Feds want to lower BAC to .05 for drunk driving

I'm just curious but why does the federal government need to be involved at all, and why would you want them to be? Why not appeal to your city, county, and state government to address it as a state law? Once size does not fit all and what if the citizens of many of the states disagree with the number the federal government says? You're often effected by state and local laws more than you are federal laws on a daily basis anyway. It just seems to me that this could be done state by state. I don't drink alcohol and so the number doesn't matter to me personally but why does this have to be a federal issue? Also if this became a federal law then would that make it a federal crime to be arrested for it?
 
It was an example of why you cant just leave everything to the states and have the feds ignore what they do.



the republican party is willing to let their people drink water that will kill them to save money.

BTW did you know gas used to have lead in it?
 
http://www.ehow.com/info_8521498_difference-between-leaded-unleaded.html




Difference Between Leaded & Unleaded



By Sameca Pandova
Unleaded gasoline has supplanted leaded gasoline in most automotive markets.
Hemera Technologies/AbleStock.com/Getty Images


Gasoline used in automotive applications was leaded from the 1920s through the 1970s. The United States shifted to unleaded use in the 1980s. Leaded fuel offered improved resistance to detonation, which allowed engine manufacturers to use higher compression engine designs that produced higher power. Due to the environmental impact of leaded fuels, coupled with the need for unleaded fuels for modern catalytic converter equipped vehicles, leaded fuel has been phased out in many parts of the world.


Read more : http://www.ehow.com/info_8521498_difference-between-leaded-unleaded.html
 
SmarterthanYou said:
do you agree with kelo v. new london? dred v. scott? the slaughterhouse cases? is the supreme court your god???????
Click to expand...

The best example is plyler v doe. That's the 1982 case where the scotus wrote a law forcing states to provide free k-12 for illegal children!!! ABsolutely nothing in the constitution about education or "rights" of illegal invaders but that's what the judges did. That has cost the american taxpayer TRILLIONS of dollars.
 
evince said:
It was an example of why you cant just leave everything to the states and have the feds ignore what they do.



the republican party is willing to let their people drink water that will kill them to save money.

BTW did you know gas used to have lead in it?
Click to expand...

No. Flint is a piece of shit city. Highest crime and shit ridden.

They create their OWN problems.

You blame it on an entire party is quite laughable.

Who don't these dumb black people blame their own mayors/Managers isntead of the white guy.

Heck why don't they blame Obama. He didn't give them enough cash and phones?
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
You don't understand. The interstate highways system is clearly unconstitutional and when the feds decided to create one, they should have amended the constitution to give themselves authority to do so. Yes, times change and the constitution should change with them. That's why the FF wrote the amending process into the constitution.

As it is, all federal highways are unconstitutional and any involvement in drunk driving would be too.
Click to expand...

Okay, well... no. They're not unconstitutional. Here's why:

The Federal Highway Act of 1956 was passed during the Eisenhower administration.

Eisenhower's main purpose for building highways was to be able to move Army units from Point A to Point B quickly and efficiently.

The Constitution provides for the powers to "...provide for the common defense." So in a broad interpretation, the highways are legal and Constitutional.

But... more to the point, there are kind of bigger fish to fry than roads that allow for interstate commerce and no matter how you slice it are great for the People and the economy.

Tenthers really need to get out in the fresh air a bit more than what is clearly not at all.
 
Stelakh said:
Okay, well... no. They're not unconstitutional. Here's why:

The Federal Highway Act of 1956 was passed during the Eisenhower administration.

Eisenhower's main purpose for building highways was to be able to move Army units from Point A to Point B quickly and efficiently.

The Constitution provides for the powers to "...provide for the common defense." So in a broad interpretation, the highways are legal and Constitutional.

But... more to the point, there are kind of bigger fish to fry than roads that allow for interstate commerce and no matter how you slice it are great for the People and the economy.

Tenthers really need to get out in the fresh air a bit more than what is clearly not at all.
Click to expand...

broad definition? that's how you want to ignore constitutional limits? hell, 'broad definitions' can then allow the feds to do anything they want. why even have a constitution when dipsticks like you are happy to let the government ignore limits because it sounds like a good idea?
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
The best example is plyler v doe. That's the 1982 case where the scotus wrote a law forcing states to provide free k-12 for illegal children!!! ABsolutely nothing in the constitution about education or "rights" of illegal invaders but that's what the judges did. That has cost the american taxpayer TRILLIONS of dollars.
Click to expand...

Your comment is disingenuous at best. The Justices of the Supreme Court did not write a law in Plyler vs Doe. They in fact struck down laws.

As Justice Brennan wrote in the opening paragraph of the Court's opinion:

The question presented by these cases is whether, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Texas may deny to undocumented school-age children the free public education that it provides to children who are citizens of the United States or legally admitted aliens.
Click to expand...

That's what it was about. I disagree with a number of things in the Court's opinion (not the least of which is the reference to illegal aliens as "undocumented," which grates my nerves to no end).

And what they said was that illegal aliens are entitled to the protections of equal treatment under the law, as contained in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

I completely disagree with that decision, and find that people who are illegal aliens are not in fact entitled to any guarantee under the Constitution as they are not citizens.

But the bottom line is that they did not write the law. They simply upheld the Constitution. Whether or not I believe they did so erroneously.
 
Stelakh said:
I completely disagree with that decision, and find that people who are illegal aliens are not in fact entitled to any guarantee under the Constitution as they are not citizens.
Click to expand...

can you point out anywhere in the preamble that states, clearly, that the definition of 'we the people' refers only to citizens?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
broad definition? that's how you want to ignore constitutional limits? hell, 'broad definitions' can then allow the feds to do anything they want. why even have a constitution when dipsticks like you are happy to let the government ignore limits because it sounds like a good idea?
Click to expand...

Eisenhower's stated purpose for the Act was to be able to get Army units from place to place. That falls under national defense. Whether anyone likes it or not, given that Eisenhower actually SAID why the highways were being built, their construction and maintenance is Constitutional. End of.
 
Stelakh said:
Eisenhower's stated purpose for the Act was to be able to get Army units from place to place. That falls under national defense. Whether anyone likes it or not, given that Eisenhower actually SAID why the highways were being built, their construction and maintenance is Constitutional. End of.
Click to expand...

then I guess that also means that the feds can constitutionally tell farmers how much wheat they can actually grow because 'commerce'. you sound like a living constitution liberal. congrats.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
can you point out anywhere in the preamble that states, clearly, that the definition of 'we the people' refers only to citizens?
Click to expand...

No. Aside from "We the People of the United States..." I guess you've got me there.

But then, the Constitution consists of more than the Preamble, doesn't it?

The Fourteenth Amendment states that:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Click to expand...

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution also gives Congress the power:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...
Click to expand...

Which they did in Section 1401 of Section 8 of the US Code, which defines a "citizen" of the United States as:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: provided, that any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
Click to expand...

Citizenship is in fact defined by Title 8 of the US Code, which stems from Congress, which takes its powers from the Constitution.

It's difficult to fully realize the sardonic tone I wish to deliver via text on a screen, but imagine it as I say to you, "...in the preamble..." indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top