RE-SPECGARAGE

Does this mean no more dumb ass exhaust tickets?

cause that shit is dumb.

El Negro

Which is how it should be, however, according to you, is not enough.

We need a larger government to go through the rules to see what is enough before and after the laws are passed to see if they are constitutional, right?

El Negro

As long as dumbasses still modify their exhausts, they will still receive tickets. It's not a noise ordinance, it's just illegal to modify your exhaust.

Hondas_Only

what's not enough, is the poor level of knowledge law enforcement and he legal system in general have with regard to knowing the foundation of our laws (the constitution). it shouldnt even have to get to the point of going to court or even wasting a charge on someone for something thats unconstitutional.

actually nothing i said says anythign about big government according to me. in fact, i said outright in my reply to you that im in favor of smaller government. going through our current laws might take time, but the fact that it would take a lot of work is the result of generations of unconstitutional law making, NOT simply having such a committee. once the laws were under control, we wouldnt need a whole bunch of people to go through a new law. it would only take 3 technically. and all they would have to do is present probably a 2 or 3 line blurb that explains why something is or is not constitutional.

you act like government is and or has to be this big complicated machine that needs legions of people to run efficiently. its really not that hard. thats why youre not required to even have an education in order to take office.

Fabrik8

I believe you're missing my point.

El Negro

No, actually, I'm not. Your point is just poorly supported by your argument.


It doesn't change the fact that you can't resolve both a smaller government and a committee to oversee the constitutionality of every law at every level of government.

Moreover, the idea that lawmakers should be "properly educated" on the laws seems to suggest that only legal scholars should be the ones who are elected to legislative bodies.

Fabrik8

Apparently I'm not skilled enough in the art of debate to have an off the cuff opinion, so I apologize.

I'm not sure where "proper education" broke down into "legal scholars".. Having someone tell you that a dB meter is necessary to enforce a law doesn't make you expert in either the technical or legal areas, but I think that's where my point was derailed. If you want to pick apart my informal example, that's fine, and I'll try to choose a more rigorous and well structured example for the next opinion thread.

I'm not really interested enough in this topic to add anything further; the soapbox is yours.

Hondas_Only

youre clearly not understanding the point that it doesnt require more people to create a committee. you can use people already employed by the tax payers to resolve these issues

and in case you didnt know, the constitution only has 20 some odd articles. it doesnt take a scholar to learn and develop an understanding of 20+ things. its not rocket science which is why i said it doesnt require a scholar to become a politician.

again, thats just you trying to make things seem way over complicated and they simply are not.

TRU

He is understanding your point. You are saying the constitution is cut and dry, which it is not. If it were cut and dry, problems like this wouldn't arise. Having a committee to check every law and every action of the government to make sure it is constitutional would take forever. The government already takes long enough to get shit done. The courts are there to decide if something is Constitutional or not when a problem arises with it. The government can't do everything, and if people feel that something is not right, they are encouraged to speak up. If you feel a law is unconstitutional, you have every right to try to fight it. Government can't do everything for the people.

El Negro

Appreciated, but my point was that as soon as you start removing judgment from laws, you start having the laws made by lawyers.



So you're saying that the lady who works at the parking meter office is qualified to determine whether something is constitutional or not?

It has 7 articles and 27 amendments. Considering that you are such a fan of the Constitution and didn't know that, I hardly expect the janitor down at the mayor's office would be able to gauge whether or not that latest development project is infringing on someone's constitutional rights or not.
Actually, I'm injecting what is called "reality" into a utopian argument.

He gets it. Smaller government comes from a more involved citizenry.