pagiven@drutx.UUCP (GivenP) (02/17/86)
-
I have been monitoring this newsgroup for some time now, and have
observed some good arguments and thoughtful insights regarding the
55 MPH speed limit issue: some think it too low, others too high,
yet others, just about right. Some argue there should be no speed
limit, and some that different roads and conditions should be fac-
tors considered for adjusting the limit. There are persuasive and
cogent arguments on all sides.
There is one issue, however, that I have not seen discussed here,
or more generally, in any of the popular media. And that is a
State's rights issue. The Federal government has been granted cer-
tain powers by the Consitution of the United States and ALL other
powers are resevered for the several States. Although I confess
complete ignorance of Constitutional law, I submit to you, gentle
reader, that adjusting automobile speed limits is not one of those
special powers granted to our central government.
The setting of speed limits, if any, is, I believe, a proper ques-
tion for the consideration of State governments. The State, may or
may not in its wisdom, cede this power to County or local govern-
ment. The State may even use a national paradigm for speed limits,
as in criminal justice, if it so chooses.
It seems to me that the States acquiesce because catching speeders
represents a good revenue source for the State (the irresistible
temptation for some to exceed 55 MPH on roads clearly designed for
faster travel, creates a class of violators from which the police
can easily cull the unwary) without having to answer to the people
directly; after all, it IS a Federally mandated law! I personally
cannot seriously believe that there is any one, universal, good and
proper speed limit for everywhere in the United States.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Given {ihnp4, houxe, stcvax!ihnp4}!drutx!pagiven
AT&T Information Systems Laboratories
11900 N. Pecos, Rm 1B04, Denver 80234 (303)-538-4058
-----------------------------------------------------------------goudreau@dg_rtp.UUCP (02/24/86)
In article <594@drutx.UUCP> pagiven@drutx.UUCP (GivenP) writes: >There is one issue, however, that I have not seen discussed here, >or more generally, in any of the popular media. And that is a >State's rights issue. The Federal government has been granted cer- >tain powers by the Consitution of the United States and ALL other >powers are resevered for the several States. Although I confess >complete ignorance of Constitutional law, I submit to you, gentle >reader, that adjusting automobile speed limits is not one of those >special powers granted to our central government. > >The setting of speed limits, if any, is, I believe, a proper ques- >tion for the consideration of State governments. The State, may or >may not in its wisdom, cede this power to County or local govern- >ment. The State may even use a national paradigm for speed limits, >as in criminal justice, if it so chooses. > >It seems to me that the States acquiesce because catching speeders >represents a good revenue source for the State (the irresistible >temptation for some to exceed 55 MPH on roads clearly designed for >faster travel, creates a class of violators from which the police >can easily cull the unwary) without having to answer to the people >directly; after all, it IS a Federally mandated law! I personally >cannot seriously believe that there is any one, universal, good and >proper speed limit for everywhere in the United States. Actually, any state is free to set its own speed limits, even in excess of 55 mph. Likewise, a state may set its own drinking age, even below 21. But in either case the state risks losing Federal Highway Funding. The laws passed by Congress didn't say "the speed limit is hereby set to 55 mph;" they basically said, "any state which doesn't set its [ speed limit | drinking age ] to <specified value> by <specified date> will have <specified percentage> of its Federal Highway funds cut off." It was then up to each state legislature to implement (or not) these "suggestions" as it saw fit. (Also, it isn't enough for the state to merely *set* the limit and then ignore it; it must demonstrate a certain level of compliance with the law.) So, the basic question for California is "Does the cost of enforcing 55 mph exceed the amount of money we'd lose from the Feds if we went to 65?" The state legislature may well decide the answer is "yes". By the way, I agree with you about the (dubious) usefulness of one national speed limit. States seemed to deal well with setting their own in the good old days. It still works that way at the provincial level in Canada. How do we go about getting Congress to repeal this legislation? Reagan used to mention this as one of his objectives, but I haven't heard anything since his 1980 Campaign. Are there any members of Congress who are willing to introduce this sort of bill? Bob Goudreau
drelles@encore.UUCP (Robert Drelles) (02/25/86)
In article <594@drutx.UUCP> pagiven@drutx.UUCP (GivenP) writes: >There is one issue, however, that I have not seen discussed here, >or more generally, in any of the popular media. And that is a >State's rights issue. The Federal government has been granted cer- >tain powers by the Consitution of the United States and ALL other >powers are resevered for the several States. Although I confess >complete ignorance of Constitutional law, I submit to you, gentle >reader, that adjusting automobile speed limits is not one of those >special powers granted to our central government. While the 55mph speed limit may represent questionable public policy, it is clearly constitutional. (1) Technically, the law does not forbid states from setting a speed limit higher than 55mph. It requires that states comply with the 55mph limit if they receive federal highway money. If a state has a non-compliance rate of greater than 50%, their funds "can" be cut off. This has never happened. A while back, Vermont state officials refused to strengthen its enforcement of the 55, observing that the cost of enforcement was higher than the estimated $1 million in highway funds at risk. (2) The federal government clearly has the right to set speed limits as part of binding uniform national traffic regulations. This is because a large amount of traffic moves across state borders, justifying a national law on the grounds of the interstate commerce clause of the constitution. This is not a "technicality" -- the Boston commuting radius covers parts of four states. I don't approve of the 55, except perhaps as an emergency stand-by regulation in the event of an oil supply shock. But it is a valid use of the federal government's power. I, for one, would like to see the 55 debate shift from abstract theories of the limits of government to whether or not this regulation's alleged safety benefits really offset the costs to long-distance motorists and its frequent use as a shield for improper police behavior. Robert Drelles Disclaimer: This posting represents the personal views of its author, and not the views of his employer, co-workers, or anybody else who might take offense.
rdz@ccice6.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (02/25/86)
In article <594@drutx.UUCP>, pagiven@drutx.UUCP (GivenP) writes: > > There is one issue, however, that I have not seen discussed here, > or more generally, in any of the popular media. And that is a > State's rights issue. The Federal government has been granted cer- > tain powers by the Consitution of the United States and ALL other > powers are resevered for the several States. Although I confess > complete ignorance of Constitutional law, I submit to you, gentle > reader, that adjusting automobile speed limits is not one of those > special powers granted to our central government. > I might agree with you, about STATE highways. Lest we forget, the INTERSTATE highway system was created in 1958, with the PRIMARY purpose being that of assuring a NATIONAL transportation system for defence of the country. Going to Grandma's is just a side benefit to being able to get the boys to the front in a hurry. Granted, times have changed and this probably isn't an effective battle strategy anymore. But if the feds own the interstates (and I believe they do) then I guess they can have the limit be anything they want to.
chip@vaxwaller.UUCP (Chip Kozy) (03/01/86)
> It seems to me that the States acquiesce because catching speeders > represents a good revenue source for the State (the irresistible > temptation for some to exceed 55 MPH on roads clearly designed for > faster travel, creates a class of violators from which the police > can easily cull the unwary) without having to answer to the people > directly; after all, it IS a Federally mandated law! I personally First of all, the law is not "mandated" by the Feds. They just simply said "If you guys don't go along with the 55mph limit, we will not give you any money for your roads.". As you can see, that's not a mandate, it's pure blackmail. The states are REQUIRED to show a certain percentage of adherance to the law by some formula or other. If this percentage falls below the preset point, funds can be withheld. The major concern in the fight to get the "double nickle" raised is if the Feds will allow it, and not see it as justification to stop funding the state. IF the Feds will go along with it, then, and ONLY then, will the limit be raised. The 55 law was an "economic" (read: politically popular) law at the time it was passed. Only when it becomes politically popular again will it be changed. The moral of this story is don't blame the local constabulary for enforcing this fiasco. They're stuck with it, and, at least for the time being, so are we. Want it changed?? Deluge your appropriate politicians with mail. Attend meetings and speak up. Don't just sit in front of your terminal and flame on and on. DO SOMETHING!!! Happiness; Chip