Congratulations to the voters of Cleveland and Maple Heights for ridding themselves of their money-eating monsters. And to the proponents of speed cameras, man, it must be boring to be perfect.
Speed camera haters also can't spell.
Was in Seattle yesterday and it rained. No surprise there.
Great argument for favoring speed cameras. lol
Similar to the argument opposing cameras because they bring in revenue. lol
It is one of the founding principles of this great country that we are supposed to have a "government of the people, by the people, for the people."
Abe Lincoln said that.
And I observe that left unchecked, government will control every aspect of your life.
With any luck, our liberties shall not perish from the earth. We are not guaranteed safety and comfort; we have become such a society that to many citizens/subjects, the idea of "give me liberty or give me death" has been turned on its head.
You are correct that many are "not guaranteed safety and comfort".
But, whenever anyone invokes "founding principles" or "founding fathers", it makes me wonder exactly what they are thinking this country ought to be like today.
The "founding fathers" set this country up in the Constitution such that you had to be 1) White, 2) male and 3) a land owner in order to vote for your quoted "government of the people, by the people, for the people.".
Are you wanting to return to "founding principles"?
I do like the overall original principles of the country. Some of the details like "white" and "male" might be better stated as "all (hu)men are equal under the law".
Depending on how much of my assets are to be confiscated only because I own property (property taxes), there could be interesting discussion about only land owners voting on things affecting land owners.
And this newfangled idea of withholding taxes. I'd like to return to paying taxes ourselves. Write that check yourself every week or month, and there would be far more politicians held accountable.
The "founding fathers" set this country up in the Constitution such that you had to be 1) White, 2) male and 3) a land owner in order to vote
Mind citing the provision of the Constitution requiring these things?
I've got my copy handy ready to check your citation.
Possibly you are mistaking permitting for requiring? A rather important difference.
Good for you archae86 - someone who decided to check.
First - let's note that this discussion is about "Founding Principles (aka Founding Fathers"). I like to counter those who want bolster their point of view by implying that we need to return to the government envisioned by these Founding Fathers by pointing out how biased these gentlemen were.
Thus I respond that these Founding Fathers did not think it appropriate to grant "suffrage".
The original Constitution was silent on who could vote. It did say "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." It required that Representatives and Senators be chosen by "the people".
So, being silent in the Constitution about who could vote meant that the right to vote was determined by the "States" and this was a privilege almost exclusively limited to white, property-owning, Protestant men. See http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/Spring07/elections...
In 1792, New Hampshire became the first state to eliminate its property requirements, thereby extending the right to vote to almost all white men.
So, suffrage was state determined until:
the 15th Amendment - race or color
the 19th Amendment - sex
the 26th Amendment - age
overrode state requirements.
Plus, the 24th Amendment said that you could not be denied the right to vote by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
But, note that states still can restrict the right to vote in other ways - think picture IDs.
So, as I have stated, the Constitution was "set up" by the Founding Fathers to defer to the "States" who granted the voting privileges. The Founding Fathers were silent on the subject.
By the way, I do not understand your comment about "permitting" versus "requiring". what did you mean?
It seems as if we can't do anything without the government's intervention. Everyone is always looking for a free handout. It makes me long for the days long gone where you worked to achieve your dream in life. Some people still do work for their dream, but far too many want someone else to work for them so they can have their dream.
Um... In a word YES.... And while we're at we should sell Tennessee to Cuba
Too bad all the cameras don't disappear throughout the US!
So how long until this spreads and other places vote cameras out of existence? At the very least, how long until it spreads to other areas in Ohio?
You can be a proponent of red light cameras (and speed cameras in school zones) and still dislike the poor application and abuse in some cities.
Give it time, most lawmakers hate them as much as we do. They are just under pressure to not lose the revenue.
The cameras here in TX measure your speed approaching the intersection and snap your picture if the equipment thinks it is too fast thinking you may run the intersection. You don't get a ticket assuming you stop. Having the strobes flash is a little annoying although the pic shows no vehicle in the intersection so not ticket even though the back camera has your plate. It will ticket you if are making a right turn on red and don't stop fully.
terms | privacy | contactCopyright © 2006-2020