Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: beandog

let’s do a thought experiment. You assume this is “state business and “for the children.”

Does that mean you have a bullet proof suit that will protect you from a teen causing you to wreck on an interstate highway that you might drive on?

Or do you think that in a wreck, only the folks in the drivers’ car are at risk of death or injury. Or maybe you only drive on state roads.

Like I said, this bill is not great by me, but I reject the notion that it is nanny statism the way many other pieces of legislation are.


14 posted on 03/15/2012 8:53:50 AM PDT by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]


To: C. Edmund Wright

Don’t like it, I suggest you get your state legislator to pass a bill similar to this one. I would also suggest if a state doesn’t have a law against it, don’t drive in that state. That is where this issues belong.


16 posted on 03/15/2012 8:56:24 AM PDT by beandog (Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: C. Edmund Wright

I agree with you. Texting while driving is stupid and very dangerous to anyone on any road. It should be outlawed everywhere, enforced and punished with loss of license. This is one instance where a uniform national policy would be a good thing. Where ever you find yourself in the USA you will lose your license if you are caught texting while driving. Enforce that for 6 monthes and it would no longer be a problem.


22 posted on 03/15/2012 9:11:02 AM PDT by Josephat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: C. Edmund Wright
I think it is "nanny state legislation" and, as with many others, coercion is based on additional federal funding for the states that comply and reductions in existing federal funding for those states that don't. In addition, the Secretary of Transportation would have the authority to adopt regulations going beyond those specifically stated in the legislation. Then, the initially compliant states would be stuck with the new regulations as well as those in which they had initially acquiesced.

That is the way these things work. There is no violation of the Tenth Amendment per se. However, the legislation would further diminish the abilities of the states to adopt their own requirements, suited to them, in favor of a one size fits all policy.

I respect Colonel West and, given an opportunity, would vote for him for President enthusiastically. However, I think he got stuck in a trap here. He should change his mind and so state.

26 posted on 03/15/2012 9:17:54 AM PDT by DanMiller (Dan Miller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson