National speed limit pushed as gas saver

[Blondie]

You've got to be kidding me, if this happens we should go ballistic, this is effing ridiculous! We can drive slower if we want to save gas or drive faster if we value our time more than the gas savings. This is such an unconstitutional over-stepping of Federal power that whoever suggested this needs to be recalled in an election in November!

:laugh: :laugh:

Unconstitutional? :laugh:

No dear, it is not unconstitutional.

No, the government does NOT have the right to regulate speed on public roads. It is not an enumerated power and thus the province of the states.

Gosh, it gets frustrating that most folks dont seem to undertstand the limits the founders put upon a federal governemnt.

Yes, the legislation has the power to regulate the speed.......much as they did in the '70s.

Some people think they have the RIGHT to drive as they wish. This is not the case. The federal government does have the right to regulate speed on roads.

Might want to read up on this.

We have become so accustomed to hurry up hurry up hurry up and wait....we don't realize that the 10 mile an hour difference will mean a few minutes difference. So many of you live in urban areas......you dont get to drive 70 much anyway.

I live far out in the country.....and use an intersate to get work. The speed limit is 70. We all go 70 or above........without congestion. Since the gas hike, I have slowed to around 65......a maybe a cost of 4 or 5 mintues.

[praise_gibbs]

Since the gas hike, I have slowed to around 65......a maybe a cost of 4 or 5 mintues.

Left lane or Right lane?

I am running you off the road if you slow up my left lane. :laugh:

[DoGood28]

This would turn my 3 hour one way trip from Norfolk to NOVA into a 4.5 hour trip. I don't like the sound of that.

[Blondie]

Left lane or Right lane?

I am running you off the road if you slow up my left lane. :laugh:

You can get a ticket here in Texas for driving in the left lane at a slower speed than the posted speed.

I drive in the right lane, and use the left lane for its intended purpose.

Passing.

;)

[Fergasun]

Sadly, what can states do? I think there are a number of areas where Federal government has states by the balls:

1) Social Security

2) Medicare, health care to poor

However, the states also supply National Guard units, no? But unless a bunch of states get together... it ain't gonna happen, unless American's decide not to fight othre Americans...

[Fergasun]

:laugh: :laugh:

Unconstitutional? :laugh:

No dear, it is not unconstitutional.

Yes, the legislation has the power to regulate the speed.......much as they did in the '70s.

Some people think they have the RIGHT to drive as they wish. This is not the case. The federal government does have the right to regulate speed on roads.

Might want to read up on this..

*Sigh* so says someone working for the unconstituational public schools...

As far as I know, the national speed limit law was never challenged and taken to courts, so it's a power that has never been checked by the judicial. I'm not sure if anyone thought to challenge the law back in 1974, I think I'm gonna spend some time looking up LOC archives to see if there was much debate over it...

Don't worry, I suspect public schools have been challenged in courts and Supreme Court has ruled them constitutional... damn "general welfare" clause, no?

Sorry but I just added this to say the first paragraph is a joke... I don't think you can sense the sarcasm in there... , but I know you are a scohol administrator (for all I know you could be at a private school)...

[Blondie]

*Sigh* so says someone working for the unconstituational public schools...

As far as I know, the national speed limit law was never challenged and taken to courts, so it's a power that has never been checked by the judicial. I'm not sure if anyone thought to challenge the law back in 1974, I think I'm gonna spend some time looking up LOC archives to see if there was much debate over it...

Don't worry, I suspect public schools have been challenged in courts and Supreme Court has ruled them constitutional... damn "general welfare" clause, no?

Sorry but I just added this to say the first paragraph is a joke... I don't think you can sense the sarcasm in there... , but I know you are a scohol administrator (for all I know you could be at a private school)...

No, I work for the public school. One that chooses to receive funding from the federal government, and therefore chooses to follow their directions.

The reason it is not UNconstitutional is because there is nothing CONSTITUTIONAL about a driving speed. What rights are being violated? Citizens have a right to drive, once they have proven they can drive according to the laws........but I have never found anything about a certain speed being a certain right.

So, are you saying the different speeds on rural roads, urban roads, intercity roads are ALSO unconstitional? Or only the one you don't like?

[SUSkinsFan]

So, are you saying the different speeds on rural roads, urban roads, intercity roads are ALSO unconstitional? Or only the one you don't like?

The difference is that local governments set those speeds based on a variety of factors. The argument is that the federal government does not have a right to set a speed limit because they are set by the individual states, which is why the speed on an interstate can change when you cross a state line. Also, there is no national standard to be allowed to drive since that is also set by the individual states.

[Fergasun]

The reason it is unconstitutional is that there is nothing in the Constitution granting Congress the power via enumerated powers to regulate the speed of business. There are some who believe Congress abuses the Commerce Clause in an unconstitutional way, such as attaching rules to Federal funds that are basically national mandates.

Anything not explicitly granted to the Federal government should fall to local and state governments. Didn't we fight a Civil War over this?

Nuts... thomas.loc.gov only goes back to 1989. I'd have to take a trip to a local library if I was more interested in reading about debates made in Congress 30+ years ago... what a drag!

[PokerPacker]

No, I work for the public school. One that chooses to receive funding from the federal government, and therefore chooses to follow their directions.

The reason it is not UNconstitutional is because there is nothing CONSTITUTIONAL about a driving speed. What rights are being violated? Citizens have a right to drive, once they have proven they can drive according to the laws........but I have never found anything about a certain speed being a certain right.

So, are you saying the different speeds on rural roads, urban roads, intercity roads are ALSO unconstitional? Or only the one you don't like?

this is an issue of states-rights, not individual rights. the argument is that highway speeds are the juristiction of the state and not the federal government.

[Thiebear]

I thought the interstate highways were the one thing the government was supposed to do?

I wouldnt agree with it, but having solved all other oil issues this was bound to happen.

Did you NOT expect the laziest bills to come first. There are bills sitting in Congress blocked for a year now.. and this one will be the ugly stepchild that appears.

[Larry]

Unconstitutional :laugh: . Now, I agree the law would be stupid. But the government has the right to regulate the speed at which people can drive on public roads.

Uh, could you point out which part of the Constitution grants that power to the Federal government?

[SUSkinsFan]

Uh, could you point out which part of the Constitution grants that power to the Federal government?

They'll just throw it in under the General Welfare clause.

Also, an argument could be made about interstate commerce because if a national speed limit would lower the cost of fuel (not really seeing it happen) than the cost of goods would go down because it would be cheaper to get them from A to B.

Now I don't agree with those arguments but those are some of the ones that would be made.

[Larry]

I thought the interstate highways were the one thing the government was supposed to do?

Nope, the Federal Government has no authority over the interstate highways, either. (Well, they do have the authority to regulate interstate truckers, although that power exists no matter what road they're driving on.)

Nope, the way the Federal Government gets around that pesky Constitution not giving them that power is:

They tax every gallon of gasoline (and diesel). That tax is to pay for highway construction and maintenance.

But they don't have the authority to spend the money on highways. So what they did was pass some rules that say that if the States will build roads in the places where the Feds say they should go, and build them according to standards that the feds wrote, then for every dollar the state spends, the Feds will give the state 9 dollars more.

The Feds didn't build the interstate highways, the States did. The Feds just "helped" the states, by paying 90% of the bill.

-----

And that's how they got around the fact that they don't have the authority to set speed limits, either. They passed a law that says that if your state doesn't lower their speed limit, then the feds will tax everybody in your state, and keep the money.

(Later on, they added clauses to the rule, mandating that if they wanted any money, the states had to enforce the speed limit, too. Since some states lowered the speed limit, but didn't enforce it.)

[Larry]

They'll just throw it in under the General Welfare clause.

Also, an argument could be made about interstate commerce because if a national speed limit would lower the cost of fuel (not really seeing it happen) than the cost of goods would go down because it would be cheaper to get them from A to B.

Now I don't agree with those arguments but those are some of the ones that would be made.

Oh, I agree with you. For the last several decades, whenever the federal government wanted to do something unconstitutional, they've always gone to either "general welfare" or "interstate commerce".

Edit:

I'm waiting for W to try to claim that kidnapping people and shipping them somewhere to be tortured is "interstate commerce" since it costs the government money.

[Sarge]

I'm waiting for W to try to claim that kidnapping people and shipping them somewhere to be tortured is "interstate commerce" since it costs the government money.

No, it just helps the general welfare of the country

See how that works?

[Larry]

No, it just helps the general welfare of the country

See how that works?

I thought of that one, too, but I still think "interstate commerce" has a way to go as a catch-all excuse, before it catches "general welfare".

So I was practicing some affirmative action, to try to help it out.

[Woofer]

You can get a ticket here in Texas for driving in the left lane at a slower speed than the posted speed.

I drive in the right lane, and use the left lane for its intended purpose.

Passing.

;)

Living up here in PA, I've noticed some things about driving on the interstates between cities:

On work days, during rush hour, driving as slow as 65 MPH will likely cause an accident. The average speed is 80 - 85. You should see how people will pass someone doing 65.

Left lane is for passing only? Maybe on paper, but up here the left lane is for low flying planes. If you are in the left lane, you better be doing at least 85. Come to think of it, you better be doing 80 in the right lane, too. There were many times when I was doing 80-85, and got passed like I was standing still.

I see state police parked in the median, but they never do anything about the speeders. I think they're there in case of an accident.

A slow driver will likely get flipped the bird or a fist shaken at them.

There have been several accidents over the years (I witnessed one) that have been caused by "slow" drivers - and at those speeds, there is no walking away from it. If there are survivors, they have to be Life Lioned (Helicopter) to emergency surgery.

During non-rush hour travel, 65-70 is about average, and if you go blowing by someone at 80+ MPH, you'll get a ticket, a bird, or a fist shaking.

I'm not in favor of a national speed limit, but wish the PA state police would enforce the speed limit we do have.

[Blondie]

Living up here in PA, I've noticed some things about driving on the interstates between cities:

On work days, during rush hour, driving as slow as 65 MPH will likely cause an accident. The average speed is 80 - 85. You should see how people will pass someone doing 65.

Left lane is for passing only? Maybe on paper, but up here the left lane is for low flying planes. If you are in the left lane, you better be doing at least 85. Come to think of it, you better be doing 80 in the right lane, too. There were many times when I was doing 80-85, and got passed like I was standing still.

.

Actually it is the same here...people using the left lane to zoom zoom zoom.

However, I use it for the reason intended........I pass a car, then get back in the right lane.

PG asked if I drove in the left lane. I don't.

There are lots of people who abuse the laws everywhere.

I try not to speed...but........in May I did get a ticket.

Was not on the interstate however....in a small town.

[joeknows]

"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."

II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135

http://www.uslawbooks.com/travel/travel.htm

[cjcdaman]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/03/warner.speed.limit.ap/index.html

National speed limit pushed as gas saver

99, this has gotten to page 3 without a response from you. What is youir opinion.

As for UFC 86, what's up? Headed out to a certain bar? Who's your favorite?

[eagleskins]

Absolutely awful decision. But Chimpy has been the Prez for the last 8 years, so what can you expect?

[Special K]

WTF?! This is the stupidest effing law proposal EVER! I would love to see the CHP try to enforce this in SoCal :laugh:

[Prosperity]

It sounds like a reasonable idea to consider, no one likes going slower, but if you are serious about getting off foreign oil then you can't just dismiss the notion... just goes to show that not many people are willing to bear the burden of their stances... just a bunch of hot air.

If it's stupid explain why

[Larry]

It sounds like a reasonable idea to consider, no one likes going slower, but if you are serious about getting off foreign oil then you can't just dismiss the notion... just goes to show that not many people are willing to bear the burden of their stances... just a bunch of hot air.

If it's stupid explain why

Aw, you had to go and be reasonable.