The "right" to speed on the highways [Wa.]

[tod evans]

Public announcement of the Just-Us" department policy that is nation wide...:mad:


It's the law: Washington state lawmakers don't get speeding tickets

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/16/it-law-washington-state-lawmakers-dont-get-speeding-tickets/?intcmp=latestnews

Washington state legislators headed to work can't get speeding tickets -- or so says the Washington State Patrol and at least one local police department.
A spokesman for WSP says Washington lawmakers are constitutionally protected from receiving noncriminal traffic tickets during a legislative session, as well as 15 days before. A spokeswoman says The Tacoma Police Department abides by a similar policy.
State Patrol spokesman Bob Calkins says the privilege not only applies to moving violations near the state Capitol in Olympia, but potentially anywhere in the state.
The logic? Detaining lawmakers on the road -- even for the time it takes to issue them a speeding ticket -- may delay them from getting to the Capitol to vote.

[eduardo89]

It's also in the US Constitution that Congressmen can't be detained on their way to the Capitol.


The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

[tod evans]

It's also in the US Constitution that Congressmen can't be detained on their way to the Capitol.

Arrested and cited for speeding are two distinctly separate things...

[eduardo89]

Arrested and cited for speeding are two distinctly separate things...

I know, but it is unconstitutional for congressmen to be even be stopped while on their way to and from Congress. That includes for speeding.

[tod evans]

I know, but it is unconstitutional for congressmen to be even be stopped while on their way to and from Congress. That includes for speeding.

As a layman I do not give what's written that broad of an interpretation.

It's exactly this type of twisting the constitution into something not explicitly written that has gotten us a large portion of our freedom curtailed..

[Anti Federalist]

As a layman I do not give what's written that broad of an interpretation.

It's exactly this type of twisting the constitution into something not explicitly written that has gotten us a large portion of our freedom curtailed..

Pipe down Mundane, before I thump your head for you.

Now, move along.

[jtap]

This reminds me of a good video I watched the other day about how the government (in this instance the Canadian government) is more interested in making money than setting proper speed limits for the mundanes.

Here's the video if you are interested:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BKdbxX1pDw


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BKdbxX1pDw

[Origanalist]

Why would anybody pull over a lawmaker? They make the laws, they don't have to follow them. That a good way for a cop to lose their job.......

[donnay]

Why would anybody pull over a lawmaker? They make the laws, they don't have to follow them. That a good way for a cop to lose their job.......

Yep. They make the laws, break the laws and know all the loop holes.

[Origanalist]

Yep. They make the laws, break the laws and know all the loop holes.

That's 'cause they made them there loopholes.

[jbauer]

As a layman I do not give what's written that broad of an interpretation.

It's exactly this type of twisting the constitution into something not explicitly written that has gotten us a large portion of our freedom curtailed..

Yeah, well, they use whats written there but still want to take our guns which is in plain F@cking English. So they'll do whatever they want to whenever its convenient for them.

[Acala]

There is actually a historical reason for this that does not have to do with creating a special class of exmpt rulers.

The British, in the role of our colonial overloards, had a nasty habit of breaking up legislative assemblies that got too uppity. Sometimes they just dispersed them with armed troops. Other times they detained representatives on the way to the assembly. The Constitution intended to prevent any such acts of tyranny. Not that, for example, Obama and Holder would use some petty law to keep undesirable legislators from getting to the vote . . .

Now further consider, how would you feel if Ron Paul had been "detained" on the roadside while he was on his way to an important vote? Does anyone doubt for a second that such tactics would be used if "needed"?

The fact that most legislators are pathetic, and should be detained permanently somewhere, should not obscure the sound reasoning behind the law.

I have to go the other way on this one. Let the assholes speed.

[Christian Liberty]

OK, here's the problem, IMO.

If speed limits were actually for "Safety" than of course the lawmakers, and cops, who speed should be punished, because they'd be endangering innocent people.

In reality, that's not what speed limits laws are about.

[tod evans]

No matter how a person chooses to phrase it, getting a speeding ticket doesn't reach the threshold of "detention"..

I'm sure that the photo/ticket machines have caught these idiots more than once.........Betcha a nickel they didn't pay that one either...

Just another piece of the "Just-Us" system that I despise...

[JK/SEA]

There is actually a historical reason for this that does not have to do with creating a special class of exmpt rulers.

The British, in the role of our colonial overloards, had a nasty habit of breaking up legislative assemblies that got too uppity. Sometimes they just dispersed them with armed troops. Other times they detained representatives on the way to the assembly. The Constitution intended to prevent any such acts of tyranny. Not that, for example, Obama and Holder would use some petty law to keep undesirable legislators from getting to the vote . . .

Now further consider, how would you feel if Ron Paul had been "detained" on the roadside while he was on his way to an important vote? Does anyone doubt for a second that such tactics would be used if "needed"?

The fact that most legislators are pathetic, and should be detained permanently somewhere, should not obscure the sound reasoning behind the law.

I have to go the other way on this one. Let the assholes speed.

i tend to agree.

My only question would be the un-thinkable. Speeding law maker causes fatal crash of a car full of minority, jewish, mentally challenged children, going to a fund raiser for gay women with a military background who lost someone in the war on terror...

what happens then?

[Origanalist]

There is actually a historical reason for this that does not have to do with creating a special class of exmpt rulers.

The British, in the role of our colonial overloards, had a nasty habit of breaking up legislative assemblies that got too uppity. Sometimes they just dispersed them with armed troops. Other times they detained representatives on the way to the assembly. The Constitution intended to prevent any such acts of tyranny. Not that, for example, Obama and Holder would use some petty law to keep undesirable legislators from getting to the vote . . .

Now further consider, how would you feel if Ron Paul had been "detained" on the roadside while he was on his way to an important vote? Does anyone doubt for a second that such tactics would be used if "needed"?

The fact that most legislators are pathetic, and should be detained permanently somewhere, should not obscure the sound reasoning behind the law.

I have to go the other way on this one. Let the assholes speed.

Well, we've come a long way since then. :rolleyes: I don't think too many of the lawmakers are rushing to secure our liberties. They have assumed the role of overlords.

[donnay]

Well, we've come a long way since then. :rolleyes: I don't think too many of the lawmakers are rushing to secure our liberties. They have assumed the role of overlords.

So very true!

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Origanalist again."

[Ender]

There is actually a historical reason for this that does not have to do with creating a special class of exmpt rulers.

The British, in the role of our colonial overloards, had a nasty habit of breaking up legislative assemblies that got too uppity. Sometimes they just dispersed them with armed troops. Other times they detained representatives on the way to the assembly. The Constitution intended to prevent any such acts of tyranny. Not that, for example, Obama and Holder would use some petty law to keep undesirable legislators from getting to the vote . . .

Now further consider, how would you feel if Ron Paul had been "detained" on the roadside while he was on his way to an important vote? Does anyone doubt for a second that such tactics would be used if "needed"?

The fact that most legislators are pathetic, and should be detained permanently somewhere, should not obscure the sound reasoning behind the law.

I have to go the other way on this one. Let the assholes speed.

Tis true.

Of course, nowadays you just hold them prisoner on a bus so they can't make the voting- that is, if they are RP supporters. ;)

[Acala]

Tis true.

Of course, nowadays you just hold them prisoner on a bus so they can't make the voting- that is, if they are RP supporters. ;)

Exactly.

[Origanalist]

Tis true.

Of course, nowadays you just hold them prisoner on a bus so they can't make the voting- that is, if they are RP supporters. ;)

I don't recall anybody losing their job over that.......

[tod evans]

I don't recall anybody losing their job over that.......

Well, "Golllllllllllly" (Gomer Pyle voice)

I'm surprised...:rolleyes: