Posted on 03/15/2012 8:26:19 AM PDT by Ollies girl
Congressman Allen West announced his support and co-sponsorship of the Safe Teen and Novice Uniform Protection, or STANDUP Act, at a teen driving event at Jupiter High School on Tuesday, as reported in BPR’s March 14 article “Allen West hits a Porsche while simulating texting and driving.”
The act, if passed, would ban teens from driving while texting, restrict driving with other teens and impose other limitations on young drivers. With 50 members of Congress, the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office and Allstate Insurance Co., among others, signed on, the bill seems to be “in good hands.”
But the conservative congressman, normally a prime target for left-wing criticism, is being blasted from his base on this one.
(Excerpt) Read more at bizpacreview.com ...
I agree with you. Texting while driving is stupid and very dangerous to anyone on any road. It should be outlawed everywhere, enforced and punished with loss of license. This is one instance where a uniform national policy would be a good thing. Where ever you find yourself in the USA you will lose your license if you are caught texting while driving. Enforce that for 6 monthes and it would no longer be a problem.
You make some good points, but with due respect, your conclusion is ludicrous. Allen West did not invent the notion that we have an interstate highway system, but we do. Thus, driving cannot be a “state” issue.
It just can’t. So to say West should be ashamed is a knee jerk over react. To disagree is something else. But sorry, you cannot justify interstate highways as a state issue. Think of the practical impossibilties of what you are saying .
C for your info Interstate Highways belong to the states not the feds.
>>>Speaker of the FL House Dean Cannon says it infringes on personal freedoms and that there are many more things besides texting that can cause a driver to be distracted.
Can’t say I disagree with him.<<<
I think that argument is bull. Texting is clearly a huge distraction, both to the eyes, mind and hands.
You could make the same argument about drunkeness. Other things cause accidents besides drunk driving, so why violate “personal freedoms” by banning drunk driving?
States should strongly consider this type of legislation. But, the Federal government trying to force states to do this is an outrageous assault on states rights.
That is the way these things work. There is no violation of the Tenth Amendment per se. However, the legislation would further diminish the abilities of the states to adopt their own requirements, suited to them, in favor of a one size fits all policy.
I respect Colonel West and, given an opportunity, would vote for him for President enthusiastically. However, I think he got stuck in a trap here. He should change his mind and so state.
But in practicality, it’s a “joint venture” at best and besides, the very nature of how they connect states to each other make it a really bad issue to bring states rights into.
This is just a stupid hill to die on when there are so many agregious and pure tenth amendment and nanny issues out there. This issue does not fit that category and while some points can be made here or there, it simply is a poor issue to make a states rights stand on.
I understand the coercion issue of federal highway funding and that is problematic.
Having said that, driving habits are not an issue of privacy unless you are on your own land. Sorry, this is totally different than smoking in your car or any other issue on a very practical issue.
You can get all righteous all you want, but driving on a shared road is only private activity under the “your right to swing your fist stops at my face” theory.
There is no right to drive carelessly on shared roads because that infringes on the rights of others driving on those roads.
Show me in the constitution where the feds have the power.
So, age discrimination is OK under certain circumstances "to keep us safe"? Why not do the common sense thing and make driving while distracted a ticketable offense, no matter who it is, or how old they are? The proof would have to be a demonstrated loss of control of the vehicle - weaving etc. We are in the mess we are in because very time someone sees the potential for something bad to happen, they make a new and specific law, whcih adds up to the point where there are so many laws that nobody can keep track of them. I'd wager that most of us, going through a normal law-abiding day, break a few laws we aren't even aware of.
Nonsense! The MOST the Federal government should do is set minimum licensing standards, that would allow other states to decide not to honor licenses from states that don’t comply.
For example, if Vermont gave licenses to 12 year olds, with little or no training, Maryland should not have to honor Vermont licenses (though it would be free to do so if it chooses to). Other than that, the Fed should stay out of intrastate driving.
Are the Feds making trying to impose these requirements, ONLY for driving on interstate highways or all roads?
You might not be aware that that same “interstate highway” argument has been used to argue that practically ALL commerce, is interstate commerce, and therefore subject to Federal regulation, because it takes place in the vicinity of an interstate highway.
I think I understand your argument, and I’m not sure I disagree, but I’m having trouble distinguishing the effect of this bill with others that are more clearly an issue.
For example, If I am driving through a state, I become subject to the whims of people in that state who now have access to me. Some legislators think that carrying handguns is a threat to public order, and so want restrictions on that right, which most of us here think is at LEAST a state’s rights issue (we don’t think states have a lot of right to restrict either, but that’s another argument).
But what if the feds decided to say that people on interstates could not carry weapons, and told states to change their carry laws thusly or lose highway funds. How would that be different in principle than the feds telling states not to allow children to text while driving, or to set the ages at which kids were allowed to drive, or put restrictions on kids driving at night until the reach a particular age (the bill seems to cover more than just texting after all)?
Is the mere fact of an interstate highway system enough for conservatives to cede to the federal government power over all state laws as they relate to those highways?
This issue came up with the speed limit laws, and the laws prohibiting states from allowing private vendors to run rest stops on the interstate system. The feds use this to stick their noses WAY under the tent.
As another example, since people drive cars on the interstate, would we be unable to argue “states rights” if the feds decided to make a national safety inspection regime, and required every state to force all their residents to do these inspections and put stickers on their cars?
The feds of course already do stuff like this, for emmissions standards, in areas where they deem pollution to be too severe. So it’s not like we haven’t already LOST the argument.
But I’m not sure I’d say that ANY hill which fights back in any way against this isn’t a good hill to start with. You won’t start taking back the territory if you keep ceding more of it.
BTW, I have nothing against Allen West, and I’m not trying to attack HIM for this bill (I remember when he was pilloried for voting on the debt ceiling increase — you can’t be a legislator without occasionally casting votes that upset people).
Welcome aboard. May your stay be pleasant as well as informative. Just roll with the punches. This site can get a bit rough at times.
>>>I understand the coercion issue of federal highway funding and that is problematic.
Having said that, driving habits are not an issue of privacy unless you are on your own land. Sorry, this is totally different than smoking in your car or any other issue on a very practical issue.
You can get all righteous all you want, but driving on a shared road is only private activity under the “your right to swing your fist stops at my face” theory.
There is no right to drive carelessly on shared roads because that infringes on the rights of others driving on those roads.<<<
I agree 100%. That is why STATES should have laws to promote safe driving. The FEDERAL government has absolutely no business getting involved, however.
Some laws designed to prevent drivers from texting and doing other stupid things would likely be beneficial. However, that does not mean that this a matter as to which the Federal Government should preempt the abilities of the states to adopt such legislation as they may decide is best for them. Things may well be different in, for example, Montana than in Pennsylvania. If the states were homogeneous, they might be unnecessary.
Looks like West has been drinking the Kool-Aid!
An under 10 minute animated video explaining government.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUS1m5MSt9k
Looks like West has been drinking the Kool-Aid!
An under 10 minute animated video explaining government.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUS1m5MSt9k
Looks like West has been drinking the Kool-Aid!
An under 10 minute animated video explaining government.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUS1m5MSt9k
busting her/him, er that is no where near busting trust me, it;s a question but seeing as you brought it up then a person just joins, finds a negative and posts it on a guy who is rising .
Yep that deserves a question by some I reckon by you maybe not.
Texting while driving is stupid, dangerous and can have serious consequences to others on the road, not just yourself. My mother was T-boned and injured by a woman yakking on a hand-held cell phone, which isn't as dangerous as texting. FWIW, a teen is actually less dangerous while texting than an older adult. But they are also more likely to engage in this asinine behavior.
I agree with you, however, in principle about tryng to keep these regulations away from Fedzilla. Particularly now that states are passing these laws.
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.