🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7tober$ju9$1@ultra.sonic.net>,
David Hatunen <hatunen@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:

>We don't really know that yet; there's a whole fedearl judicairy to
>go through here.

Huh?  The only part of the federal judiciary which could conceivably rule on
it is  the U.S. Supreme Court, and the only way they would consider it would
be if (1) the DMV appeals the case at all, which they may or may not do, and
(2) the California Supreme Court reverses as to the state constitutional
challenge.  Even then, the smart money says they'll deny certiorari.


 Many such cases that have gone one way at a state
>appeals level have been reversed as the case moved higher..


It could happen, but those cases usually have some dissenting voices at the
lower level.  So far, you and the DMV are 0 for 4, as both the trial judge
and all three appellate judges agreed that this was a clear violation of the
commerce clause.

>>their import.  Charging $300 deters no one; it merely taxes out of
>>state goods unfairly.
>
>Perhaps. I do knwo people who have sold their out-of-state cars
>before moving to California. I dumped my 1971 VW van before I moved

I know people who have sold their California cars before moving to other states
as well.  But whether or not this "smog impact" duty is effective has little to
do with its constitutionality.  California's ostensibly higher emission
standards for *new* cars would be unconstitutional also, if Congress did not
explicitly authorize the state to do it.

>>It sure sounds like it.
>
>Then you don't understand what I'm trying to say here.

Perhaps not, but it sure *sounds* like you are bending over backwards to find
a constitutional excuse for a blatantly unconstitutional practice.

>>So?
>
>I didn't like it.

Neither did anyone else.  But that is not really germane to the discussion, is
it?  Whether you like paying a tax or not has nothing to do with its 
constitutionality, one way or the other.

>As I said, there have been a number of such restrictions on
>interstate commerce that have been upheld. California's border
>inspections being an example.

I don't think you can compare the two.  Better to compare California's car
import duty to Florida's, which was also struck down.

If California had fought the medfly by simply taxing all non-Californian 
produce, you can bet your last dollar that the law would have been struck 
down.

>>As an aside, your second guess presupposes that your first is
>>right.  If the state supremes uphold the ruling in its present
>>form, it will not be appealable to the U.S. Supremes as it will
>>rest on an independent state ground.
>
>Only if the grounds was the state constitution. Was it?


Yes, it was.  But where did you get the idea that the grounds had to be part
of the state constitution?  That is totally irrelevant.  What is relevant is
whether or not the California Supreme Court's holding depends entirely on its 
interpretation of federal law OR the federal constitution. No one seriously
argues that California is *required* to impose its "smog impact fee."  The
only question is whether or not it can do so without violating California or
federal law - constitutional or otherwise.  If California law prohibits it 
from collecting the tax, its constitutionality under the commerce clause is
moot.