right to confront accusers, no longer in california

[NOVA]

They should also be required to standardize the yellow time and make it clear to everyone what that is. It would also be good if they provided more than one light. I don't know how many times I have been behind a tractor trailer (I do not tailgate but may get a little close before passing) and gotten surprised by a light. This MIGHT be avoided If there were another set of lights on the shoulder/median.

But most of the apologists are not really concerned about safety, which SHOULD be the focus. They want to punish, seek vengeance and/or provide revenue to the state/private company.

You and apple "get alittle too close" and talk about others not concerned with safety...???

 

[Timshel]

The Pat. Act was voted and passed by Congress, 455 for, 67 against combined....in 2001 after 9/11

Major provisions

* Allows surveillance in cases when foreign intelligence is a "significant purpose" of an investigation, a lower standard than the previous "primary purpose."

* Allows law enforcement to share grand jury and wiretap information regarding foreign intelligence without first obtaining a court order.

* Makes it easier for law enforcement to enlist the help of third parties, such as landlords, in conducting court-ordered surveillance.

* Permits the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to authorize physical searches and electronic surveillance of foreign powers' employees for up to 120 days, compared with 45 days previously, and allows extensions of up to a year.

This is the law signed by Bush......I see nothing counter to the Constitutional freedoms of citizens or the US.
It was not without limits....

Though I support the 2nd Amend. , absolutely none of our freedoms are limitless, and the ban against automatic weapons of war is within those limits.....
We can agree to disagree.....

In a democracy, each party devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule — and both commonly succeed and are right.
—H. L. Mencken

I don't think STY is arguing with your contention that Democrats are unfit to rule.

The PATRIOT Act clearly violates the constitution.

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/surveillance-under-usa-patriot-act

Why the Patriot Act's expansion of records searches is unconstitutional
Section 215 of the Patriot Act violates the Constitution in several ways. It:

• Violates the Fourth Amendment, which says the government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime.
• Violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech by prohibiting the recipients of search orders from telling others about those orders, even where there is no real need for secrecy.
• Violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to launch investigations of American citizens in part for exercising their freedom of speech.
• Violates the Fourth Amendmentby failing to provide notice - even after the fact - to persons whose privacy has been compromised. Notice is also a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

 

[Timshel]

You and apple "get alittle too close" and talk about others not concerned with safety...???

PUNISH THE OCCASIONAL TAILGATERS! What have you achieved? Nothing, but a state of fear which is ultimately destructive to efficiency, order and safety. Your systems analysis and design suffers from arrogance and is one sided. You wait in vain, sir.

I am not suggesting that anyone try to destroy the cameras or flush small explosives down their toilets. I am not trying to blame anyone else or seek retribution.

I am suggesting a solution to a common problem.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Though I support the 2nd Amend. , absolutely none of our freedoms are limitless, and the ban against automatic weapons of war is within those limits.....
We can agree to disagree.....

if rights are not absolute, then why did the framers dictate so many times that congress and the central government 'shall not' or 'make no law', etc.????

the atrocious decision handed down by J. Holmes was wrong and he knew it, which is why he spent the rest of his time on the bench trying to overturn it.

 

[apple0154]

You and apple "get alittle too close" and talk about others not concerned with safety...???

I wasn't too close. The left turn light was mounted on a post/pole, not overhead, so the height of the semi blocked the view. And as The Janitor noted another set of lights on the shoulder/median would solve the problem which I have seen at certain intersections.