Oh man, you just set yourself up for big time hate from the Audi fan boys. Duck!

And just like that, I concurrently forgot what, "Hellcat" ever referred to and felt a strong desire to sell any of my organs that aren't necessary for sustaining life.

That's a legal conclusion without any factual support.

Then they should simply do so. The law is on their side (setting aside their obligations to fulfill existing contracts). Dealers are unnecessary and Musk would be able to prove it if it were not for the protectionism—the last refuge of market inefficiencies.

The dealers will lose this eventually. They should just be…

Any citations supporting these assertions?

And even if you reject the New Deal Supreme Court holdings on the commerce clause, Tesla is an example where Congress would have authority under the older understanding of the constitution. Which is that states cannot discriminate against businesses from other states. So example, protectionist legislatures like…

I'll raise you one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_…

The drinking age decision was from South Dakota v. Dole, which was a case decided under the "spending clause" not the "commerce clause." You've got your Constitutional law all mixed up.

The commerce clause covers both transport and sales.

*enumerated

There is no such thing as an "Interstate Commerce Act." This is direct authority from the enumerate powers of the Constitution. Its not a federal statute.

Don't be pedantic. Tesla is a unified business model that involves production, distribution, and sales all by a single entity. These Tesla activities occurr in many states and use modes & channels of interstate commerce. Congress clearly has authority to regulate Tesla's business model.

Now Ford might *arguably* be…

Bible College. Obviously.

Except the Tesla sales locations are inseparable from the company (unlike Big Three dealers which independent). Don't be pissed. Just understand that Tesla sales are a clear cut example of interstate commerce.

This is a much more neat example of interstate commerce than the healthcare. The Supreme Court didn't rule on the "commerce clause" matter in the healthcare opinion anyway, but skipped that analysis and called the mandate a tax.

Regardless, car manufacturing, distribution, and sales is a textbook example of interstate…

Car is built in one state (or even overseas) made of many different parts, which themselves are manufactured from many states. Car is then shipped via planes, trains, and semi-mobiles to even more states where it is sold to customers, who also may be from many states. Quintessential interstate commerce.

Federal authority to regulate interstate commerce is well established. Congress can do this, just not the White House alone.

Beg to differ. This is quintessential interstate commerce.

*gnurk* How's that racist?

I was halfway through the comments thinking, "SWEET, everyone missed the obvious choice," but you nailed it.