Re: OT: Warning: California's Vehicle Code §5201

On Tue, 14 Apr 2026 18:48:07 -0400
Ed P <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 4/14/2026 6:25 PM, cloche wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Apr 2026 18:12:37 -0400
> > Ed P <[email protected]> wrote:
> >   
> >> On 4/14/2026 5:16 PM, T wrote:  
> >>> On 4/14/26 13:26, cloche wrote:  
> >>>> On Tue, 14 Apr 2026 13:04:26 -0700
> >>>> T <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>     
> >>>>> Warning: if you are living or planning on visiting the
> >>>>> People's Republic of California (PRC) by automobile
> >>>>> any time soon, under the PRC's Vehicle Code §5201,
> >>>>> a license plate must be clearly visible and legible,
> >>>>> and nothing can obstruct *any* part.  And that includes
> >>>>> license plate frames, backup camera mounts. etc..
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is a $1000.00 fine.  
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Utter statist lunacy.
> >>>>
> >>>> Have they run 'clean out' of emissions to legislate against?
> >>>>
> >>>> Californicators suck.
> >>>>     
> >>>
> >>> The PRC is a real mess right now.  This is what you get
> >>> from a one party state.  
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes, they should let people continue to evade tolls!  
> > 
> > Again:
> > 
> > Toll roads are un-Constitutional restrictions of the right to move
> > freely about the country, statist oaf.
> > 
> > https://www.facebook.com/groups/nomoreturnpikes/posts/3729128127220788/
> >   
> 
> Gosh, my puppet jumped in and spread my post.  Thanks for recognizing
> my abilities and your lame replies.

Enjoi even more economic derision, collectivist trash:

https://www.infrainsightblog.com/constitutional-use-of-toll-revenue-the-subject-of-recent-federal-court-decision

"The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently
clarified the constitutional uses of toll revenue in American Trucking
Associations v. New York State Thruway Authority, 13 Civ. 8123 (CM)
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2016). In this case, commercial trucking companies
and the American Trucking Associations (ATA) claimed that the New York
State Thruway Authority violated the Constitution by charging inflated
toll rates to cover the operations and maintenance costs of the New
York State Canal System. The Court agreed.

The plaintiffs engage in interstate commerce and pay tolls to use the Thruway, the portion of the Interstate Highway System that runs from New York City to Buffalo. The Thruway Authority charges tolls that exceed the needs of the Thruway in order to cover the costs of operating and maintaining the Canal System. The Canal System serves as a recreational and tourist attraction. In her decision, Chief Judge McMahon held that the Thruway Authority’s practice of charging higher tolls to cover the costs of the Canal System unduly burdened interstate commerce in violation of the so-called Dormant Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

In arriving at her decision, McMahon invoked the test set forth by the
Supreme Court in Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. County of Kent, 510 U.S.
355 (1994), which finds that a user fee or toll is constitutionally
permissible only if it meets three requirements. First, the toll or
user fee must be based on some fair approximation of the use of the
facilities for which it is paid. Second, the toll or user fee must not
be excessive in relation to the benefits conferred from the use of
those facilities. Third, the toll or user fee must not discriminate
against interstate commerce."

> Rewarding people with the ability to break the law is not how we
> change things.

"The recurring theme in McMahon’s decision relates to the plaintiffs’
use or benefit from the off-system diversion of user fees or toll
revenue. In this case, she found that the Thruway’s practice of using
toll revenue from the Thruway to support the Canal System violated the
Constitution. However, she distinguished the situation in the instant
case from another federal decision relating to the use of highway toll
revenue for public transit, which found that such use was permissible
because transit alleviated congestion on the facilities that were being
tolled, creating a functional relationship that conveyed a benefit to
those paying the toll. Automobile Club of New York, Inc. v. Port
Authority, 887 F.2d 417, 421 (2d Cir. 1989).

In the wake of the New York Thruway decision, ATA President and CEO Chris Spear said that he hopes this decision will dissuade other states from financing their budget shortfalls on the backs of our industry. Indeed, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that as a result of the decision, ATA plans to review similar situations in other states to ascertain what further actions the organization could take.

Another potential impact could be felt in Oklahoma, where the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority is considering a 17 percent increase in toll rates to finance new construction. The ultimate legality of such an increase could also turn on the location of the projects to be funded with the Turnpike toll revenue and the relationship those projects have with the Turnpike itself.

It seems as though the tolling practices of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is always the subject of dispute. In fact, the Automobile Association of New York is again suing the Port Authority, arguing that the Port Authority’s recent toll increase is unconstitutional due to its intended use to fund redevelopment of the World Trade Center.

The most significant potential impact of the New York Thruway decision,
though, may have nothing to do with tolls. The Northwest Airlines
decision applies to user fees as well as tolls, as McMahon notes in her
decision. If federal courts interpret the Dormant Commerce Clause to
apply to motor fuel and other excise taxes in the same way the New York
Thruway decision applies this rubric to tolls, then the potential
impact could be extreme. The question of whether or not an excise tax
is legally tantamount to a user fee is murky, especially when such
taxes are firewalled into trust funds with specific eligible uses."