Thursday, October 07, 2010



Mattexian said...

Heh, works for me! I might be afraid some pissed-off rancher with a rifle might pop off a warning shot to those going "too fast" (which, isn't the limit closer to 80 in the "middle of nowhere" sections of highways?).

strandediniowa said...

What? No red light cameras used to slow people down?

Common sense and friendly persuasion... hmmm. Might work, too.

Bawb said...

We used to have a "reasonable and prudent" speed for existing road conditions as the speed limit.

Then some yahoo who got his umpteenth speeding tickets and was going to lose his license took it to court.

The judge ruled "reasonable and prudent" to be "un-Constitutionally vague".

strandediniowa said...

So that leaves us with "Unconstitutionally strict"?

Laws are like locks on a door, it keeps an honest man, honest.

A dishonest man will break the law as easily as bypassing a locked door. If they're determined, they'll get in.

Bawb said...

Probably the only time in the last 50 years where a judge "strictly" interpreted the Constitution.

Usually, in the hands of "justices", it's a "living document" sprouting all kinds of tentacles and nodules and oozing all over, randomly spewing out new "rights" while ignoring the real rights enumerated in the Constitution itself.