Feds want to lower BAC to .05 for drunk driving

the constitution does not allow for the federal government to criminalize any sort of BAC and DUI. the COURTS have allowed the federal government to withhold federal highway funding to states that don't acquiesce to it's demands, hence the seatbelt and 21 drinking age laws as well as the 55 mph law. so fuck you if you think congress should be able to do this because you're an unamerican traitor that deserves to be treated like ISIS prisoners.
 
Irish said:
I don't drink and drive. I also don't think government needs to invent more ways to rip people off.

If you had a brain you'd know that .05 is absurd. That's like 1 beer.

I can't have 2 beers then drive home, because someone in DC thinks I may be dangerous.

Fuck that, and fuck all you big government assholes on this board.
Click to expand...

Never tell an Irish drunk he can't have a drink. Unless you are ready for a fist fight.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the constitution does not allow for the federal government to criminalize any sort of BAC and DUI. the COURTS have allowed the federal government to withhold federal highway funding to states that don't acquiesce to it's demands, hence the seatbelt and 21 drinking age laws as well as the 55 mph law. so fuck you if you think congress should be able to do this because you're an unamerican traitor that deserves to be treated like ISIS prisoners.
Click to expand...

It's a matter of give and take Paul Revere. If the states don't want federal matching funds they can do as they please.
They always choose wisely though.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
fuck your give and take, traitor. you don't deserve the freedom that the founders died for.
Click to expand...

The states have the freedom to turn the federal money down.
They just choose not to. That doesn't mean the freedom to turn it down isn't there.
BTW most of the "founders" died from natural causes.
 
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."



Where in the 10th amendment does it say that the federal government only has the powers explicitly listed in the constitution? It simply says the federal government has the powers delegated by the constitution (which was already the case, it's redundant). It doesn't say that they have to be explicitly listed in the constitution. They can be implied through some other part of the constitution, in which case they are not explicitly "listed powers" but are still clearly powers delegated by it. You are reading "explicitly" and "listed" into the amendment, and thus distorting its purpose.

When writing the amendment, Madison heard appeals to put "expressly" in front of "delegated" in the amendment, and he rejected doing so because he thought it would overly hamper the federal government. Only if he had put "expressly delegated" into the constitution would the 10th amendment have the meaning you believe that it has.
 
FACTS said:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."



Where in the 10th amendment does it say that the federal government only has the powers explicitly listed in the constitution? It simply says the federal government has the powers delegated by the constitution (which was already the case, it's redundant). It doesn't say that they have to be explicitly listed in the constitution. They can be implied through some other part of the constitution, in which case they are not explicitly "listed powers" but are still clearly powers delegated by it. You are reading "explicitly" into the amendment, and thus distorting its purpose.
Click to expand...

when you create a charter/government, you provide it with powers. you have to spell out those powers in print. To maintain freedom, you must deny any powers or authorities that you did not specifically give the government. that is why the founders believed in LIMITED government, for optimum freedom. THAT is it's purpose
 
Leonthecat said:
You are a murderer waiting for your luck to run out if you believe that. I hope you have your license revoked first
Why do the Irish always think they are immune to intoxication?
Click to expand...

LOL. Such gloom and doom. So funny.

I bet your one of those people who thinks smoking 1 cigarette will immediately kill you.
 
Leonthecat said:
The states have the freedom to turn the federal money down.
They just choose not to. That doesn't mean the freedom to turn it down isn't there.
BTW most of the "founders" died from natural causes.
Click to expand...

Hey einstein. It's the state's own money. The feds use the income tax to take money from the state residents and then the fed says "We'll give it back if you do such and such." You seem to think the fed EARNS the money and offers to give some to the states!!! HAHA. uranidiot.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
when you create a charter/government, you provide it with powers. you have to spell out those powers in print. To maintain freedom, you must deny any powers or authorities that you did not specifically give the government. that is why the founders believed in LIMITED government, for optimum freedom. THAT is it's purpose
Click to expand...

The constitution never says anything about denying any power not specifically listed in the constitution, it just denies it powers that are not delegated by the constitution. Powers can exist which are implied by other powers in the constitution, even without being specifically listed. As much as you may dislike that fact, and believe that the inaccurate version of the constitution that exists in your head is superior to the actual document that has successfully guided this country for 200 years, it doesn't change shit.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
Hey einstein. It's the state's own money. The feds use the income tax to take money from the state residents and then the fed says "We'll give it back if you do such and such." You seem to think the fed EARNS the money and offers to give some to the states!!! HAHA. uranidiot.
Click to expand...

it is federal money. Many states take more federal money than they pay in. Mostly red states. It is the great equalizer.
 
FACTS said:
The constitution never says anything about denying any power not specifically listed in the constitution, it just denies it powers that are not delegated by the constitution. Powers can exist which are implied by other powers in the constitution, even without being specifically listed. As much as you may dislike that fact, and believe that the inaccurate version of the constitution that exists in your head is superior to the actual document that has successfully guided this country for 200 years, it doesn't change shit.
Click to expand...

implied powers? what the hell are you? some kind of republican?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top