What are the odds that this will pass?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Raven

you have achieved wisdom when
you realize you know nothing at all.

So true, but on the journey, if you don't stand for Something
you'll fall for Anything.

[likwid]

Drugs are bad mkay?

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by basswipe

If you think Mass is effed up move to RI and then maybe I might have some sympathy for your plight.

We here in RI by far have easily the most stupid human being to ever live be elected to the seat of Governor(or for that matter anything electable).This is a man who so far has done zero other than try to fight for the life of some scumbag who killed a man in broad daylight,scattering his brains all over a sidewalk outside a Woonsocket bank.Oh and he wants it called a Holiday Tree and he wants to tax EVERYTHING.And as a working man don't even let me get into bridge tolling.

Cry me a river.Spend a year or two here in RI and you'll be screaming to move back to Mass.

I agree, I have ice cubes in my fridge that have more working brain cells than your govenor has.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by likwid

Where are cars in the constitution again? I can't seem to find that section.

General police powers are reserved to the States and the people in the Consitution. The tenth ammendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Consitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." If States or localites wish to impose speed limits on public roads it is in their power to do so.

It is not necessary for everything, including cars, or horses, or ships, or airplanes to actually be mentioned in the Constitution in order for Federal, State, or local government to regulate those things. What is necessary for regulation is the purview granted by the enumerated powers. The scope of those powers is broad enough to include things unknown to the framers. What that scope does not include is reserved to the States and the people.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Nope. I'm the guy that doesn't like big brother putting GPS tracking on my car and being able to conduct warrant-less surveillance on my every move.

I agree with you. So far, so has the SCOTUS. But if the Federal Gvt. can persuade all car manufacturers to install the tracking devices in every vehicle, then we cannot reasonably expect privacy re our driving if what we purchase already has the device. Nor can we reasonably expect that a warrant is necessary to "search" our location if it is automatically revealed by the device we bought. A question here is whether the Federal Gvt., constitutionally, has the power to require installation of the GPS in all vehicles. We know how the Interstate Commerce Clause has been abused to allow the government to do what is not given in the enumerated powers of the Constitution. We also know how the SCOTUS has allowed and been complicit in the abuse. Another question is whether the Fedgov should even be influencing voluntary compliance. There is always the danger of the carrot and stick power of taxation and regulation that can compel action without directly mandating it. So this constant intrusion, on seemingly benevolent grounds, into our private lives is a concern that I share with you. And I don't think it is an unreasonable concern.

No one has the freedom to incite panic by yelling fire in a crowded room.

The restriction on first ammendment free speech was begun by that opinion of Holmes. In actuallity, yelling fire, even falsely, should not reasonably, in itself, be expected to incite panic. The intent might be to warn of danger, or to be a prank or even to incite panic. The responsibility lies in those who hear to act accordingly, not in the person yelling. If we reasonably expect people to act like lemmings, then I can see the necessity of Big Brother protecting us from ourselves, and intruding on every aspect of our lives, including how we speak. Further, shouting ANYTHING in a crowded theater is a matter of property rights more than a matter of free speech. The owners of the property have the right to restrict any disruptive behavior on their premises and should not be a matter of government interference. If the violater does not comply with the wishes of the property owner, the police can be asked to intervene.

Further restrictions on free speech have followed, such as hate speech. etc. What is even more ominous is a fairly new concept in SCOTUS jurisprudence, or at least a new evolution and application of it--Government Speech. The notion that government itself can take part in speech and not be restricted and that such speech is supreme over private speech when the two conflict.

[likwid]

You DO realize most car manufacturers are putting black boxes in their cars already right?

And infact, in 2015 they're mandatory!

Oh noes!

Hate To Break It To You, But Your Car Likely Has A Black Box 'Spying' On You Already - Forbes

(This is the part where Raven talks about the CIA watching him at home)

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by likwid

You DO realize most car manufacturers are putting black boxes in their cars already right?

And infact, in 2015 they're mandatory!

Oh noes!

Hate To Break It To You, But Your Car Likely Has A Black Box 'Spying' On You Already - Forbes
home)

So far, Congress does not allow warrantless searches of the "black boxes" unless the owner of the vehicle gives permission. And they seem to record small bits of time before and after a crash, not, as JohnnyD fears, "my every move." If this is part of the "slippery slope" to eventually install technology that did follow your every move, would that be OK with you? Right now it's a safety issue and can be used to determine fault in accidents that lead to court trials. I don't know which part of the Constitution the fedgov used or abused to assert the power to legislate the mandatory installation of EDR's--probably the commerce clause because the lack of the device would somehow" affect interstate commerce." States more clearly have constitutional power to mandate EDR's, and they are more responsible to the wishes of their constituants. Most people would probably support EDR's for safety reasons and with limited recording ability directly related to crashes and with the provision that warrants are required to view the device. Most might vote down mandates that tracked their every move. The fedgov, witness the HCB, have acquired more power to override constitutional limitations, and could mandate the tracking of every move. Another 911 type incident might be just the ticket for an excuse to do so. Probably not.

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by likwid

You DO realize most car manufacturers are putting black boxes in their cars already right?

And infact, in 2015 they're mandatory!

Oh noes!

Does that make it right? Ad some substance to your posts!

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Piscator

Does that make it right? Ad some substance to your posts!

That seems to be a pattern for some--attempts to lampoon rather than discuss, which sort of defeats the purpose of a forum. Ridicule is fine if there is added substance.

I suspect that, to some degree, the matter of right and wrong for a "progressive" is relative. A political progressive would lean toward the belief that what the central government and its agencies do IS right. The whole purpose of the progressive movement was, and seemingly still is, the creation of an all-powerful benevolent government which would free its people from fear and want, thus liberating them to be whatever they desire and their potential allows. A discussion of the inherent contradictions in such a system and philosophy of government is a priori moot for progressives since that government would be comprised of the experts that know more and better than the people who merely are required to enjoy the freedom of their ignorance and the positive actions of their caretaker government. Things like musty old constitutions are too rigid and stand in the way of the progress toward the more perfectly equitable and just society. Daily, new problems that old constitutions could not foresee must be solved in new ways and can only be done by an unhampered bureaucracy which can more efficiently and expertly accomplish needed changes for a large and diverse populace. That all this truly resembles Woodrow Wilson's vision of a society resembling a beehive, and that it clusters the people into groups of dependents rather than the self-actuating individuals the structure purports to produce, and that it eliminates the friction necessary to create the pearl, and that it is actually, contrary to the progressive worship of evolution, anti-evolutionary and drifts toward the stagnancy of centalized control, and that the experience of history has shown time and again that an all-powerful government is not only tyrannical, but that the wish for a benevolent form of such government leads not to paradise, but to the diminution of the human spirit that separates us from the beehives and ant hills, that all these and more are irrelevant to progressives demonstrates that the unparalleled efficiencey which allows a centralized bureacracy with unlimited power to produce thousands of regulations per year makes such a system "right" compared to a cumbersome federal system bridled by the limitations of an unbending constitution.

And the progressive mind does not accept that immutable law garantees what it purports. It does not even recognize that its religion of science requires laws that don't change merely on whim or opinion, but must be based on evidence. The Constitution was written as a garantee of individual liberty and a bulwark against government tyranny. It was not meant to live and breath, for laws cannot be living organisms or they would be no more than the organisms to which they applied. And would be subject to the same ultimate fate of death and extinction. Even though experience and evidence has shown that individual liberty is harsh, difficult, demanding, it has also shown that subjection to central power is even more so, though attractive at first with utopian promises. Rather than adhere to the garantees of the Constitution, more and more are attracted to the promise of benevolence and the Constitution be damned. I can't fathom Justice Roberts decision--there is clearly no provision in the Constitution for the government to tax inactivity as well, which he recognized, as no provision to regulate inactivity through the commerce clause. Perhaps he has looked at the Constitution, looked at the "need" for "health care reform," and basically decided to tear up the Constitution and go with government's good intentions. He, like most other progressive judges, know that as the Constitution was written and intended it did not allow, but expressly forbade, in its enumerated limitations, central government hegemony over the individual. I can't be sure, but the unwillingness of those on this forum to discuss such matters indicates to me that such hegemony is OK.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by likwid

You DO realize most car manufacturers are putting black boxes in their cars already right?

And infact, in 2015 they're mandatory!

Oh noes!

Hate To Break It To You, But Your Car Likely Has A Black Box 'Spying' On You Already - Forbes

(This is the part where Raven talks about the CIA watching him at home)

And do those Black Boxes have GPS in them that track your every move? From my understanding of the current black boxes, they can only be legally accessed to investigate a potential crime or car accident.

Hey, since you have no issues with Big Brother spying on you, I'm sure you wouldn't mind if the police showed up and rummaged through your house to make sure you don't have anything illegal. I mean, if you aren't doing anything wrong, why would you have any reason to refuse them unrestricted access to your house?