R. Danneskjöld

I know that, just being devils advocate for a bit. Personally I think that the laws concerned with modifying your vehicle should be somewhat relaxed. Virginia law basically states that anything not installed on your vehicle by the manufacturer is not authorized. As well, the vehicle laws are enforced somewhat unevenly. I'm not saying there should be a free pass to run open pipes down the street but there is no reason that every little fagot assed Aveo with an annoying buzz should get pulled over, while fucking Dually Diesels roll by with five inch exhausts sticking straight through the bed and pointing in the air. I like the idea of a decibel limit, but it should be the responsibility of the owner to get it tested. A decibel check might be a good addition to the state inspection perhaps. Or just something your required to get done at a shop with a calibrated tester so you can have a little slip of paper or something.

Hondas_Only

actually, he's not, and neither are you. do you understand the purpose of the constitution? the constitution was developed to LIMIT the power of government. yet, the reason we have so many stupid laws is because the government wants to control as much of waht you do as possible. its sad that you dont mind that.

having a constitutional committee wouldnt make anything take longer in the legal process, so what are you talking about? we are talking about the legislative process, and i dont care how long it takes to make a new law. if its a dumb and/or unconstitutional law, i'm happy with it taking forever literally to get passed. its amazing that you dont feel the same.

the only courts that care directly about constitutionality is the federal and supreme court of the us. the other courts are concerned only about the laws taht are in place. if you read the article, you would know that the case was appealed all the way to federal court. courts care about upholding the laws that are currently in place, and generating revenue for the government.

yorue totally right, govt cant do everything FOR the people, but they are constantly working to do things AGAINST the people.

so sorry if i disagree with you, but the govt needs a major overhaul and it will likely have to start in the legislative.

so youre saying you have no understanding about how committees are assembled in government i take it? committees are assembled from members of the governing body... ie existing councilmen or congressmen. so again... not rocket science. and even if they had to hire 2 or 3 independent professionals like lawyers etc, it would still save us a shitload of money in the long run. but seeing your logic i can see how you cant understand the concept of that.

considering that this is a forum, and not government class, i would think that you would have the intellectual capacity to know what i meant. but if you want to nit-pick thats fine with me. im trying to make this as simple as possible considering your sense of 'reality' which thinks that they way govt does things nows is a-ok. considering the fact that you totally missed my point way back about forming a committee from the existing government says a lot.

actually... what im speaking of is reality. reality is we have an overload of unconstitutional laws. you have injected plenty of criticism and yet no solution. you clearly think things are fine the way they are. go govt go right? reality is we need to get this b.s. under control, and its going to take a lot of work to do it. once its under control, we should be a lot better off as a country for it.

um... whats your solution again?

El Negro

Creating a government committee is, by definition, making a larger government. Period.

I like the process that's already laid out in the Constitution. It's called a judicial system. It's setup for determining what laws are constitutional and what aren't.

You would rather have ridiculous redundancy and, in the end, larger government.

Hondas_Only

you cant make up your own definition. if you make a committee of existing members how is that making government bigger?

you solution does nothing to confront the problem of unconstitutional laws.

in my previous statements i have said several times that the judicial system does not work. the judicial system does not legislate, they enforce. thats why we have people charged and convicted of laws that common sense says are unconstitutional all the time.

thats why they say the legal system is legal not logical.

we need a system that prevents these bogus laws from getting through. so again... i ask you what's your solution to the overwhelming problem of unconstitutional laws?

El Negro

As I recall, didn't this "non-working" judicial system just strike down a law that was unconstitutional?

Hondas_Only

one court worked after 3 courts said it was ok. under my system, this could have been averted all together, and saved time and thousands of dollars.

ur system wasted that money.

El Negro

Actually, my system is the one that the Founding Fathers setup. You think the Constitution is flawed, but you want to make the legislative branch into the judicial branch so that they can find out what's constitutional or not? Not only is your proposal trying to expand government, it's also unconstitutional - the judicial branch is just for that. You want politicians to pass judgment on their own laws and expect them to be impartial AND you don't think that they will waste money?


What color is the sky in your world?

Hondas_Only

no... actually, the founding fathers created the constitution first, and therefore, the legislative process should start with that first... it currently starts with lawmakers trying to control people and gain votes by creating laws that appease people.

actually, im saying the constitution is almost perfect, unfortunately, our lawmakers dont use it. my proposal would actually shrink government and streamline the judicial and law enforcement system making a smaller government and saving the taxpayers an infinite amount of money long term

just admit that you dont know what the job of the judicial branch is

no where in here does it say anything about fixing broken laws.

ask a judge or a cop... they will tell you,they dont make the laws, they just enforce them. the legal/judicial system is there to judge PEOPLE with regard to laws that are already in place, they dont judge LAWS by definition. thats why laws passed do not go though the judiciary. sometimes we get lucky and we get a person that steps up and fights a dumb law, but thats one in a million.

my point is that our LEGISLATIVE system is putting the cart before the horse by leaving it up to the court to find a law unconstitutional. your point is that legislators dont have to use the constitution as a reference before creating laws and you like it that way.

interesting

20vTT

No. It means you wont get a ticket for it being to loud. Most dont write under the city ord anyways. They usually write "defective or unapproved equipment." And under the state code, if its not factory equiped then its unapproved.
I'm a constitutionalist as well. Its completely constitutional to shoot and kill a fleeing dangerous felon. However, Virginia law does not permit it nor do any of the policies implimented by the police departments here in VA give an officer the full authority of enforcement of the constitution. If officers could enforce law based on the constitution there would be a lot more people being locked up and more convictions without all the state and local hoops to jump through.

Just look at Commonwealth of Virginia v. Moore. Best example of this. Found guilty in circuit court of Portsmouth, over ruled by the Virginia Supreme Court, and ruled by the US supreme court that what the officers did in this case was completely in line with the constitution. Basics, the guy was arrest for driving on a suspended license. Search incident to arrest, a bunch of crack was found, VA supreme court ruled the officers had no right to search Mr. Moore because its an offense which is releasable on a summons. US supreme Court upheld that the officers were completely in the right of searching Mr. Moore after a lawful arrest. There is a lot more to the case but thats just the short and sweet of it.