Obama Administration Seeks National Ban on Cell Phone Use While Driving
http://bit.ly/IllUqN
direct link:
http://www.newsmax.com/US/lahood-ban...4/26/id/437254
Last edited by jct74; 04-30-2012 at 03:26 AM.
I will gladly hold out my cellphone when I see a cop if this passes
NEBRASKA FOR RON PAUL
Truckers have been using CB's for decades and I haven't heard about them talking while driving causing more accidents. People who are distracted while driving are a problem on the roads for sure, but there are many ways to be distracted while driving and talking on a cell phone is probably one of the least distracting things while driving. Now texting while driving is very dangerous and should not be done, but even that should not be banned.
Last edited by RickyJ; 04-26-2012 at 09:13 PM.
What's if it's on speaker phone?
Talk on this and get pulled over
NEBRASKA FOR RON PAUL
You know who communicates using electronic devices the most in stressful driving situations?
The police.
We have that in New Zealand. Everybody got a hands free kit. No big deal.
In New Zealand:
The Coastguard is a Charity
Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
The DMV is a private non-profit
Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
A tax return has 4 fields
Business licenses aren't a thing
Prostitution is legal
We have a constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care
No big deal!Originally Posted by idiom
It is a BIG DEAL here buddy!
Freedoms that everybody takes for granted will all be gone if we let them dictate every little thing we can and can't do.
Last edited by RickyJ; 04-27-2012 at 01:10 AM.
I just visited America last week on unavoidable business. It was like visiting a police state. Your freedoms disappeared a long time ago. The beauty of it is you think operating a cell phone while driving is a precious freedom.
In New Zealand:
The Coastguard is a Charity
Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
The DMV is a private non-profit
Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
A tax return has 4 fields
Business licenses aren't a thing
Prostitution is legal
We have a constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care
Like?
No, it's not the action of talking on a cel phone, it's the principle of the thing, the fact that government now thinks it has the right to regulate such a trivial and mundane thing that it is noteworthy.
You don't need to tell me we're toast, I'm well aware of that fact.
That isnt the point. The point is everyone had to BUY something. Hmmm, I wonder if those that were selling the Hands Free Kits had something to do with that bill going thru? Oh yeah, and hands free doesnt help much for replying to TEXT MESSAGES.
Funny story. I have a Remote Control for my Car Stereo. Old Kenwood. They came with remotes as a way to allow passengers in the back seat to adjust the volume. Anywho, I usually use the Remote for skipping songs or changing the volume. I got pulled over about a month ago for "answering my Remote Control" and nearly got a ticket, except for the fact I didnt have a cell phone on me. Officer wasnt sure what to say and let me off with a "warning" that he didnt want to see me "answering my remote again".
Shift of Focus.
New Zealand passing a National Law is one thing, but each State of the United States is supposed to be treated, from within the States, as its own country. We are not supposed to have "National Laws". We have Federal Laws, which are supposed to only apply when crossing State Lines. For example, what is Legal in one State may be Illegal in another State. Think Pot Laws. The Federal Govt is well within its limitations when it expresses that what happens inside a State's Border is up to the State, but when going between States, it falls into Federal Jurisdiction. So when the Federal Govt comes along and tells California, inside the State of California, that their legalization of Marijuana, for whatever purpose, can go right out the window, they are exceeding the powers granted to them by the US Constitution.
The same thing applies to a Nationwide Cell Phone ban. It is Unconstitutional because it exceeds the powers granted to the Federal Govt (again, between States) in the Constitution. Each State would need to pass its own Law prohibiting talking on a Cell Phone while Driving. It wouldnt be a big deal if each State said we are gonna ban Cell Driving, but for the President to flat out come out and say "Im gonna pass a National Law" is a problem. #1, it exceeds the Presidents Role as the Executive Branch. His job is to Execute Laws, not Legislate them into existence. #2, I already talked about it, the difference between the States and the Federal Govt. Now if that isnt Statist, Authoritarian, and a Usurptation of Power, I dont know what is.
1776 > 1984
The FAILURE of the United States Government to operate and maintain an Honest Money System , which frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, is the single largest contributing factor to the World's current Economic Crisis.
The Elimination of Privacy is the Architecture of Genocide
Belief, Money, and Violence are the three ways all people are controlled
Well-there are some laws that are meat to be national in scope:
Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei
If you want to do it from this perspective, it would require a constitutional amendement. You might consider the "establish post offices and post roads" part (which still ought not accomplish the feat).
I imagine that technically the FCC could issue a regulation regarding cell phone use. No law needed. Its part of the agreement when you take the cell phone out of its case. Completely voluntary agreement. "You agree not to use this radio transmitter while driving or face prosecution and seizure of your vehicle" etc etc. Makes the constitutionalist happy and even the an-caps on technical grounds. No force involved. No federal law being written.
The police state is already in operation. They don't need to send you to 'FEMA camps'. Rofl. You are living in the camp already. You cell block just has a nice lawn that you have to mow for your yard time.
In New Zealand:
The Coastguard is a Charity
Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
The DMV is a private non-profit
Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
A tax return has 4 fields
Business licenses aren't a thing
Prostitution is legal
We have a constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care
Well that's just frightening.
The ban includes hands-free devices.
As part of its recommendation, the National Transportation Safety Board is urging states to ban drivers from using hands-free devices, including wireless headsets.
[...]
The ban is also noteworthy because it is the first call by a federal agency to end the practice completely, rather than the partial ban that some legislators have put in place by allowing hands-free talking.
Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
--Albert J. Nock
You don't understand, that's not the point. The federal government does not have the authority to do this. The people of the states never gave them this power.
Exactly, it's not even legal for the Federal Government to impose these laws without following the Constitution and Constitutional processes.
"Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
"Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
"Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
Proponent of real science.
The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.
Would it be a big deal if Australia passed the law and New Zealand had to follow it despite having zero voice in the process?
Just so everybody is aware of where this is heading:
So, MADD, ya proud of yourself?"It used to be that if an officer pulled you over for drunk driving, he would pat you on the back, maybe call you a cab or take you home, but he wouldn't arrest you," LaHood said. "Now that has changed, and the same enforcement can work for people who talk on cell phones while driving."
Us "nuts" were right, thirty years ago, when we told you where all this would end, with roadblocks, prison, checkpoints and heavy handed enforcement of many other things besides just "drunk driving".
We were called "paranoid" and "conspiracy theorists" and "fear mongers".
I know, I was there.
I normally don't wish harm on people, but you would not find me feeling remorseful if they were some of the first people thrown in prison for this.
O you're good.....
"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
I think the States can handle this issue. Why do we need a national law on it? Sounds like the Fed may ban hands free too. Some states are all ready banning the handsfree but not many. Most are banning using phone or texting if it is not hands free.
Last edited by rockerrockstar; 04-26-2012 at 10:39 PM.
I have nothing tohidetalk about.
Pfizer Macht Frei!
Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.
Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!
Short Income Tax Video
The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes
The Federalist Papers, No. 15:
Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.
They should just ban talking in cars.
BAN PHONES
BAN CARS
BAN FUN
BAN EVERYTHING
-The gov't
I want more freedom and I cannot lie. No other brothers can deny. When the Fed marches in with a itty-bitty rate and the IRS takes your cake, it's no FUN!
Pfizer Macht Frei!
Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.
Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!
Short Income Tax Video
The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes
The Federalist Papers, No. 15:
Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.
I can see it now. Cops setting up d.u.c.p checkpoints where they connect a scanner to your phone to see if you've used it in the past XX number of minutes. Of course, they also download all your emails, pics, and contacts. Feds use cispa to 'share' that data...
There is already a law that covers texting, it's called Inattentive Driving.
Most "smart phones" have motion sensors installed already, for proper screen orientation as you rotate the phone.
I can see them using that, or the internal GPS tracking, to shut a phone off while in motion.
Sure, but check-points let them spend more money we don't have.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us