Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: [OT] Judges discover constitutional rights to bike lanes and also drug use in homeless shelters
Date: Tue, 6 May 2025 22:15:03 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <vve1l7$3sste$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vvde7f$30ifl$1@dont-email.me> <vvdnrt$3jhec$5@dont-email.me> <vvdols$3kqjl$2@dont-email.me> <vvdsl1$3okaf$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Wed, 07 May 2025 00:15:06 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="56160c3a318aa549751e5c7226aaa9fe";
	logging-data="4092846"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19LCQBgKIVu5A8/qzukrhIZVeXFSfHVy0Q="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0INTTqV/XmL+VC0DApgw/v4djSA=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>May 6, 2025 at 12:41:48 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>May 6, 2025 at 12:22:41 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>>>>>. . . 

>>>>>Regardless, however, the idea that bike lanes would be constitutionally
>>>>>protected in America would have to be one of the most absurd legal takes
>>>>>I've ever heard. Bikes weren't even invented until 1817 so there's
>>>>>no question the Founders didn't intend for "freedom of biking" when
>>>>>they wrote the Constitution. And regulation of traffic of any kind is
>>>>>squarely in the jurisdiction of the state and local governments per the
>>>>>10th Amendment. Which is why I started hyperventilating when I mistakenly
>>>>>thought Rhino's article was about the U.S. at first.

>>>>The Founding Fathers didn't intend that constitutional language would
>>>>be used to restrict liberty, anticipating changes in technology. Nor was
>>>>the Constitution written to restrict liberty to enumerated civil rights
>>>>only, hence the Ninth Amendment. Freedom to travel predates the
>>>>Constitution and wouldn't have been a right the Founders would have
>>>>infringed upon.

>>>>Or do you believe 'freedom of the press" was limited to only that mass
>>>>communication produced by printing press and distributed by means that
>>>>hadn't changed since the 18th century, or does it mean any form of
>>>>publishing using any method to fix words and ideas and any means of
>>>>distribution as the technologhy of commucation changes?

>>>I simply don't believe the Founders intended federal jurisdiction over
>>>local traffic laws and road design.

>>It's inferred in the postal clause.

>That's exactly the kind of judicial fantasy that I despise.

>If the Founders had wanted the federal government to have the power to tell
>the states how to design their roads and local traffic laws, then they would
>have made that an explicit enumerated power. "Inferring" federal power where
>there is none is what got us Roe v Wade and Wickard v. Filburn.

.. . . and the Louisiana Purchase violated strict construction too. You
think Napoleon will refund the money if we give it back?

>>. . .