Actually, that is not anywhere in the law. As I said, I read the law. The law explicitly states that in order to sell cars retail, someone must be licensed by the DOT. That sentence you quoted is the interpretation of the DOT, NOT something written in the law.

Where does the law say that they cannot offer test drives? I actually READ the law. It says that they cannot sell automobiles retail. It says nothing about test drives.

Well, his original post was that it should be illegal to use drinking water to flush toilets. I think that Barsteward just wants to force other people to live the way HE thinks they should, without actually knowing anything about the conditions which apply where they live.

First of all, my friend did NOT have a copy of the ordinance, he merely was aware of what the ordnance said. Second, Steier said that Tesla was acting as a dealer. The law at no place says that offering test drives makes one a dealer. It does not even say that offering test drives is illegal. Just because Steier says that it is illegal does NOT mean that it is illegal. It may be that a judge will agree with Steier, but until that happens it is not accurate to say that Tesla was doing something illegal. As a a matter of fact, I read the two laws and do not see any place in them where test drives are mentioned. You strike me as one of those people that believes that since the FCC is the Federal Communication Commission they have authority to regulate all forms of communication, even if Congress has passed no law giving them such authority. In this case, while the DOT has the authority to regulate automobile dealers, the law defines automobile dealers as those who offer automobiles for sale in the state. Tesla was not offering the cars for sale. They were merely offering test drives. The law does not specify that you must be a licensed dealer to offer test drives. The law specifies that you must be a licensed dealer in order to sell at retail automobiles. Whether or not Tesla was doing something illegal is up to a judge to decide, NOT up to the head of the DOT. Especially not when the law so clearly does not state that it was illegal. The only thing which dealers do which the law states that automobile manufacturers are not allowed to do is sell cars at retail in Iowa.

As the anonymous coward pointed out, most states(I believe that it is all states, but there may be exceptions) require you to pay their sales tax on a car to register it in that state. There are special exceptions if you have owned the car long enough before moving to the state in question (I believe that is typically a year, but I have not looked at that clause for some time).

No, you are wrong. They had to cease and desist because a bureaucrat ruled that what they were doing was illegal...even though they were not doing what the law the bureaucrat based that ruling on said was the illegal act.
I will give you an example that may help you understand. I have a friend who made some renovations to a house he bought. The township building inspector came by and said, "These renovations were illegal because you didn't get a building permit. " Your answer would be, "See, what he did was illegal because the building inspector said it was illegal." However, my friend had a copy of the township ordnance on what types of renovations required a building permit. The township ordnance explicitly stated that you only needed a building permit if you increased the number of doors and/or windows or expanded the footprint of the house. My friend had decreased the number of doors and windows as part of his renovation and did not change the footprint of the house. The fact that a bureaucrat says that something is illegal does not meant that it is illegal.

While what you are saying is probably pretty close to what the Framers of the Constitution intended, it bears no resemblance to what the courts have actually ruled. The Supreme Court ruled that a farmer growing wheat for consumption by livestock on his own farm was subject to regulation under the commerce clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn). Until the Supreme Court makes a ruling reversing that one, everything and anything is interstate commerce.

The funny thing about your comment is that the some of the strongest backers of the Jim Crow laws, at a time when most politicians were turning against them, were Al Gore, Sr (perhaps you've heard of his son?) and William Fulbright (mentor to one William Jefferson Clinton).

Perhaps where you live it does, but not where I live. It is perfectly safe to drink water out of the wells in my area with no treatment. This is exactly the problem I was referring to. You assume that everyone needs their drinking water treated before it is safe to drink. I live in an area where most of the people drink water that does not need treating in order for it to be safe to drink, but you would like to pass laws making us deal with our water as if it required treatment.
And as someone else pointed out, in some areas that do require that water be treated in order to be safe for drinking, that cost may be less than the cost of re-engineering the plumbing in a house in order to use grey water for flushing a toilet. The fact of the matter is that you want to extend your limited knowledge to create a rule that everyone must live by.

This is the type of generalization that is the problem with all central planners, including those who advocate doing so in order to "save the environment". Where I live the amount of fresh water available so far exceeds the needs of the population and the environment that the additional costs in energy and other environmental impact exceed any value gained from using "grey water" to flush toilets. Not only is the rainfall more than adequate, the landscape is such that the rain which does fall is able to soak into the ground sufficiently to replenish the ground water levels.

That is a strange definition of "right" and "left". Traditionally, the left has advocated for getting the government out of enforcing traditional moral codes, while at the same time inventing new, more intrusive moral codes which they demand the government enforce.Of course part of the problem is that most people define the poltical spectrum as going from the "ultra-right wing" fascists, who push for government control over the economy, to the "ultra-left wing" communists, who push for government control over the economy. Personally, I favor a government based on the idea that people are responsible for their own economic well-being.

You mean sort of the way Democrats like to spread a vague sense that they seek to improve the lives of minorities while following their traditions of doing everything in their power to keep them down? Of course the Democrats are much better at being two-faced than Republicans because they have managed to convince people that, despite the fact that their policies are bad for minorities, and despite the fact that most of their arguments for those policies amount to stating that minorities need whites to take care of them, they actually are attempting to improve the lot of minorities and that they believe that minorities are just as capable as whites. Further, they have managed to convince people that those who say that minorities are perfectly capable of succeeding without anybody else's help are racists who think that minorities are inferior.

You missed one "fact" and test for AGW 6)As CO2 in the atmosphere rises, temperatures will rise in some proportion to that rise. Testable? Yes Tested? Yes Could anyone devise a test? Yes Of course that is because even thought that is testable and tested, the results of the test is that it does not actually work out that way. Observed changes in temperature do not match what any of the projections based on the theory said they should be in relation to observed changes in CO2 concentration. This suggests to any rational observer that there are some serious shortcomings in the theory that should be worked out before people start surrendering freedom in order to combat the predicted problems (especially when the result of surrendering that freedom is projected to have almost no impact on the problem it is supposed to combat).

You do know that if Canadians truly cared about Canadian artists, books, movies, etc. there would be no need for a government mandate? But they don't really care about such things, they just want to appear to care.

Piers Gaveston and Hans Hermann Von Katte were influential in the lives of the prominent men BEFORE they rose to power, and the information on Elisabeth Woodville fails to suggest that she pulled Edward the IV strings, merely that her family profited from her relationship with him causing a rift with another courtier who desired those profits for himself or his allies. in additon, Elisabeth Woodville had an ability to influence Edward IV that was not open to Cheney.
So, once again, if Dick Cheney had been at W.'s side while he was governor of Texas, it might be believable that he was pulling W.'s strings, but since Cheney did not become part of W.'s inner circle until after he was well on his way to power, it is not.