Should HR 1895/S 3269 be law?

Rivalry Side A | Other | Automobiles

Violation of American rights?

Rivalry Side B | Other | Automobiles

Both bills are exactly the same introduced by both the House and the Senate in wording. Which do you believe is more fundamentally justified? The right of the driver or the right of the majority?

0

Posted by in Other / Automobiles on 6/13/10

Side A fans: (3)

Neutral Fans: (0)


Side A Comment

Kazzy - 6/16/10 @ 1:17 PM:
0
Okay, after reading this bill I had to change sides. We all need to remember one very important thing in regards to this bill. Driving is NOT a right, it is a privilege.

Saying that I don't see anything in this legislation(I read 3269) that is impeding on a individuals rights. If you want to drive a motor vehicle I don't see any problem with a staged process. It would suck if I was 15 or 16 years old again but the result will be less fatalities and more capable drivers.

I also like that this bill approaches this issue as an option; leaving the ultimate choice with the states (Which is where the choice belongs). If any state doesn't want to abide by the rules outlined in the bill they don't get additional funding. I would have issue with this if it was to strip funding already provided to the state which would be overbearing in my opinion.

Side A Comment

Kazzy - 6/13/10 @ 7:38 PM:
0
I've honestly been buried for the last three weeks working on the back end of the website to make it more Search Engine Friendly so I have obviously missed this. I'm taking a side for the time being but that could change after I look further into this bill.

My gut tells me that if there's any question of a bill impeding on the rights of Americans it more than likely is. However, currently that is just a gut feeling. Nothing more. I'll try and look more into this tomorrow after work.

Side A Comment

LIBERAL - 6/13/10 @ 11:02 AM:
0
This is a hard one for me. While I am a firm believer of the rights of an individual sometimes people just need to be saved from themselves. On one hand I understand why this bill is being referred to the committees. There is no greater pain for a parent who has to stand at the graveside of one of their own children. Having personally seen the grief of my mother and father after the death of my sister Rachel I can assure you it is something I hope they never have to deal with again. I would hope that no parent has to, but perhaps this bill might help those in the future. On the other hand we afford rights to unborn fetuses, so what exactly gives us the right to take them away from a teenager who has attained the legal right to operate a motor vehicle? If we place restrictions on teenage drivers such as number of people allowed while the vehicle is in use and the non-use of communication devices during operation then why not for all drivers? Why not restrictions on elderly drivers as well? It is a fine line between the rights of the few, and the power of the majority. It was very hard for me to choose a side. I’m still not sure I like the side I’ve chosen, but would like to see all of yours. By the way, the pictures I have chosen could have just as easily have been reversed to reflect the other side as the side they are currently representing, and yes it was done on purpose.
LIBERAL - 6/13/10 @ 11:13 AM: Ally | Side A
0
Sorry guys, forgot to post the link to either of the bills so you guys could read them if you want.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1895

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-3269

Both are the same wording almost. So whichever you choose to read it is not necessary to read the other.
Add new comment:

You must either login or register before you can comment.

Side B fans: (0)

You need to be logged in to do that!
Login with Your Facebook Account:
Already have a JealousBrother account? Login
Register for a JealousBrother Account! Register