Posted on 09/15/2005 8:35:32 PM PDT by Westlander
BOSTON -- It's cold, it's snowing, and there's ice and snow on the car. So you hop in and go without clearing off all the winter precipitation.
That might soon be against the law in Massachusetts.
The state Legislature is considering a bill that would mean fines of up to $500 and a six-month stay in jail.
The bill is designed to reduce the danger from chunks of snow and ice flying off car roofs or hoods.
If it passes, Massachusetts could become the first state to require snow- and ice-free cars.
OK, so driving is a right. Then what is the legal basis for a state's requirement that all drivers must be licensed, and all vehicles using public roads must be properly registered?
The fact that even a Federal law as intrusive and unreasonable as the ADA does not require states to allow blind people to drive cars ought to be a lesson to anyone who insists on bending over backwards to grant people this idiotic "right" to operate a vehicle on a public roadway.
Who said anything about speed limits? You'll never find a post from me here on FreeRepublic suggesting that speed limits (as they are usually implemented and enforced) have anything to do with motor vehicle safety.
Are you suggesting that the government should not be in the business of requiring drivers licenses?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting.
If you don't want the state licensing drivers, then the state shouldn't be in the business of building the damn roads in the first place.
I have a job that requires I drive 60,000 mi per year in a car(sometimes SUV) in the snow belt. This has never been a big problem for me.
I would like to think this is just another example of liberal lunacy, but more likely its another tax disugised as a fine for some alleged wrong doing.
Its called 14th amendment citizen vis-a-vis the ss#; and allowing the state to title your car.
I'm willing to bet that the state of Massachusetts will raise almost ZERO revenue from this.
I suspect that the primary reason for this law is to assign formal legal responsibility in cases where cars are driving around with snow blowing off their hoods and trunks. A driver who is unwilling or unable to clear all the snow and ice off his vehicle will basically be unable to use an "act of God" defense in a civil lawsuit if a someone behind him is struck by flying debris from his vehicle.
Uh, wrong answer.
You'd be hard-pressed to find more than a handful of people in this country who don't derive a substantial benefit from the public roads in this country -- even those who never spend a single minutre driving on them. And I'd say anyone who doesn't benefit from these public thoroughfares probably isn't paying any taxes anyway.
I have found driving to be a necessity and not a privilege. And those advocating the "privilege" talking points usually want to do so to drive through some new nanny-state revenue generator. Those who empower government don't get safety. They get an empowered government.
Instrusive and unreasonable according to whom? It is the law of the land.
Are you aware of the person who had to crawl hands and knees up the steps to the second floor of a public building in order to enter the courtroom for his case to be heard in Tennessee because the building was not handicapped-accessible?
Go back and read the law please if you will: The ADA is about 'reasonable accommodation'; care to dispute THAT?
It is NOT 'reasonable' from your hollow example to have blind people driving vehicles.
It IS 'reasonable' to believe people with certain physical limitations may not be able to observe the proposed law to pristinely clean their vehicles of all snow and ice (those with wheelchairs; those with heart conditions; those with other debilitating conditions), while still maintaining an overall ability to operate a vehicle in any manner other than the rest of us do on a daily basis.
I am sure the Pope you quote in your 'about page' would be very proud of the stance you have taken. It is, after all, very Catholic and very Christian, isn't it?
Maybe you need some work with disabilities' awareness and with sensitivity training. Obviously, the Pope hasn't yet touched that part of your psyche.
Before you start cavalierly throwing around "rights" like that, just understand that when you give these "rights" to people you can't subjectively decide to take them away from some people but not others.
Believe it or not, it is "intrusive and unreasonable" according to the Federal government of the United States. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is only "the law of the land" because it was enacted before Congress -- in enacting one of the key provisions of the Contract with America that propelled the GOP to gain control of both houses of Congress in 1994 -- passed the "unfunded mandates" statute that strictly prohibits the Federal government from mandating expenditures at the state or local level unless it also provides the funding to enable the states or localities to meet those mandates.
The ADA would never be enacted today because Uncle Sam doesn't have the resources to pay for every single wheelchair ramp, elevator, Braille-translated public document, wheelchair-accessible bus or train, etc. in the nation.
I am sure the Pope you quote in your 'about page' would be very proud of the stance you have taken. It is, after all, very Catholic and very Christian, isn't it?
There is absolutely nothing Christian about the ADA. In fact, I contend that it is very un-Christian at its very root. Some people see a person crawling on his hands and knees up the steps to the second floor of a public building in Tennessee, and they decide to do the Christian thing and help him -- even if it means carrying him on my back. Other people see a person crawling on his hands and knees up the steps to the second floor of a public building in Tennessee, and they call for the government to "fix the problem" so they themselves don't have to help the guy up the stairs.
If you can cite anything in Holy Scripture or in Christian tradition that supports with your statist notion of helping the disabled, then please do so.
It IS 'reasonable' to believe people with certain physical limitations may not be able to observe the proposed law to pristinely clean their vehicles of all snow and ice (those with wheelchairs; those with heart conditions; those with other debilitating conditions), while still maintaining an overall ability to operate a vehicle in any manner other than the rest of us do on a daily basis.
I will make the case that someone who is incapable of ensuring that his or her vehicle is in safe working order has no business getting behind the wheel.
What do your wheelchair-bound, elderly drivers do if they get a flat tire on the side of the road?
They would call for help, call AAA, or wait for the police to come along to offer assistance.
Like I said, the Pope does not seem to have touched that part of your psyche having to do with compassion for those with disabilities using your example.
Guess you were probably part of the anti-Schiavo crowd too: put her out of her misery; she's consuming too many resources (like food and water for instance)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.