[DanMiller]

I think it is "nanny state legislation" and, as with many others, coercion is based on additional federal funding for the states that comply and reductions in existing federal funding for those states that don't. In addition, the Secretary of Transportation would have the authority to adopt regulations going beyond those specifically stated in the legislation. Then, the initially compliant states would be stuck with the new regulations as well as those in which they had initially acquiesced.

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.

[C. Edmund Wright]

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.