Lane Splitting.

[reks95]

The road to hell is paved with federal matching funds.

[PhilB]

I'm all for constitutionality and limited government. Many agencies overstep their bounds from time to time and yes, I'm sure checks fail as they sometimes succeed. But how an agency was formed and the process to which authority is assigned in most cases, particularly benign entities for the public good, are absolutely done within the legal and Constitutional framework of our government. Whether an agency steps beyond their powers or authority is another discussion.

Not if the agency isn't within the Constitutional boundaries in the first place. The Constitution gives the federal government NO authority for education, healthcare, and so on. It gives the federal government NO authority to decide what we may eat or drink or smoke, or to ban any substances. It gives the federal government authority for roads only to the extent of having enough of them to deliver the mail on. The amount of our federal government that is un-Constitutional is above 80%, probably closer to 90%. Being OK with that, being an apologist for that, is not being "all for constitutionality and limited government".

PhilB

[scottieducati]

Not if the agency isn't within the Constitutional boundaries in the first place. The Constitution gives the federal government NO authority for education, healthcare, and so on. It gives the federal government NO authority to decide what we may eat or drink or smoke, or to ban any substances. It gives the federal government authority for roads only to the extent of having enough of them to deliver the mail on. The amount of our federal government that is un-Constitutional is above 80%, probably closer to 90%. Being OK with that, being an apologist for that, is not being "all for constitutionality and limited government".

PhilB

I guess if you think the end all be all is the specific words written in the constitution, versus the framework it set up for our government to work, which allows a Congress to make laws, or create agencies, which are signed off by the Executive branch and confirmed by the Judicial branch. How again is that unconstitutional? The constitution is not a list of DOs and DON'Ts, it's a framework for the government to DO things in a balanced, or checked, way. You can argue that making and enforcing regulations within an independent agency is unconstitutional although the commonly accepted Constitutional defense of that is they are subject to congressional and executive oversight, but I still fail to see how you can invalidate an act of congress checked by other branches as unconstitutional as it's exactly what our government is supposed to do. And congress is tasked with providing for the general welfare of the citizens.

[PhilB]

I guess if you think the end all be all is the specific words written in the constitution, versus the framework it set up for our government to work, which allows a Congress to make laws, or create agencies, which are signed off by the Executive branch and confirmed by the Judicial branch. How again is that unconstitutional? The constitution is not a list of DOs and DON'Ts, it's a framework for the government to DO things in a balanced, or checked, way. You can argue that making and enforcing regulations within an independent agency is unconstitutional although the commonly accepted Constitutional defense of that is they are subject to congressional and executive oversight, but I still fail to see how you can invalidate an act of congress checked by other branches as unconstitutional as it's exactly what our government is supposed to do. And congress is tasked with providing for the general welfare of the citizens.

The end-all be-all IS the specific words written in the Constitution. Our Constitution was written to define and limit government. The list of enumerated powers, Article I Section 8, is ALL that the federal government was delegated the power to do. Nothing else, just that. The Constitution IS exactly "a list of DOs and DON'Ts" -- it says what they are allowed the power to do, and lists a lot of things they are not allowed to do (mostly in the Bill of Rights). Our Constitution is not a set of vague suggestions about governance; it is supposed to be the supreme law of the land, and to be protected and abided by to the letter (as every government official still swears to do).

And no, the "general welfare" clause is NOT a blanket statement that lets the government do whatever it thinks is a good idea. That would make the entire rest of the document pointless.
And no, the "interstate commerce" clause is NOT permission to micromanage every aspect of every issue that involves a product that ever gets sold between states.

The courts have generally ruled expansively on these issues, but that does not make them right -- they have permitted massive violations of the Constitution.

PhilB

[butcher bergs]

I'm using the dictionary definition here, rather than the obviously sarcastic definition I smacked you with in that thread, which was based on your misuse of the word.

PhilB

I'd question the supposed sarcasm from your post but to say you "smacked" me with it?


Holier than thou ego much?

I am reasonably certain I used the word as it is properly defined from the get go. You simply didnt agree with my view of the morals behind exploiting loopholes repeatedly and continuously, hence my question to you in this thread.

Please, carry on.

[PhilB]

I'd question the supposed sarcasm from your post but to say you "smacked" me with it?


Holier than thou ego much?

I am reasonably certain I used the word as it is properly defined from the get go. You simply didnt agree with my view of the morals behind exploiting loopholes repeatedly and continuously, hence my question to you in this thread.

Please, carry on.

You used the word to accuse someone of a lack of integrity for not following the rules in the way you would like them to have, even though the person in question DID follow the rules as written, and was entirely legal the whole time. The person in question also did not harm or victimize anyone with his actions, or violate anyone's rights, or otherwise act unethically. Thus your use of the word was false, which is why I employed sarcasm to present the definition of the word as you were using it.

Integrity, ethics, honesty, morals are not about following the laws and rules. Often, they have to be about *breaking* laws and rules, when those laws and rules are in the wrong (which is often the case). They are about doing what's right, not what's legal.

PhilB

[jwm2k3]

i split lanes whenever i deem it necessary. legal or not.

Amen buddy!

[scottieducati]

The courts have generally ruled expansively on these issues, but that does not make them right -- they have permitted massive violations of the Constitution.PhilB

The courts have permitted massive violations of *your interpretation of* the Constitution.

"In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions. As Chief Justice Marshall noted in McCulloch v. Maryland, a constitution that attempted to detail every aspect of its own application "would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. . . . Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves.""

Here's two polar opposite current SCJ's take on interpretation, interesting read: Supreme Court Justices Scalia And Breyer Share Candid Conversation About The Constitution : NPR

[PhilB]

The courts have permitted massive violations of *your interpretation of* the Constitution.

"In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions. As Chief Justice Marshall noted in McCulloch v. Maryland, a constitution that attempted to detail every aspect of its own application "would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. . . . Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves.""

Here's two polar opposite current SCJ's take on interpretation, interesting read: Supreme Court Justices Scalia And Breyer Share Candid Conversation About The Constitution : NPR

As a parent, would you let the children choose the babysitter? Do you think that they would pick the one who makes them follow the rules, eat a good dinner, and go to bed on time, or the one that gives them cookies for dinner and lets them run amok until they hear your car in the driveway? You could write all the rules you like, but if those supposedly subject to those rules get to choose the enforcers, it's no surprise that said rules might turn out to be honour'd more in the breach than the observance.

Too bad ghosts aren't real. We could have séances and get the people who wrote the thing to enforce it. Our government would look a damn sight different than it does.

Let me guess:
You think that the fact that internal police investigations very rarely result in real disciplinary action is due entirely to honest justice and there is no bias involved.
You think the fact that grand juries indict cops less than 10% of the time, and the rest of us more than 90% of the time, is also a true reflection of fairness and justice.

PhilB

[BMMCBR]

How many more posts until this ends up in Controversial Topics? Bets?

[GixerJockey]

PhilB is posting nonsense, isn't he?

[PhilB]

PhilB is posting nonsense, isn't he?

I accept no responsibility for anyone's lack of ability to comprehend the issues of the day.

PhilB

[aldend123]

I accept no responsibility for anyone's lack of ability to comprehend the issues of the day.

PhilB

You're going about it wrong. You're supposed to keep it light, and maybe throw a joke in or two.

In all seriousness, while you can be a bit pedantic, the general contempt for some of your posts/opinions reflect the overall population's perception that there's not much that needs fixing, or a disinterest in hearing about what is broken. I believe the same problem you're pointing out is what helped implement the 50-state 55mph speed limit. Federal money also pays for some checkpoints, and extra "traffic enforcement", doesn't it?

[jwm2k3]

This one time, in band camp...

[PhilB]

You're going about it wrong. You're supposed to keep it light, and maybe throw a joke in or two.

In all seriousness, while you can be a bit pedantic, the general contempt for some of your posts/opinions reflect the overall population's perception that there's not much that needs fixing, or a disinterest in hearing about what is broken. I believe the same problem you're pointing out is what helped implement the 50-state 55mph speed limit. Federal money also pays for some checkpoints, and extra "traffic enforcement", doesn't it?

Well, yes, that's what the bread and circuses are for.

There's a lot that is broken and needs fixing. I'm willing to advocate for knowing that and trying to fix things, even if it causes some to think poorly of me.
Those who prefer to keep their heads in the sand may do so; I can't force anyone to pay attention or to care.
But I can speak up, for and to those who give a damn.

PhilB

[oVTo]

I hate to interrupt this thread on personal interpretations of the U.S. constitution, but I thought it was interesting that after 3 days, fewer than 2,000 people have signed the petition.

That's 1,500 less than the one that's requesting Obama to ask Modi, "Why the Indian constitution labels Sikhs as Hindus while attending Constitution Day events on January 26. I'm guessing it probably has something to do with limiting the power of the Indian federal government to what the maharaja intended.

[SVRACER01]

Yeah, it's kind of a big deal. Just ask Louisiana why their drinking age is 21 (hint: It wasn't, until the government threatened to pull their highway funding)

that happens all the time. even in non government stuff. Arizona was told that would never get a super bowl until they recognized MLK day. they called it civil rights day (IIRC) and voila...super bowl.

[oVTo]

BikeBandit.com posted an article about pending state-level lane-splitting legislation.

Unfortunately nothing in our area, but maybe if it gets through in a few other states...

[jwm2k3]

C'mon spring!!!!

I gots lane splitting to do....

[MoXzilla]

C'mon spring!!!!

I gots lane splitting to do....

Oh yess I fully agree!!!

[nhbubba]

I know I'm a long whinded sob.. but this guy makes me look downright concise.
Still.. not a horrible video on this issue. Nice demonstration on how drama free riding between cars can be.
I frickin' love how polite the drivers are, how many move over a little in their lane, and then there's the part showing drivers using their turn signals. Weird shit, yo.

[obsolete]

Great video... on mute lol.

[cdovego]

People are lane splitting drama free, right now in places not called Massachusetts.

[nhbubba]

It just amazes me how some riders cannot accept that.
"I'm not comfortable with it, I would never do it" morphs directly to "it's unsafe and reflects poorly on riders, it should be illegal".

[jasnmar]

"I'm not comfortable with it, I would never do it" morphs directly to "it's unsafe and reflects poorly on riders, it should be illegal".

It's a problem with society. "I would never do it, so it should be illegal".