not.
I think you won't because they're not
even vaguely similar legally.
Not to mention, laws ALREADY change when you cross state lines. Nobody cares. The idea you think they will when the 'car' is driving instead of the person is nonsensical.
The HUMAN has to know if it's legal to turn right on red in this state or city-- why wouldn't the car be expected to? Hell it's
far easier for the car since the computer can include a database of all the state-specific rules, know based on GPS which to use, and you can wholesale update them via OTA anytime they change.
Versus the human today who probably didn't bother to even look up any different rules in states he drives through- and certainly isn't going to be updating his knowledge of them regularly.
So your entire idea is an unconstitutional solution to an imaginary problem.
The difference between those situations is relatively small, particularly if those autonomous vehicles are used in commerce in any way.
It's really not.
Again, truckers do this
today and for decades past and nobody has suggested making traffic laws uniform federally to "fix" what you think is a problem but really is not.
Computers driving will be
less of a problem with differing laws than humans.
(plus another reason the feds haven't "fixed" it for human truckers is they don't actually have the power to... there's no impact to commerce either way if you can pass on the left or right legally)
And self-driving trucks shipping between states is, pretty obviously, a commercial activity.
That will do a better job obeying traffic laws in the various states than humans will.
Turning right on red significantly affects time-in-transit for shipping, which is a commercial activity. You're stretching your argument pretty thinly here.
<citation required>
Also, perhaps you're not aware, but many trucking companies forbid their drivers from turning right on red, even where legal, because of how much more dangerous this is in a semi.
Lastly, if this is really slowing down commerce, AND you believe (albeit wrongly) the feds can pass a law to fix it--- why haven't they? Ever?
(Hint: it's because they lack the power to do it--- you need more than JUST "has anything to do with commerce at all" to pass constitutional muster)
Look, I'm not saying anything is open and shut. Cases are always different.
That has not at all been how I've read your posts where you seem to wave your hands and say COMMERCE! a lot.
But that was a pretty clear example of a state attempting to regulate transportation within its borders that was ruled illegal by a federal law.
It was an example of a state trying to grant a monopoly to one party- in violation of
already existing federal law
It's not, at all, even a tiny bit, relevant to general state traffic laws.
The only post I see from you that indirectly cites a SCOTUS case (and maybe I missed something) was about the legal drinking age, in which the courts established rules that limited the constitutionality of using Congress's spending power to influence state laws. But I didn't see an actual citation for that
Of course you did. And it directly cited one.
South Dakota v. Dole. Cited in post 5877.
I also cited the actual tests involved for the law to pass muster with the courts in post post 5852 correcting someone else who mistakenly thought it was a commerce clause case.
If you're not reading half of what I post it might explain why you keep getting this stuff wrong though.
, and we're not talking about the constitutionality of using the spending clause anyway
The user I originally replied to was talking about exactly that- hence my correction.
But I'll give you ANOTHER case that also is a major problem with what you suggest.
Printz v. United States
The original brady bill created a national background check system for commercial sale of firearms. That's legal under the commerce clause.
But it ALSO imposed a duty on
state law enforcement to implement it. That's a violation of the constitution and was tossed out.
The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.
Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly
So even if the feds COULD pass a law saying "The local traffic laws everywhere in the US are X" it would be illegal for them to compel any state or local official to actually ENFORCE those rules. Rendering them moot. Just as it's be unconstitutional for them to pass one requiring each states legislatures to pass such laws.
(this is another problem with your idea, and only really relevant if we ignore the reasons the basic law itself wouldn't already violate the constitutions concept of dual sovereignty and the 10th amendment)
And the only case I could find regarding the national speed limit law was People v. Williams in 1985, which never made it past a state-level appeals court, and held again that it was within Congress's right as part of its spending power, without considering whether it would still have the right under the commerce clause.
It didn't consider the commerce clause because it wasn't relevant-this was a spending power case... more on that in a second though.
Also did you actually READ the ruling? Or the similar Kansas supreme court one it cites?
In BOTH cases the court makes clear the power to set speed limits is a STATE power- not federal- specifically in regard to the argument the state was illegally delegating that power to the federal government.
The reason this claim was rejected was the laws the states passed didn't meet the criteria for illegal delegation of power. But the court was VERY CLEAR that it
was a power of the state to set the speed limit....and that the states were simply passing state laws to set that speed limit, but including some conditions relating to federal rules (out of coersion for highway funds in this case... which the Dole case later clarifies the limits of too)
Meaning if the feds has simply passed a national speed limit law, THAT would have been thrown out as a violation of the 10th amendment. Same as your idea would be.
In fact- the Williams ruling
explcitly gives an example of just that
Your own citation said:
In comparison, the Montana Supreme Court invalidated legislation granting the United States Congress unrestricted authority to establish speed limits within the State of Montana
Further, remember the commerce thing? The only mentions they DO make of it are:
To cite the trial court found that Congress lacked power to regulate motor vehicle speed on noninterstate highways under the commerce clause.
And to cite MULTIPLE cases where courts made clear the 10th amendment really is a thing.
Your cite said:
the federal courts have chosen to rely on the distinction drawn between direct regulation over a particular area traditionally reserved to the sovereign authority of states, and the use of the federal largesse to indirectly "induce" states to support certain federal policies. As long as the states are free to accept or reject the federally funded program and conditions attached to that program, state sovereignty is not invaded.
Traffic laws are traditionally reserved to the sovereign authority of the states.
The federal government
can not directly regulate them constitutionally.
They can certainly use the spending power to encourage states to change them- state by state- in specific ways- ways limited by the ruling in Dole.
(they also cite cases pointing out fiat fed regulations imposing significant burden on states can also violate the 10th (this is why the Medicaid expansion in the ACA had to be funded the way it was- and even THEN the court found it MUST be optional for states, not required)-- and in many states significant changes to traffic laws would impose such burdens down to the street and city planning level (and signage, drivers ed, and more-- but this is like the 4th level of reasons your ideas violate the constitution, there's plenty above before getting down here)
Thanks for proving the cite to the Williams case since it does a great job making clear your augment is factually wrong here in the footnotes and such
]) and the fact that the federal National Maximum Speed Law was signed into law in 1974 as well as federally enforced until Congress decided to repeal it in 1995 seems to indicate the federal government could indeed pass legislation to standardize local roads again in the context of promoting safety (and commerce) with self-driving vehicles.
