Hondas_Only

http://hamptonroads.com/2009/04/virg...constitutional

I bet if we went through the list of state laws line by line, i guarantee that we would find a hell of a lot more!

I also love how we have a police force that isnt free thinking and that would rather exercise 'authority' over common sense thinking and good judgment.

We have a ton of laws that have no real definition and basically let police do whatever they want because it APPEARS to be legal. How about we have a requirement that police know the constitution? even better, how about we have a constitutional committee at each level of government that challenges the constitutionality of laws before they are passed?

Gotta love big outta control government

El Negro

So what you're saying is, we need a smaller police force, but a larger government?


I mean, if you want a committee at every level to review the constitutionality of every law before it's even voted on, that sounds like a lot of overhead.

R. Danneskjöld

Hes saying we need another giant govt organization to install committees at every level of govt right on down to the local police force, but then he says F big govt

El Negro

Doesn't make sense to me either.

I mean, since we already have one separate branch of the government that is in charge of determining the constitutionality of laws that are challenged, someone who hates big government wants add even more to it....


....but pay lower taxes.

Fabrik8

I don't think that's what this is about. Whether a law is deemed unconstitutional is a separate issue than whether that law can actually be enforced properly and accurately. A law was passed without an actual way to enforce it competently. Some areas in other states that have noise ordinances issue decibel meters to officers to measure exhaust noise level during traffic stops. Virginia doesn't issue dB meters, and there is no way to measure decibel level by ear. So I agree that without a way to enforce the law, the law is unfair. I also would agree that there is no reason to judge the constitutionality of every law that is proposed, because it is not necessary in most instances. If the proper legwork is done during the proposal process, it should already be known whether it is constitutional or not, except in rare cases that have to be determined down the road a while. So I guess I'm not sure what this argument is really about.

You wouldn't expect that a speeding law would be passed without the police having radar/laser/etc guns, because that would be unconstitutional ("I'm not sure how fast you were going, but it looked over the speed limit..here's your ticket, see you in court"), and the noise ordinance is the same thing. People are educated enough in their daily lives to know that, but they obviously aren't educated enough to equip officers with dB meters while passing a noise ordinance. So the disconnect here isn't the lack of a constitutional review board, it's the lack of proper education of the lawmakers pertaining to the laws they are passing.

shawn22

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiX7G...eature=related

Hondas_Only

a constitutional committee could and would consist of people already in government and would only require 3-5 people. its not rocket science here. the constitution is cut and dry.

come on ben.. you know me and you know im for small government. im also against stupid government and daily we see signs that government is getting dumber and dumber daily.

thank you!

seriously dood, is there anything you DONT know? u must read a hell of a lot.

i totally agree that if our representatives were actually there to uphold the constitution first then represent the people we wouldnt have this problem. unfortunately, they want to please the people first. thats why we have shit like welfare and social security. but whatever.

basically

tail_ler

Technically to become a law it is considered constitutional. The problem is that laws are connected to the constitution in strange ways and thats when it goes to the supreme court, which is what happened in the U.S v. Lopez case

El Negro

Actually, they can. It's called pacing.

It also falls under the "reckless driving" or "Driving too fast for conditions" clauses. It's completely subjective and quite effective in convicting people. Also "following too closely", and "Aggressive driving".

Hondas_Only

fact is, most of these if not combined with a speeding infraction can be fought and won in court with a lawyer. its not that hard. i did it last week. LOL