Congress: Breathalyzers in Every Car

[ihateiraq]

Nah I think it is either Nancy-Boy Day, or Smart*** Little **** Day...

is that sgt elias in your avatar?

 

[cosermann]

I'm afraid many have come to view the Constitution incorrectly, as in, "if it doesn't say the Feds cannot do it, then they can."

The 10th Amendment of the Constitution reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In other words the Federal government can only do what the Constitution says they can do. Nothing more. It is NOT an, "if the Constitution doesn't say the Feds CAN'T do it then they CAN," situation, but a, "if the Constitution doesn't say the Feds CAN do it they CAN'T," situation! That's how it was supposed to be anyway.

National defense, foreign policy, and interstate trade are about all the Federal Government is supposed to do. Which means just about everything they're doing nowadays is UNCONSTITUTIONAL whether the majority of justices on the SCOTUS recognize it or not!

 

[Lawguns]

I think you guys are missing some things here.
#1 By law driving is not a right by law. It is a privilege.
#2 This would not constitute a search by law because it is not being enforced by the police and failing would not cause you to be arrested.
#3 Studies have been made people driving with a BAC of .05 g/210 l of breath are more likely to be involved in an accident then people with a BAC of .04g/210 l of breath.

http://www.intox.com/physiology.asp (although this chart is not exactly the same as I was taught this chart it is close and was quick to find.)

I neither wish to pay for this when I buy a vehicle nor do I wish to pay for this with taxes however drink driving causes more deaths then guns in this country every year and also causes accident and ties up the police on the street and the court system. If this were a successful program we would open up resources and tax dollars to do other things in our community.
Having said that I think that this should be handled at the state level so that each state can set their requirements. Of course if the Federal government wants this implemented then they will withhold federal funding for highways and other projects until the states follow suit and I don't agree to this.

 

[TopDog]

My choice was not on the list.
I support fully for all vehicles of congress persons and senators.
For the general public not mandatory as most folks are getting to the point they afford to drink.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I think you guys are missing some things here.
#1 By law driving is not a right by law. It is a privilege.
#2 This would not constitute a search by law because it is not being enforced by the police and failing would not cause you to be arrested.
#3 Studies have been made people driving with a BAC of .05 g/210 l of breath are more likely to be involved in an accident then people with a BAC of .04g/210 l of breath.

http://www.intox.com/physiology.asp (although this chart is not exactly the same as I was taught this chart it is close and was quick to find.)

I neither wish to pay for this when I buy a vehicle nor do I wish to pay for this with taxes however drink driving causes more deaths then guns in this country every year and also causes accident and ties up the police on the street and the court system. If this were a successful program we would open up resources and tax dollars to do other things in our community.
Having said that I think that this should be handled at the state level so that each state can set their requirements. Of course if the Federal government wants this implemented then they will withhold federal funding for highways and other projects until the states follow suit and I don't agree to this.

I hear this often: "...it would free up resources to do other things in our community...", however I seldom see it happen and I never see those excess funds returned to the people from whom they are extorted in taxes.
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." --Thomas Jefferson

I'm afraid many have come to view the Constitution incorrectly, as in, "if it doesn't say the Feds cannot do it, then they can."

The 10th Amendment of the Constitution reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In other words the Federal government can only do what the Constitution says they can do. Nothing more. It is NOT an, "if the Constitution doesn't say the Feds CAN'T do it then they CAN," situation, but a, "if the Constitution doesn't say the Feds CAN do it they CAN'T," situation! That's how it was supposed to be anyway.

National defense, foreign policy, and interstate trade are about all the Federal Government is supposed to do. Which means just about everything they're doing nowadays is UNCONSTITUTIONAL whether the majority of justices on the SCOTUS recognize it or not!

This ^^
They abuse the "Interstate Commerce Clause" and thus, I would remove the power to control interstate commerce or at worst, give it to SCOTUS to oversee.

Rep added.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[cosermann]

One more thing in the Ninth Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In otherwords, the Constitution is not an exhaustive list of rights. You have rights that are NOT enumerated in the Constitution. The Constitution merely "hits the high spots" when it comes to individual liberties and identifies those that are important politically and secure other rights.

So, another misconception is, "if the Constitution doesn't say I have a right, then I don't have it." Or, if the Constitution doesn't secure a particular right, then the Federal government is free to trample on it and/or deny it with impunity. Wrong!

The Constitution merely "secures" rights, it does NOT grant them.

However, if we all don't assert and defend our rights, they may eventually be taken away. History demonstrates this tendancy and we're already some distance down that path, imo.

 

[rambone]

One more thing in the Ninth Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In otherwords, the Constitution is not an exhaustive list of rights. You have rights that are NOT enumerated in the Constitution. The Constitution merely "hits the high spots" when it comes to individual liberties and identifies those that are important politically and secure other rights.

So, another misconception is, "if the Constitution doesn't say I have a right, then I don't have it." Or, if the Constitution doesn't secure a particular right, then the Federal government is free to trample on it and/or deny it with impunity. Wrong!

The Constitution merely "secures" rights, it does NOT grant them.

However, if we all don't assert and defend our rights, they may eventually be taken away. History demonstrates this tendancy and we're already some distance down that path, imo.

Thank you. This is how I was taught as well. This applies to driving on the roads that we pay for in taxes, policed by cops that we pay for in taxes, regulated by politicians we pay for in taxes.

 

[Leadeye]

You can bet the real driving force behind the legislation is coming from the people who make the machines. Follow the money.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

Why stop at breathalyzers? Put in an in-dash video game that tests reflexes, decision-making, judgment, etc? Afterall, those old folks doing 50 in the left lane of a 70 zone are a much greater roadway hazard than someone who's BAC is 0.04 & is quite used to it.

Or, I know! Let's clone Gilbert Gottfried & install a copy in everyone's passenger seat. He'll keep nagging you until you drive safely.

Ultimately, it keeps coming back to one very simple fact: most people don't know how to drive. I remember my driver's ed class...we didn't learn crap. Driving straight, staying between the lines, signaling lane changes (apparently I took the deluxe class), etc. We didn't learn skid control, emergency braking maneuvers, inclement weather driving...nothin'. These are things I had to experiment with first in video games--which I felt had semi-realistic physics--then in my own car in parking lots & deserted stretches of road when the opportunity arose. Unfortunately, most people aren't as interested in such things as I am.

Heck, I'd sooner mandate that part of the driver's ed courses is to include a demolition derby--paid for by ticket sales--in which only the top 75% of drivers receive their licenses. This would expose new drivers to the physics at work in a collision, teach them how to drive defensively, & hopefully make them respect driving while weeding out the less talented drivers.

I'm not saying that's a good idea...I'm just saying it's a better idea than increasing the cost of automobiles--already a crippling cost for many--by adding an electro-nanny. At least the Training-Derbies would be educational, entertaining, & capable of producing revenue...

 

[SavageEagle]

I think you guys are missing some things here.
#1 By law driving is not a right by law. It is a privilege.

First let me say that this whole thing is and if it ever gets implemented we're all in trouble and waiting for an election will be pointless.

Second, driving is not a priviledge. The Drivers LICENSE is a priviledge, but to say that I can't own and use a piece of property on roads that we all pay for is, to me, asinine. You didn't see people having to have a horse riding license, or license plate their horses and carriage did you? Those things were FAR more dangerous than cars. Plus they shat wherever they wanted to and you weren't forced to clean it up creating a smelly, nasty hazard in every street in town.

So from then, to now, what changed? Speed? So what? A drunk on a horse could trample people just as easily as a drunk in a car. A horse and carriage that comes unhooked could do as much damage as a speeding car. I fail to see how driving a car has become a priviledge.

When you take away someone's RIGHT to drive a car, you take away their RIGHT to travel freely as they please. This is a God Given Right just like the 1st and 2nd. It wasn't enumerated, I would think, because no one fathomed a government that would require a license to be ABLE to travel...

Public transportation you say? Taxi Cabs? You still can't travel freely as you wish and carry what you wish. You are constrained by their limits and rules. You can't take a taxi cab on vacation. You can't make a bus stop and wait on you while you photograph a bear on the side of the road.

Driving a car is not a priviledge. It is a right that the government snatched up from us and FORCED into a priviledge.

Why no one will challenge this to the fullest extent is beyond me.

 

[ihateiraq]

you can use the roads, and travel all day. you just have to walk.

 

[SavageEagle]

you can use the roads, and travel all day. you just have to walk.

EEEEEEEERRRRRRR Wrong. You cannot walk on the interstates and if you're caught walking through some towns/hiways, they'll arrest you for vagrancy/loitering.

 

[ihateiraq]

well, i guess youd better get a map, a compass, and some good hiking boots.

 

[SavageEagle]

So you support this infringement on your rights?

 

[Yamaha]

CDC - Impaired Driving

Let's say that the population of the United States is about 305 million people.
This gives us each about a 0.004% chance of being killed in an alcohol-impaired driving crash each year.

Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I usually get the feeling that most things legislative follow this general plan:
Phase 1: Get Congress to push special interests
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Profit

Just like a classic south park episode

Phase 1: Collect Underpants
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Profit



it is just the same as catalytic converters, if the car was before OBD II, they disappear....

 

[ihateiraq]

So you support this infringement on your rights?

not really. but what will be will be. getting all worked up over it wont change anything.

 

[SavageEagle]

not really. but what will be will be. getting all worked up over it wont change anything.

Uh, WHAT? I'm sorry, I think you just said "Sit down you whiny little Subject and drink your kool-aid like the government told you to!"

If not that's what I understand. You just basiclly said that standing up and saying enough is enough isn't going to change anything. I know millions of American's who would beg to differ.

 

[ihateiraq]

Uh, WHAT? I'm sorry, I think you just said "Sit down you whiny little Subject and drink your kool-aid like the government told you to!"

If not that's what I understand. You just basiclly said that standing up and saying enough is enough isn't going to change anything. I know millions of American's who would beg to differ.

wow. i barely know hundreds of americans period, nonetheless ones that would beg to differ. in all seriousness though, i know its a touchy subject with some people around here, but im just not that worried about things in america yet. using little catch phrases like kool-aid arent any more liable to convince me of the direness of the situation either. maybe it will come to me, in time, but until then i guess well have to agree to disagree.

p.s. i know this is where i get told by that time it will be too late, and im unamerican, and im a sheep, etc etc.

 

[SavageEagle]

wow. i barely know hundreds of americans period, nonetheless ones that would beg to differ. in all seriousness though, i know its a touchy subject with some people around here, but im just not that worried about things in america yet. using little catch phrases like kool-aid arent any more liable to convince me of the direness of the situation either. maybe it will come to me, in time, but until then i guess well have to agree to disagree.

p.s. i know this is where i get told by that time it will be too late, and im unamerican, and im a sheep, etc etc.

I don't personally know millions of Americans either. But I do know millions of Tea Party Patriots that ARE making a difference by being heard. I'm sorry, but if you don't think that America is in such dire straights then I can only assume you are still in Iraq or you don't watch TV, get on the internet, or leave your house. Things are more dire in this Country than they have been since the 1920's-30's if not worse. We are upon a depression and turning into a socialist Country and on the ledge of losing all our rights. You are considered a Domestic Terrorist.

How can you not think America is in serious trouble?

 

[ihateiraq]

I don't personally know millions of Americans either. But I do know millions of Tea Party Patriots that ARE making a difference by being heard. I'm sorry, but if you don't think that America is in such dire straights then I can only assume you are still in Iraq or you don't watch TV, get on the internet, or leave your house. Things are more dire in this Country than they have been since the 1920's-30's if not worse. We are upon a depression and turning into a socialist Country and on the ledge of losing all our rights. You are considered a Domestic Terrorist.

How can you not think America is in serious trouble?

yes, i am still in iraq, but i do watch the news. im not saying america is not in serious trouble. but it is not to the point where the damage is irreparable. until someone proclaims themselves to be president for life, theres always a way out.