If I recall my American History classes correctly, the people who were called "federalists" at the beginning of an independent U.S.A. were the people who favored a strong central government.
Yet, today, the Federalist Society seems to favor a weak central government.
Do I have one of them wrong - or has the term switched its meaning?
I can't answer that question with any certainty, however, I did notice that prior to the Equal Rights Amendment, the people who controlled the politics in a certain Southern state called themselves Democrats and afterwards, without changing their political philosophy, started calling themselves Republicans.
Hopefully some of our more learned colleagues can enlighten us.
called themselves Democrats and afterwards, without changing their political philosophy, started calling themselves Republicans.
From what I read about the early US History it was a lot more screwed up than that. The Federalist Party was founded in 1789 but split up into a number of parties. One of which was the original Republican Party founded in 1792 which later split again and became the Democratic - Republican Party which later became the Democratic Party in 1828 and has stayed that until today. What is known as the Republican Party today, thus the nickname of Grand Old Party, which was founded in 1854.
The Federalist and Republican parties developed parallel to each other. The confusion is in the initial naming of what became the Republican party. Initially they were known as anti-Federalist.
Madison took on Hamilton under the pen name Helvidius thus creating the Republican party which was instrumental in the take down of the Federalist. It was the whisky rebellion in 1794 that set the stage for the end of the Federalist. That reignited the founders fear that a violent faction could take over the government.
By 1816 the Federalist ceased to be a force with any influence.
The National Republicans and the Democratic-Republicans resulted from the infighting of the Republican single party. The Democratic-Republicans themselves were effectively a result of a power vacuum left from the Federalist. The latter never were Republican, in effect, just disaffected Federalist. By 1828, the Democratic-Republicans were in full swing of becoming the Democratic party. This was solidified when Jackson become president.
In the midst of that, the Whig party got its start as opposition to the Democratic party.
By 1854, the Whig party, some former disillusioned Democrats, and the Free-soil Party become the New Republican party after the original self destructed. This was the party that later got Abraham Lincoln elected. At the time, it was the Republicans that were anti-slavery not the Democrats. This was the beginning of Machine politics.
After the Civil War, both parties placed a strong emphasis on party loyalty. The model for this was created by the Daley Family in Chicago. It has continued into current times. It's initiation was a result of what was then, a massive migration from several points around the globe to the tune of an estimated 24 million people in less than 20 years. Machine politics was what prevented the two parties from splintering post Civil War as a result of the influx of various cultural and religious influences.
ETA: The National Union Party was another name for Republican party from 1864-1868. State level name was still Republican party.
It was the whisky rebellion in 1794 that set the stage for the end of the Federalist.
I thought it was the War of 1812.
The federalists wanted to convert the U.S. agricultural economy to an industrial one (like England and France). They created a central bank to provide loans to businesses. They wanted trade with England.
The War of 1812 hampered the trade with England so the federalists fought to end it. Some New England federalists threatened to secede and form their own country if the war didn't end. That pressured the war to end in 1814 and the federalists were seen as traitors. To my understanding, that was their downfall and there was only one party (the Democratic-Republican party) until the 1820s.
The Federalist Society is a legal society made up of conservatives and libertarians to counter the liberals in the legal education universities. Who knows why they chose "federalist" in their name. It has nothing to do with the Federalist Party.
I thought it was the War of 1812.
Before I posted that, I fact checked my memory via some 60s era Encyclopedia Britannica, history book, and some research I'd previously done. If you study online sources, you'll note multiple inconsistencies.
The Federalist were in fact done by 1816.
After the Civil War, both parties placed a strong emphasis on party loyalty. The model for this was created by the Daley Family in Chicago.
So the "model" for the party was created almost a full century after the party formally formed. That's not a "model", that's an extreme example of the existing stereotypes.
But the word PotomacBob is looking for is either "State's Rights" (which originated as a back-lash against granting blacks the right to vote by Lincoln during the Civil War) or more properly the 'Secessionist' party, since it was named for the the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, where the more formal rule of a central party was established after the Whiskey Rebellion prompted tears that any single state could effectively bring down the entire American constitution government.
Perversely, Trump's recent rant about California not being allowed to set auto emission standards for their own state flies in the face of EVERY Republican talking point for the past 150 years, and thus is little more than a petty power play (on putdown of Trumpers, just establishing the historical principals pre-Trump).
Perversely, Trump's recent rant about California not being allowed to set auto emission standards for their own state flies in the face of EVERY Republican talking point for the past 150 years, and thus is little more than a petty power play
It's plain that Trump is his own party. The Republicans are totally silent regardless of anything he does. It's also plain that he's the sum total of the US government, a single ruling voice over-riding the consternation, tooth-gnashing, and wailing.
Perversely, Trump's recent rant about California not being allowed to set auto emission standards for their own state flies in the face of EVERY Republican talking point for the past 150 years, and thus is little more than a petty power play (on putdown of Trumpers, just establishing the historical principals pre-Trump
The 'federalist' (meaning distributed) objection is that California's economic size allows them to enforce regulations on the entire country without the rest of the country having a say in the matter, thereby effectively foreclosing debate.
California was issued a waiver because that was the only way they would sign on to the Clean Air Act of 1970 which would otherwise preempt anything the CA legislature enacted with regard to emissions.
The governor of California when the Clear Air Act was passed? None other than Ronald Wilson Reagan.
ETA: Senators were Cranston (D) and Murphy (R). House delegations was 20 D, 17 R
The 'federalist' (meaning distributed) objection is that California's economic size allows them to enforce regulations on the entire country without the rest of the country having a say in the matter, thereby effectively foreclosing debate.
I wasn't claiming that such 'state' usage isn't problematic, only that Trump's objection negates 150 years of Republican States' Rights mantra. So his pulling it out just to stick it in California's ear is an utterly empty gesture.
I wasn't claiming that such 'state' usage isn't problematic, only that Trump's objection negates 150 years of Republican States' Rights mantra. So his pulling it out just to stick it in California's ear is an utterly empty gesture.
"State's Rights" was a DEMOCRATIC PARTY issue, not a Republican one. The Republican party went to war (Civil War) against that theory, cementing the power of the national government over the states.
The parties more or less swapped doctrines in that area with Nixon, and now are swapping back.
"State's Rights" was a DEMOCRATIC PARTY issue, not a Republican one. The Republican party went to war (Civil War) against that theory, cementing the power of the national government over the states.
That's an interesting war to re-write history and a total acceptance of one side's propaganda.
From the records of the time the root issue was the right of State A to be allowed to enforce their laws on State B who didn't support that law and the feds wouldn't buy into it until after the Southern states grab hold of federal assets and fired on federal troops.
Under the federal laws leading up to after the US Civil War was well established the rights of states to allow or disallow slavery was a state right and there was a federal law supporting states recovering runaway slaves in other states. The main cause of the conflict was the people in control of the existing slave states wanted to claim land in the territories and work them with slaves in the same was as they worked their existing lands, but they took a huge risk that when the area became a state it might pass laws to disallow slavery, which was a growing trend with the new states, and the slave owners would then lose their slaves and not be able to work the land how they wanted. In short, they favored the existing state's rights over the rights of new states, and when they couldn't get that from the federal government they wanted to leave the union and found they couldn't do it, so they started a war to do so.
That's an interesting war to re-write history and a total acceptance of one side's propaganda.
This is not the place for this debate, but I'll say two things and drop it, lest the thread be locked.
a) I didn't say the North started the war; I said 'went to war' because I wanted to keep it neutral
b) The causes of the Civil war are fare more complex than just slavery. That was one of my areas of focus when I received my degree in history from a university in the 'Land of Lincoln'. My other focus was Church history.
b) The causes of the Civil war are fare more complex than just slavery.
If you actually look at public statements made by high level confederate politicians and the men who became generals in the the Confederate army at the time of succession, it's Slavery Slavery Slavery, oh and a couple of other issues.
More complex than just slavery, sure. But don't try to pretend that Slavery wasn't the biggest issue.
only that Trump's objection negates 150 years of Republican States' Rights mantra
I read an article earlier today that I can't find about the dangers of the current federalism. Current meaning more states rights and less federal government rights. The article said that when a Republican president was in office, the Democrats wanted more state rights and when a Democratic president was in office the Republicans wanted more state rights. It was about how polarized we are.
California was issued a waiver because that was the only way they would sign on to the Clean Air Act of 1970
So - is the waiver for California written into the law, or does the law leave it up to the executive branch?
So - is the waiver for California written into the law, or does the law leave it up to the executive branch?
It's up to the Executive Branch, through the EPA, to grant or refuse waivers. The specific process for granting the waiver is laid out in the law, and each time CA changes, they have to apply for a waiver. I haven't found any language about revoking a waiver as yet.
It's up to the Executive Branch, through the EPA, to grant or refuse waivers.
I haven't found any language about revoking a waiver as yet.
Even in the absence of such explicit language, I rather doubt that the Supreme Court would accept an argument that the EPA has discretion to grant or not such waivers, but that once granted, the waivers are eternal and irrevocable.
Even in the absence of such explicit language, I rather doubt that the Supreme Court would accept an argument that the EPA has discretion to grant or not such waivers, but that once granted, the waivers are eternal and irrevocable.
However, wouldn't such a waiver only be valid for the state of play at the time it was granted, thus any changes to what they want to set as the new standard would require a new waiver?
However, wouldn't such a waiver only be valid for the state of play at the time it was granted, thus any changes to what they want to set as the new standard would require a new waiver?
No, probably not. The waiver is for them to set their own standards, not for a particular set of standards.
No, probably not. The waiver is for them to set their own standards, not for a particular set of standards.
That would depend on how it's written.
Checking some summaries of the Clean Air Act sets the EPA has the managing authority, but provides for the provision of a permit system managed by the states, but the permits have to be renewed every 5 years and re-approved by the EPA.
One aspect is the current California rules make it illegal for a vehicle owner to modify their vehicle to pass emission law tests, and thus they would require new engines or vehicle with manufactured engines to meet the new standards. Not sure how long that's been in because what I saw didn't mention when it was passed.
The current Clean Air Act allows the states to meet either the EPA standards or the California standards and they're legal. However, there seems to be some confusion as to whether California is or is not allowing vehicles meeting the EPA standard and not the California standard to be operated in their state. If they aren't it means there could be issues relating to the free access across borders.
One aspect is the current California rules make it illegal for a vehicle owner to modify their vehicle to pass emission law tests, and thus they would require new engines
I doubt that. Emissions testing is usually set based on the year of the vehicle.
I doubt that. Emissions testing is usually set based on the year of the vehicle.
From the information I can easily find the California Air Resources Board has a number of standards based on the year of manufacture. However, the standard for light vehicles is a regulation of the equipment first with verification of the emissions second which is registered for that model of vehicle. Part of the laws prohibit the owner of the vehicle to modify the vehicle in order to pass a true emissions only standard test for their vehicle. Thus the vehicle has to pass and meet the exact standard for that vehicle and not a higher level of vehicle or a lower level of vehicle due to any modification of the vehicle.
One aspect is the current California rules make it illegal for a vehicle owner to modify their vehicle to pass emission law tests, and thus they would require new engines
I doubt that. Emissions testing is usually set based on the year of the vehicle.
There was a recent scandal with automobile manufacturers chipping their 'new' vehicles to fraudulently pass emissions test.
A subset of that is another defeat device that can bring a normal car into cali standards. California being on their own standard of emissions outlawed such a device even if the vehicle would meet otherwise the EPA standard.
We're really not making any fans for California here, are we? Considering we (wife & I) have an older Subaru Outback (with platinum muffler and a replacement engine), and that a new Outback costs in the neighborhood of $35,000 which we, as elderly retired people would struggle to afford, the choice if they failed our car would be to sell up and get the hell out of California. We'd apply for refugee status to Canada, but they don't want us old people imposing on their national health care system. So we'd probably go ... straight to hell, I guess. Or Mexico. Maybe same thing.
The public transporation system (buses and trains) are a national joke (but it ain't funny, much); seriously, has anybody really tried to depend on local bus services for daily life? And since the advent of universal auto ownership and airline travel, it is impossible to get to most towns and villages in the U.S. without an automobile, despite what little remains of Greyhound/Trailmobile and those palaces of delight, the inner city bus station.
So, California wishes to "park" failed private vehicle; they best come up with an alternate, workable mass transit system that covers the entire state, extending to every residence in every village, town, and city. T'ain't likely to happen anytime soon. They've not got that much money.
We're really not making any fans for California here, are we?
Probably not, but it is what it is.
One aspect is the current California rules make it illegal for a vehicle owner to modify their vehicle to pass emission law tests, and thus they would require new engines or vehicle with manufactured engines to meet the new standards.
I think I'd like to see a citation for that before I take up arms and write a screed (grin). It's been years since I lived under the heavy thumb of the emissions testing regime, but when I did, a key provision of the process included "adjustment" of the vehicle, and retesting.
there seems to be some confusion as to whether California is or is not allowing vehicles meeting the EPA standard and not the California standard to be operated in their state. If they aren't it means there could be issues relating to the free access across borders.
Now THAT makes no sense whatsoever; why would California legislators want to impose a huge barrier to state tourism? (Then again, it IS the land of fruits and nuts, as someone earlier remarked.)
I think I'd like to see a citation for that before I take up arms and write a screed
Quote on USA emissions from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_standard#United_States_of_America
The California ARB standard for light vehicle emissions is a regulation of equipment first, with verification of emissions second. The property owner of the vehicle is not permitted to modify, improve, or innovate solutions in order to pass a true emissions-only standard set for their vehicle. Therefore, California's attempt at regulation of emissions is a regulation of equipment, not of air quality. This form of regulation prevents vehicle modifications that may assist in cheating emissions tests, but it also prevents grassroots or creative individuals from participating in the math, science, and engineering that could lead to breakthroughs in this area of research. They are wholly excluded from modifying their property in any way that has not been extensively researched and approved by CARB.
........................
Quotes from the California Air resources Board website:
How do I verify if a car, truck, or motorcycle is compliant with California law?
All vehicles that comply with California regulations have a Vehicle Emissions Information label on a visible location on the vehicle. In addition to listing all equipment used on the vehicle to comply with California requirements, the label lists the vehicles test group or Engine family Number. This number can be cross referenced on our website by checking the Executive Order for the year make and Test Group.
New vehicles that have not yet been registered will also have a Manufacturers Certificate of Origin that will state the standards that the vehicle complies with and list the manufacturers legal name so that you can cross reference that information with the Executive Order.
Vehicles without these required information labels are not legal for sale in California.
.............
On-Road New Vehicle & Engine Certification Program
The On-Road Light-Duty Certification Section is responsible for the certification and production audit of new passenger cars (PC), light-duty trucks (LDT), medium-duty vehicles (MDV), highway (on-road) motorcycles (HMC), off-highway recreational vehicles (OHRV) including off-road motorcycles (OFMC), all-terrain vehicles (ATV), off-road utility vehicles (UV), off-road sport vehicles (SV), sand cars (SCAR), and electric golf carts (eGC). The Compression Ignition and Heavy-Duty Certification Section is responsible for the certification and production audit of new heavy-duty engines (HDE) and vehicles (HDV) including urban buses (UB), and new off-road compression ignition (OFCI) engines. Vehicles and engines (hereinafter, vehicles) are not legal for sale in California until certified. Violation of the requirement for certification can subject the vehicle manufacturers and/or selling dealers to enforcement actions including a fine of up to $37,500 per vehicle.
CERTIFICATION OVERVIEW
o be certified, a vehicle must demonstrate that its exhaust and (as applicable, depending on the specific vehicle category) evaporative emission control systems are durable and comply with the emission standards for the vehicle's useful life. This is done through durability and certification testing of the prototype certification vehicle(s). Compliance with on-board diagnostics, anti-tampering, fuel tank fill-pipe and openings, crankcase emissions, etc., as applicable, must be demonstrated also. An application for certification must be submitted to, and approved by, the Air Resources Board (ARB) (and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) concurrently).
Production vehicles must be identical in all material respects to those (of the certification vehicles) for which the certification was granted; all emissions-related production running changes and field fixes must be approved. Production vehicles must be properly labeled and their emission control systems are warranted for the specified duration. New and customer-owned production vehicles are subject to compliance testing (by either the manufacturers or ARB) and warranty repairs reporting by the manufacturers, either of which can result in remedial actions.
Certification is granted only to the manufacturer of the vehicles who controls the vehicle specifications to ensure compliance by all production vehicles. Certification can be granted to an importer only if the importer demonstrates that it has control of the vehicle specifications. As an example, this demonstration can be effected by a contractual agreement between the vehicle manufacturer and importer giving the importer the sole authority to approve any changes to the production vehicles in the certified engine/evaporative family. Importers lacking this vehicle specifications control are subject to the direct-import (a.k.a. gray-market) vehicle certification.
.............
How do I register a NON-USA or "Grey Market" car in California?
Vehicles first sold, or vehicles intended for sale by their manufacturers outside the United States are called NON-USA or "Grey Market" cars. Greymarket cars are typically not able to be used or registered in California. The following information lists the minimum requirements to register a greymarket car in California:
Important note regarding NEW greymarket vehicles: any greymarket vehicle obtained by a California resident within two years of its date of production or any greymarket vehicle entering California within two years of its date of production are considered NEW vehicles and are forever prohibited from registration in California. No modifications on NEW vehicles are permitted.
California
Sounds to me that California has found a nice money-making machine which has little to do with actual emissions.
THAT makes no sense whatsoever; why would California legislators want to impose a huge barrier to state tourism?
They do it with window tinting. You'll get a ticket driving in Calif from Arizona where you can make it darker than Calif allows.
I wonder about that. As a general rule, states honor each other's legal requirements. That is, if an Arizona vehicle is legal in AZ, and crosses into CA, it is still legal while visiting. The same courtesy is extended to CA vehicles visiting AZ. Otherwise, the citizens of either state would be jeopardy during cross-border incidents. Big mess.
There have been tussles and retaliations but usually in reciprocal licensing agreements. A famous example is twixt WA and ID. ID has huge northern lakes. Hordes of Spokane, WA boaters drug their boats into ID to recreate on the lakes. Local ID officials, pissed that they weren't getting license and tax revenues from the WA interlopers, started passing regulations requiring the Spokane boaters to buy special "use" licenses for their boats, for the privilege of floating on ID water. The excrement hit the propeller: WA retaliated, and any ID boater coming thru to float on WA waters (think Puget Sound and San Juan Islands) had to pony up for an identical use permit similar to the ID violation of the formerly peaceful reciprocal licensing agreement.
Moral of the story: there are few peaceful situations that a greedy politician can't totally fuck up.
So, back to the AZ-CA vehicle window tint issue, I have no idea of the actual ticketing situation. But it would be a great way to screw up relations and mess up reciprocal agreements.
So, back to the AZ-CA vehicle window tint issue, I have no idea of the actual ticketing situation.
When I moved to Arizona, it was a big deal. But that was over 40 years ago. I don't know what the situation is today. Back then I was told the Calif highway patrolmen would hand you a razor blade to scratch the tinting off. If you refused, they'd ticket you. But today's tinting doesn't scrape off so I don't know.
I believe it was a safety issue for them.
As a general rule, states honor each other's legal requirements. That is, if an Arizona vehicle is legal in AZ, and crosses into CA, it is still legal while visiting.
If that's true, what stops California residents from registering their cars in other states?
For example, some time ago Latvian government messed with car taxes (I think the idea was to tax luxury cars, but it resulted in increasing taxes for next to everyone). Suddenly there were a lot of cars with Lithuanian license plates on the streets. It took a while, but the taxes were revised (and meanwhile Lithuania had raised theirs) and cars get re-registered back home. A while later there was a similar, but smaller and shorter wave of Estonian licenses, for rather marginal benefits as far as I remember. It was mostly enterprises doing this, but a lot of cars of actually private use are registered to enterprises for various reasons.
If that's true, what stops California residents from registering their cars in other states?
Sorry, Charlie, but no cigar. The states are WAY ahead of us on that one. A new resident has a fixed time in which to apply for registration, or face penalties and ultimate compliance. All the states (as far as I know) enforce this rule. They tend to view anyone who cheats on the residency rule with a very jaundiced eye. Which means your AZ license plates can get you in very hot water if they catch you after you've been domiciled in your primary CA residence beyond the time limit.
To go further, don't forget the tax. If you bought your car in CheapState and paid a modest sales tax, and now move to EliteState, you're required to prove up on what sales tax you'd formerly paid, and if EliteState's sales tax is higher, you'll pony up the difference. That I know for certain: been there, done it, got fleeced for a T-shirt.
And to add to that, being allowed to 'credit' the CheapState sales tax is a boon. If you can't prove it, you get to pay the entire EliteState sales tax on the price of the vehicle. Which here in WA, is roughly 8.5%, which for every ten grand (one third the cost of a decent new car) is $850. Not chump change.
And they wonder why the average working family ain't buyin' new cars or expensive RV's so much anymore. First you get bled to death with taxes earning the bucks; then you get bled again for the privilege of spending those taxed bucks.
If you bought your car in CheapState and paid a modest sales tax, and now move to EliteState, you're required to prove up on what sales tax you'd formerly paid, and if EliteState's sales tax is higher, you'll pony up the difference
That can't be true. The Phoenix metropolitan area has many cities, like Scottsdale, Glendale, Tempe, etc. Each determines their own city tax which is added to the state tax. If I live in one city and drive a few miles to another city that has a lower sales tax and buy a car there, I pay the lower tax and that's it. That's without even moving. Why would it be different for states?
Why would it be different for states?
I imagine it's mostly different for states where the registration fee is considered a property tax because it's based on the value of the vehicle.
Honestly, if you don't believe it, try it. City sales taxes have no effect; they're not relevant. The base state sales tax is the basis for comparison. If WA has the 8.5% sales tax, and you move in with your vehicle from Idaho with a 6% sales tax, you will encounter one of two things when you go to register your vehicle in WA: they'll look up your car's value, and assess the sales tax you'll owe WA. Then they'll offer to credit the ID sales tax you paid, if you can show proof. That will be deducted and you'll pay the difference between 6% and 8.5%. Simple. Very straight-forward. The second thing? If you can't prove you paid the ID 6% tax, then you pay the entire WA 8.5% charge. Again, simple. Very straight-forward. Now, if you have a AZ receipt that you paid a higher sales tax based on the added city assessment, then you may be credited for that based on the receipt and the amount paid. We're getting into fine points and the willingness of the state authorities to be generous in their application of the tax law.
Welcome to the world of enhanced revenue generation.
Edit to add: this all got started because clever people would flock to a state with the lowest sales taxes and buy a new car, then bring it home and register it. It took state legislatures about a New York minute to catch on to this scheme. And they want their full tax, not the lower tax you may have paid in Podunk, OK. So, to be fair, they at least credit the OK tax you paid, but to even it out, they make you ante up the remainder of your home state's tax if its higher. You can run, Bucko, but you cannot hide.
Edit to add: this all got started because clever people would flock to a state with the lowest sales taxes and buy a new car, then bring it home and register it.
When Illinois passed their law to fix this, it specified you needed to be a resident of the other state for three months to avoid the tax, and that's still in effect today, as far as I'm aware. But IL has many other ways of extracting maximum $$$ from us, so I guess they don't need this one. Well, at least not today. We're bankrupt, so I'm waiting for property taxes to apply to cars as they did when I lived in Massachusetts back in the mid 80s.
this all got started because clever people would flock to a state with the lowest sales taxes and buy a new car, then bring it home and register it.
Aha, that's different. I thought you meant if I moved from AZ to Calif with a year-old car I'd have to pay additional sales tax. But you're saying if I live in Calif, buy a car in AZ where the sales tax is lower, and drive it back to Calif and register it there, then I would have to pay the additional tax.
I think this will give you a good idea. This is the WA rules; but I'm inclined to think other states have similar. Do notice that if your 'imported' vehicle was purchased more than 90 days before applying for registration, you're off the hook ... MAYBE. (My old pickup is rated to carry nearly 3000 lbs, so did NOT qualify for the exemption.)
Also read "Use Tax" as the same as "Sales Tax" because it is.
Moving to Washington new residents
If you purchased a "private motor vehicle" in another state more than 90 days before moving here, you do not owe Washington's use tax. RCW 82.12.0251(3).
Note: A "private motor vehicle" is an individually owned motor vehicle used for the personal transportation of the owner, with a load capacity of 1500 pounds or less.
Pickup trucks with a load capacity greater than 1500 pounds, recreational vehicles, watercraft and trailers do not qualify for this exemption.
If you purchased a personal vehicle in another state within 90 days of moving here, you owe use tax when you register and license it.
Note: If you paid sales tax and used the vehicle in another state, you may apply that tax against the Washington use tax you owe. RCW 82.12.035.
Military personnel vehicles
For information on the taxability of vehicles purchased or used in Washington by military personnel, see our Vehicle Sales Tax and Use Tax Requirements for Persons in the Military Services Special Notice.
Commercial vehicles
If you bring a commercial vehicle into this state, use tax is due on the value of the vehicle, no matter how long ago you purchased it. However, if a commercial vehicle is brought into the state by a business that operates outside of Washington for temporary (no more than 180 days in any consecutive 365 days) business use, then use tax is determined on the reasonable rental value. See RCW 82.12.010(7)(c).
See Your Nonresident Business Owes Use Tax on Vehicles That are Temporarily in Washington for additional information.
Licensing requirements
You must license your vehicle in Washington within 30 days of moving to this state. For more information, visit the Department of Licensing web site.
What amount is used to determine the use tax due?
Use tax is based on the fair market value of the vehicle. Generally this is the amount paid to the seller. However if the payment amount does not represent the value for vehicles of similar make, model, and condition, the value is determined as close as possible to the retail selling price of similar vehicles. RCW 82.12; WAC 458-20-17802.
Because of the 90-day rule, it's set up for people buying out of state to save paying the WA higher sales tax. I would have thought it would have applied only to WA residents when the car was purchased. It's odd that it applies to non-WA residents who become WA residents if they move there within 90 days of buying a car.
It sounds like if you own an RV, boat, etc., no matter how long ago you bought it, you have to pay WA sales tax on it. That is so unfair. But WA is a Blue (Democratic) state which typically tax people higher.
It's interesting WA calls a sales tax a use tax. AZ calls it a Transaction Privilege tax (TPT).
I wonder if it's a WA thing. I never heard of it in AZ.
That is so unfair. But WA is a Blue (Democratic) state which typically tax people higher.
Again, sorry, Charlie. It's nothing to do with red or blue persuasions. WA has no income tax; ID does, and a sales tax. We've found that the 'bite' works out about the same for both states; they just come at you from different directions.
Also I can observe that "need" has little to do with the size of the bite; we live in a very prosperous town supported by a very high transient military population and a lot of retired ranking officers. The town and county have more money than they can spend, but they keep finding new ways to do it; that includes the local high school which has a huge cathedral for a sports facility, and lush facilities.
Meanwhile in other areas with much less of a tax base, their schools pretty much suck hind tit; the state has been paying court fines for years for lack of supporting poor area schools, ignoring judicial orders.
And back in good ol' ID, the red state, teachers after a year or two of experience, can't get the hell out of there fast enough to earn a decent living wage, coming to states like WA or OR, although ID's tax bite is every much the same as WA's... so, go figure.
And you don't need border signs to know when you've left ID; the immediate transition onto smooth pavement without cracks, potholes, and narrow shoulders is the clue you're in another state. Just sayin'... red don't mean better.
If that's true, what stops California residents from registering their cars in other states?
https://drivinglaws.aaa.com/tag/registration-for-non-residents/
It varies by state, but their are laws in them forcing registration in-state if the vehicle is there for very long.
Now THAT makes no sense whatsoever; why would California legislators want to impose a huge barrier to state tourism? (Then again, it IS the land of fruits and nuts, as someone earlier remarked.)
Consider this: California Border Inspections
I remember those from the early 70s when my family toured the west in a Winnebago Chieftan 27' Motorhhome
The current Clean Air Act allows the states to meet either the EPA standards or the California standards and they're legal. However, there seems to be some confusion as to whether California is or is not allowing vehicles meeting the EPA standard and not the California standard to be operated in their state. If they aren't it means there could be issues relating to the free access across borders.
Confusing things a bit here.
Claifornia has authority to regulate vehicles registered in California. Under certain parameters they can regulate vehicles not registered in California while within the borders of California, but that authority is generally restricted to commercial motor vehicles for obvious reasons. (You want tourists to come visit, and outlawing their mode of conveyance puts a major damper on that)
The CARB standards are allowed to stand because as others have mentioned, manufacturers and customers alike have the option to not adhere to the CARB requirements. They just have to make sure they don't visit California under a circumstance where CARB's rules would apply to them.
The CARB standards are allowed to stand because
No, the CARB standards are allowed to stand because and only because they were granted a waiver under the Clean Air Act.
No, the CARB standards are allowed to stand because and only because they were granted a waiver under the Clean Air Act.
There is that too, but in this case the legal justification is they have stricter standards than the EPA ones. Texas cannot get a waiver for standards lower than the EPA's for a counter-example.
Although obviously that provision is somewhat unique to the Clean Air Act. As we have other examples where the Federal Government did not take so kindly to a state stepping into what it viewed as a Federal Role.
Perversely, Trump's recent rant about California not being allowed to set auto emission standards for their own state flies in the face of EVERY Republican talking point for the past 150 years
I'd be more sympathetic on this if all the states were allowed to do this, but they aren't. California, and only California has had a waver on federal preemption to set their own standards, and thus because cars are mass produced and shipped all over, California acting alone has been effectively allowed to set standards for the other 49 states.
I'd be more sympathetic on this if all the states were allowed to do this
The automakers themselves oppose allowing all the states to set individual standards, and have held that position for decades. They want to be able to manufacture to a single standard. If California sets a standard, so far all the manufacturers have followed it, even though the California standard is not applicable in the other 49 states.
The first instance that I can recall where automakers asked Congress to set a standard was on license plates. Until some time in the 1950s, many states had different shapes and sizes for their license plates - and it drove the automakers crazy trying to manufacturer a place on a car where all those various shapes and sizes would fit.
I'd be more sympathetic on this if all the states were allowed to do this, but they aren't. California, and only California has had a waver on federal preemption to set their own standards, and thus because cars are mass produced and shipped all over, California acting alone has been effectively allowed to set standards for the other 49 states.
Agreed, but on the other hand, California is responsible for most of the current safety standards, saving millions of lives when the politicians in D.C. can't agree on a thing. But, you can't judge whether something is legitimate based solely on results. Sooner or later someone is going to overturn California's exemption, but until then, they're the only safety standard 'agency' work a hill of beans. As an example, look how many children die every single year due to the lack of seatbelts on school buses.
Your post definitely deviated into a political one. My post was historical without favor to one or the other party.
So the "model" for the party was created almost a full century after the party formally formed. That's not a "model", that's an extreme example of the existing stereotypes.
That is not a stereotype. It is simple fact. A fact that is true of both prevailing political parties in the states. We can whine and cry about it, but it will not change it.
It is my opinion that both parties are in process of imploding. No one spoon feeds me my opinion, not the media, not a political party, nor even close friends. I do my own due diligence in research and decide for myself what my opinion is. In contrast, the majority are simply too lazy to do that, preferring instead to allow their favorite flavor of talking heads to give them their opinions.
Perhaps we could cool the rhetoric a bit, eh? We needn't devolve into whose facts are more factual facts and be hitting each other over the head with them.
It's generally conceded (I hear in the press) that rigid partisanship has resulted in government gridlock, ineffectual governance, and near-on political civil war in the U.S. Any disagreement with that?
Otherwise, I'd far prefer to get back to definitions, historical evolutions, and good writing guidelines for geo-political stories.
Perhaps we could cool the rhetoric a bit, eh? We needn't devolve into whose facts are more factual facts and be hitting each other over the head with them.
I didn't start that round, but I won't back down after the fact.
It's generally conceded (I hear in the press) that rigid partisanship has resulted in government gridlock, ineffectual governance, and near-on political civil war in the U.S. Any disagreement with that?
No disagreement with that as far as it goes here.
Perhaps we could cool the rhetoric a bit, eh? We needn't devolve into whose facts are more factual facts and be hitting each other over the head with them.
I agree, my one comment has spun wildly out of control. It's not so much that everyone is sticking to their guns, as they don't think they're being listened too, as we each focus on specific questionable wording (the fallacy of most authors, focusing on phrasing rather than intent of results).
It's generally conceded (I hear in the press) that rigid partisanship has resulted in government gridlock, ineffectual governance, and near-on political civil war in the U.S. Any disagreement with that?
Is rigid partisanship the cause of such wide divisions in the U.S., or is it that the wide divisions in the U.S. caused the rigid partisanship?
Is rigid partisanship the cause of such wide divisions in the U.S., or is it that the wide divisions in the U.S. caused the rigid partisanship?
The US is too large and too diverse to be governed centrally. The Founders gave us a way to ensure that our government could work, but certain people now (and in history) chose to break the system. Right or wrong, it IS broken because of those changes.
It is my opinion that both parties are in process of imploding. No one spoon feeds me my opinion, not the media, not a political party, nor even close friends. I do my own due diligence in research and decide for myself what my opinion is. In contrast, the majority are simply too lazy to do that, preferring instead to allow their favorite flavor of talking heads to give them their opinions.
Your reading more into my rant than was intended, as I wasn't implying you were 'spoon fed' anything. My point, was that you were taking modern attitudes and applying them to the party of 150 years ago.
And I'm not arguing about both parties floundering, just that I'd rather they 1) stick to principals, so at least somethings keep them somewhat honest and 2) Get off their asses and do SOMETHING (hence my California's move being more efficient comment). I'd prefer that politicians kept to their principals, but sometimes, if it doesn't go TOO far afield, efficiency sometimes trumps principal.
In California's case, the fact that the car manufacturers could simply say 'screw California' minimizes their excesses (hopefully), while restricting the number of factions arguing means that SOMETHING is getting accomplished. It's hardly an ideal system, but in terms of car safety, it's working for the moment.
My point, was that you were taking modern attitudes and applying them to the party of 150 years ago.
It's not a modern attitude. It is well documented that it was called machine politics. It was not presented as for or against either party.
If a Volcano erupted 300 years ago, and I described it word for word as how it was related in writing by those who directly witnessed it, it would be a historical account. Nothing more, nothing less.
What I posted was from written historical accounts. To call it an "extreme stereotype" is simply BS. There was no reading into it as you called it.
If it's to be taken to a personal level, or I had any screed to proffer, it would be that my lineage was shat upon by all the above in that era. It wasn't until the 1924 Snyder act that the Cherokee and other nations were allowed to vote legally. That's putting aside the Dawes Act of 1887 designed to force assimilation of the tribes while still preventing them from voting. Which BTW, was created to further the aforementioned machine political model which was meant to force assimilation of European immigrants post Civil War.
Again, it was not a stereotype, nor a modern interpretation of history, it is what is unless someone can go back in time and fix it.
It is my opinion that both parties are in process of imploding.
Yep. Arizona elected its first Democratic senator in 30 years. The Progressives want to censure her in Congress because she's voting too much for Trump stuff. She actually voted 81% of the time against Trump.
I thought the Tea Party would ruin the Republican party and now I believe the Progressives are going to ruin the Democratic party.
Do I have one of them wrong - or has the term switched its meaning?
It's always been confusing - the 'federal' system is one of distributed powers. Thus 'federal government' was the national part, and as such, took on that meaning. Whence the phrase "Don't make a federal case out of it."
Yet, today, the Federalist Society seems to favor a weak central government.
The EU Federalists want a strong central government (albeit commuting between Brussels and Strasbourg) and they currently have the upper hand.
Since the opposite involves devolving governmental power to more localised authorities, perhaps devolutionist is the opposite of federalist.
AJ
Yet, today, the Federalist Society seems to favor a weak central government.
Do I have one of them wrong - or has the term switched its meaning?
Federalist has changed meaning. Mostly due to the terminology used in regards to the division of power between the state and national governments.
During the constitutional convention, the Federalists not only supported a strong national government, a majority of the federalists supported the near complete elimination of the state governments, reducing them to mere corporations fully subject to the national government.
The Anti-Federalists did support a somewhat stronger national government than what we had under the original Articles of Confederation, but still much closer to the Articles than we got.
The two sides were somewhat evenly matched, so what we got was a compromise. However, that compromise had some structural points that allowed the power of the Federal government to increase over time at the expense of the states.
The modern Federalist society is essentially built around supporting that original compromise, and the balance between the state and national governments that existed in the founding era. They support a much smaller (not necessarily weaker in the areas in controls) federal government than what we have today. However, make no mistake, they do not not support a federal government as weak as what the original anti-federalists wanted.
Both parties are in favor of elimination, but by different organs. The Go Pee party wants "your a nation". The Demo-craps are more involved in other shit.
as they don't think they're being listened too, as we each focus on specific questionable wording (the fallacy of most authors, focusing on phrasing rather than intent of results).
Ayup... did I ever 'splain my theory of the origin of churches? You puts three believers in a room for a weekend and when they come out you got two new churches and an agnostic.
Anyway, the word is "principle" as in ethics or concept; and "principal" which is cash or the guy behind the desk in the school office.
As for California and the car standards, isn't anybody the least bit pissed that Texas pretty much controls the content of all the public school textbooks in the nation? For the same reason, basically: they have a very strict (and fundamentalist) school commission that insists on putting a Texas imprimatur on any books used in Texas schools... as a result the publishers issue one edition for ALL schools... the Texas edition. So if your're looking for much about evolution, forget it. And not much about Mr. Darwin, neither. So drive your smoggy car to New Jersey and look for Darwin's theory in their 8th grade textbooks. It ain't there. (Just my bet... I've not driven to New Jersey since the last time twelve years ago.)
The original poster got it essentially right. OTOH, what a "Strong Central government" meant in the 18th century might not be what it means in the 21st.
(OF course, the Northwest Ordinance which included the first national aid to education predated the Constitution.
I think that "The Federalist Society" is using that name to claim that they support going back to what the Constitution originally meant. Anyone can claim that their desires are what the Founding Fathers really wanted.
Anyone can claim that their desires are what the Founding Fathers really wanted.
True; and unless they have a handy time machine, they cannot say with certainty. Not legitimately anyway.
True; and unless they have a handy time machine, they cannot say with certainty. Not legitimately anyway.
Actually they left rather a lot of written evidence of what the wanted. The problem ultimately is that they didn't all want the same things so what we got left with is a compromise.
Anyone can claim that their desires are what the Founding Fathers really wanted.
True, but anyone can quite legitimately say what they believe the Founding Fathers really wanted.
The ultimate problem is that the Founding Fathers did not speak with one mind. The came in at least two factions with very significant differences about the proper relationship between the federal government and state governments should be.
What we got was a compromise that is not what either side really wanted. On the other hand, the Federalists managed to get several items into the constitution that have allowed the federal government to gain power at the expense of the states over time.
What we got was a compromise that is not what either side really wanted.
And from the beginning, there has been a struggle to eliminate the compromises without any real thought given to the ramifications of undoing those compromises. The political mess we're in today is a direct result (of the compromises and the changes).
The political mess we're in today is a direct result (of the compromises and the changes)
All too true.
