Sunday, February 15, 2009
Irritant of the day
What is the big deal with speed camera's? Sure, we all like to drive faster than the limit but why are speed camera's an infringement to our rights? What rights? The right to break the law? If we have a law and an apparatus to enforce it is that against the law? Why not a big uproar about video camera's in stores or cop cars? Since when has enforcement of a law been illegal? People don't care if the government takes over 2/3 of the economy but take a picture of them speeding and they go crazy. Just one of those things that drives me nuts!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThey were only put in place to make money not to make the roads safer. They say it actually is better to have the police on the roads pulling people over, that way they not only can catch them for speeding but also drunk driving etc... If we hadn't had gotten in such huge debt by our wonderful Governor we wouldn't have the speed cameras.
ReplyDeleteFunny... Republicans are okay with tapping your home phone... but don't take a picture of me driving. Now that is unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteNote for everyone: You don’t have a right to a have driver’s licenses. Don’t break the law and you won’t get a speeding ticket in the mail. =)
According to the 10th Amendment, the federal constitution doesn't apply to state action as long as:
1) the Constitution doesn't grant the federal government the authority to issue drivers licences (which it doesn't)
2) the Constitution doesn't prohibit the states from issuing licenses (which it doesn't)
3) the issuing of drivers licenses doesn't violate a specific provision of the Constitution.
The most common argument that drivers licenses violate a specific constitutional provision come from the \"Priviliges and Immunities\" clause of the 14th Amendment (\"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States\").
However, in the \"Slaughterhouse Cases\", 83 U.S. 36 (1873), the Court held that this only applies to the rights of national citizenship, (i.e. rights explicitly guarenteed in the Constitution) or, as Justice Stevens said in Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999), rights that are \"firmly embedded in our jurisprudence\", meaning rights that have long been established. It is clear that the right to drive without a license is not such a right.
Another argument against drivers licenses come from another part of the 14th Amendment, the part which says \"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws\".
However, as long as there is a due process of law to require drivers licenses, and as long as the laws apply equally to everyone, drivers licenses withstand this challenge. On the first count, the fact that a state legislature has approved the law requiring a drivers license satisfies the due process requirement.
I don't think Conserative to the end has a problem with the photo process. I think the point was a photo cannot catch the other crimes being commited while speeding, that's what cops are made for. There's a big outrage down here about speed photo cameras, and I, myself, don't understand what the bid deal is. Don't break the law and you won't have your picture taken. I also have no problem with tapping my phone line. If I'm not breaking the law, I could care less who hears what I'm talking about.
ReplyDeleteAnd I have no idea where the drivers license stuff came from...
Hey Pook,
ReplyDeleteI think you'll find it isn't the Republicans who are fighting the camera's as much as libertarians. If you're using the 10th Amendment to defend the issue of a driver's license it's a hard sell since our liberal judges have overlooked the constitution on many occasions. I don't see an amendment that says you can't utter God's name in school or that gays have the same rights to marry as straights or that abortion is a right. You're using a premise that doesn't exist (the Constitution being followed). That said I have no problem with the camera's, wiretaps or water boarding.
Record:
ReplyDelete- Wire taps are cool with me.. Just have a judge okay it.
- Water boarding... hell I'm good with cutting off his nuts. (Only if we're sure he's a bad guy) I would hate to see that trial. Sir… I would like to submit into evidence my clients left nut.
- they are testing (speed photo cameras)now in my state also now.