

Tesla received a combined rating of 5.4 stars

















Source: Tesla Motors

Comments     Threshold


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By boeush on 8/21/2013 7:17:16 PM , Rating: 2
The Constitution was largely built on the premise of sovereign statehood. Now you're saying it either doesn't exist, or cannot function in a modern society.
In a sense, yes. That question was actually settled back during the Reconstruction era. But in the modern world, this is even more the case for a whole slew of new and additional reasons.

The Constitution and our form of government were, and remain, an ongoing experiment. Most of the underlying theories and axioms held up reasonably well in practice, while some proved unworkable. Some of it was fixed through constitutional amendments, some was addressed simply by considering contemporary context when interpreting the Constitution, and the rest remain as ongoing problems. In other words, the system has mostly functioned as-designed, learning from its past experiences and adapting to a changing world. That's good, not bad.
you go on to pretend that the courts can/have reviewed even a fraction of the laws on the books
But they've certainly at least reviewed (on multiple occasions, from multiple angles) the laws you especially care about. We both know that.
It only takes a few wrong rulings to screw the entire country by setting a dangerous legal precedent.
And if the people really do disagree with them en masse, it only takes one constitutional amendment to reverse such rulings...
1942 Wickard v. Filburn ruling
It's odd, I agree, yet undeniably logical within constitutional constraints. It's an example of something that was unforeseen by the Framers, and could be easily fixed by a constitutional amendment clarifying the scope of what is meant by interstate commerce, and what type of activities are considered to be regulation thereof.
and of course the "Affordable Care Act" ruling
Yes, I agree that was a strange ruling, not least because it was argued in a strange manner. This one is clearly not a matter of penalty, but is indeed a tax treatment. Yet a perfectly Constitutional one, or else all the various tax deduction rules currently in effect (like mortgage interest, paid rent, business expense, marriage, per-child, etc.; again, many of them decades old) would have to be abolished for the crime of encouraging (or discouraging) various types of economic and/or personal choices by imposing varying tax burdens accordingly. Oh well; right decision (IMO), wrong way of getting there...

