Your question really doesn’t make sense when it asks for a constitutional difference between conduct by the citizens.
The Constitution is a definition of the structure that government takes once the source of its power (the citizens) has been declared. The amendments to the Constitution make clear that regardless of its structure, there are certain things that the government cannot do. One of those things is to seize a citizen without a really good reason. I think it is unreasonable to seize every person with a cell phone in a car just because you don’t like the way some of them drive. Anectdotal evidence is not a reasonable basis for criminalizing behavior.
I’m perplexed. Where did anyone say anything about seizing anyone? I may have missed it, please point me to the post.
susie
The exact same thing can be said for drunk drivers too. Blow a .08 and you can still drive better than some people, yet your going to jail. My point was there is no difference between driving drunk and driving while texting/talking as far as passing a law that infringes on the rights of the people.
It is a proven fact that doing either is unsafe and can cause a fatal accident, yet you think that there should be a difference in laws dealing with each situation.
I however feel that if both actions have the same effect on the road, and there is solid proof that it does, then they should both be criminalized to keep people from doing it. The severity of the law should not be the same of course, but both should have some form of punishment to act as a deterrent IMHO.