guido61 wrote:No. Somewhere we got off the EO thing and onto whether the feds could compel the states to go along with federal law. I used the speed limit thing as an example and then Norm went off on this silly thing about Nevada not complying which doesn't appear to be true.
Again, believe as you will. I was there. The action you bring up is over ten years after the incident.
guido61 wrote:
normh wrote:Again, believe as you will. I was there. The action you bring up is over ten years after the incident.
I think your memory is failing you. I can find nothing that supports the idea that Nevada bucked the Feds and did without any highway funds.
Certainly the wikipedia page knows nothing about it. And they go into the various states who challenged the law pretty extensively. But, of course, wikipedia doesn't know everything.But I'm searching and can't find anything other than the silly 1986 incident. The court case about the '86 incident says nothing about any earlier refusal of Nevada to comply, and I would think it would have addressed it if it were true. And the wikipedia article talks about Nevada trying to skirt around the law in 1981 by not really issuing tickets. So clearly they were on board with it then.
And I moved from CA to NV in 1982. Had I been able to take off on the freeways and drive 70 in '82 I certainly would have remembered that!
So if they bucked the feds in '74 there's no record of it, and they then decided to comply sometime before 1981 with record of exactly when or why either.
As I said, I was in Nevada at the time. While I do not remember all the particulars, I do remember the incident.
In 80 - 85, I lived in Los Angeles. The 86 incident would have been after my time in Nevada.
Zooey wrote:Since I've noticed you've been reading up on 2nd Amendment case law lately, you may have come across this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_Stat
es It's right on point in that it expresses the limits of the federal government to coerce the states to implement federal law (in this case, part of the Brady Bill). But as you've noticed, Congress does not generally try to coerce compliance. It uses the tax and spending power instead.
It's just anecdotal evidence, but Montana had no posted speed limits when I lived there in the mid-nineties. I don't know if that's because there were none, or if they just didn't believe in posting them. Montana definitely has posted speed limits today.
I actually do not spend much time on second amendment issues because they do not affect me on a day to day basis. My issue with gun control is the knee jerk reactions that would have no affect on anything, and the attempt to take away Constitutional rights.
I have a paralegal certificate from Blackstone, and have had one since about 1990. I used to do legal research for Carl Malouf Law Firm in Logan, Utah when I attended Utah State. Like computers, I pretty much hate law with a passion. The area's of law that I have an interest in is the Intellectual Property and Privacy law. The requisite courses I had to complete in the pursuit of my paralegal certificate were Constitutional Law, Criminal Procedure, Civil Procedure, Legal Research, and Legal Writing. I also completed a course on Torts. Much is forgotten. Outside of this, my area of expertise is in computers and engineering. I am at this point fully disabled, will die in less than five years, and self employed; I baby sit servers from home. Life is a terminal disease.
As a side note, a Mormon Bishop slumlord owns the property next door. He has a roach and bedbug problem that he refuses to address. The little monsters migrated over to my place. I found one of the bedbug nests in my legal books. Those books were sealed in plastic and disposed of about three weeks ago. I think that insects have a place in the world, but my wife and I are not the bedbug diner. A few thousand dollars worth of legal texts were disposed of. Thankfully all my computer books are in storage.
Regarding Montana. I think the state speed limit is 90. At the time we were discussing, I believe Montana reduced the speed limit. Like Nevada, the reason is long, uninterrupted, distances from nowhere to nowhere.
gismo recording wrote:Did you even look at the link you posted? There is not a single state in the US that has a drinking age lower than 21.
Is that reaaaaalllllly true? Or, are you talking out your ass?
Although many believe that anyone under the age of 21 is prohibited from consuming alcohol in the United States, underage drinking is allowed in 29 states if done on private premises with parental consent, 25 states if for religious purposes, and 7 states if for educational purposes. [1][2]
Link -http://drinkingage.procon.org/
Going to note one:
40 states have set their own exceptions to allow underage consumption of alcohol under certain circumstances. 10 states (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia) and the District of Columbia have no exceptions in their underage alcohol consumption laws.
Link - http://drinkingage.procon.org/view.resource.php?re
sourceID=002591
From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access [www.gpoaccess.gov]
[Laws in effect as of January 3, 2007] [CITE: 23USC158]
TITLE 23--HIGHWAYS CHAPTER 1--FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS Sec. 158.
National minimum drinking age(a) Withholding of Funds for Noncompliance.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall withhold 10 per centum of the amount required to be apportioned to any State under each of sections 104(b)(1), 104(b)(3), and 104(b)(4) of this title on the first day of each fiscal year after the second fiscal year beginning after September 30, 1985, in which the purchase or public possession in such State of any alcoholic beverage by a person who is less than twenty-one years of age is lawful.
(2) State grandfather law as complying.--If, before the later of (A) October 1, 1986, or (B) the tenth day following the last day of the first session the legislature of a State convenes after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, such State has in effect a law which makes unlawful the purchase and public possession in such State of any alcoholic beverage by a person who is less than 21 years of age (other than any person who is 18 years of age or older on the day preceding the effective date of such law and at such time could lawfully purchase or publicly possess any alcoholic beverage in such State), such State shall be deemed to be in compliance with paragraph
(1) in each fiscal year in which such law is in effect.
(b) Effect of Withholding of Funds.--No funds withheld under this section from apportionment to any State after September 30, 1988, shall be available for apportionment to that State.
(c) Alcoholic Beverage Defined.--As used in this section, the term ``alcoholic beverage'' means--
(1) beer as defined in section 5052(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
(2) wine of not less than one-half of 1 per centum of alcohol by volume, or
(3) distilled spirits as defined in section 5002(a)(8) of such Code.
Link
On the face of it, you do not know what you are talking about.
Help Desk