Federal Lawmakers Step In to Regulate Texting and Driving
Why doesn't anybody see the problem with this issue?
Forget about the texting issue. The Federal government is trying to force the states into doing whatever it is the want. The whole point of having states is so that we can make our own laws without the Federal government becoming too powerful.
...
Right but consider a different example. Medical marijuana is legal in CA but is banned by federal laws so CA and feds are in a constant fight about it. So a state does not have to adopt a law or a regulation that feds mandate but they will have to constantly fight about it.
...
I even heard that a doctor is facing federal charges for prescribing medical marijuana in California. I don't agree with using marijuana at all but I definitely don't agree the doctor should be put up on federal charges if its legal in the state.
...
It specifically said that states who chose not to abide would simply lose funding for highways. So no one is holding a gun to anyone's heads, it's just that states who do not want to have to rethink their budget to include allowances for their state highways would benefit from cooperating. It's intended to encourage, not force.
...
Thats like your employer saying that he will cut your wages if you don't shave your head.
...
It is a "gun held to the head" so to speak. The federal government is responsible for maintaining federal highways and infrastructure. Kill off 25% of the budget for this is once again encroaching on states rights, and allows the federal government to abdicate authority to someone else.
This is a major Constitutional issue, and should be put down, like so many other issues should be, but likely won't because a majority of the populace would rather be a part of the "United States of Gimmie Minez Damnit", than actually learn, then do what's right.
I agree with the premise of this law, however, it's up to the voters in each state to request this, at least it should be. What's next, a federal requirement that you wear a helmet and orang...
(continues)
This is a major Constitutional issue, and should be put down, like so many other issues should be, but likely won't because a majority of the populace would rather be a part of the "United States of Gimmie Minez Damnit", than actually learn, then do what's right.
I agree with the premise of this law, however, it's up to the voters in each state to request this, at least it should be. What's next, a federal requirement that you wear a helmet and orang...
(continues)
...
Is "don't murder" a state law? States don't have the power to change anything about that law but are allowed to determine the penalty based on their findings. What would be any different about this? The federal gov't is trying to protect people and is giving an incentive to the states to follow the proposed law.
...
Trying to protect people against what? Changing the station on your radio or the settings on your air conditioning is more dangerous than cellphone use. Should the federal government tell the states they should make a law stating you can't run with scissors because it dangerous?
...
DarkStar said:
Trying to protect people against what?
Is it possible for you to be more ignorant? I hope you never get in a car accident so you can keep being so blind.
Texting is getting out of control for a lot of teens and it is only going to get worse. The last thing i want on the road anywhere near me is a teenager who is texting away not even paying attention to the road.
I don't know about you but it takes me 5 seconds to cycle through all my favorite stations and i don't even have to look down to do it, just press the buttons. Is the left and right/hot and cold knob that difficult for yout to turn?
...
I am just telling you statistics. More people get into accidents because of changing settings in a car than texting.
...
That is not true, according to many studies, alcohol and phone use are at the top. Here is a good article.
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrivingIssues/20060 ... »
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrivingIssues/20060 ... »
...
Murder is a state law. The federal government has no pull with this one, unless you kill a federal agent, or commit a crime the spreads across state lines, and then, the states have the right to hold their trials, and disallow the federal government to be involved, or at a minimum make it wait. The states also reserve the right to hold their trials after the federal government in many cases, to allow for more discovery of evidence. You may, or may not know, that the FBI doesn't share evidence very well.
You should bone up on legal studies before you make broad brush statements like that. It officially nullifies the remainder of your argument.
As for protecting life, why does the government condone murder, and protect the ability to...
(continues)
You should bone up on legal studies before you make broad brush statements like that. It officially nullifies the remainder of your argument.
As for protecting life, why does the government condone murder, and protect the ability to...
(continues)
...
This forum is closed.
