Judge dismisses suit over NJ teen driver decals

[pauldun170]

Originally Posted by Kaneman

So a Government can take away Constitutional freedoms but not add additional freedoms not covered in the original paperwork? Transportation, even as an idea, was so vastly different then from what we have now that I'm not sure why the original Constitution should be expected to cover this.

Nor am I arguing that State government should not have any control over public roads. I'm not anti-speed limit, stop signs etc, etc. I'm extremely anti-drunk driver and believe in the enforcement of reasonable traffic laws by state or local police departments. However, I disagree with being required by the State to identify yourself as being part of a specific population segment such as a teenager.

Rights, like privileges may be taken away. Therefore it is not necessary to look at driving as a "privilege" that the Government has complete control over to believe in the common-sense need for certain legislation. The overall view that open-travel is a luxury afforded to us only as a government allowed luxury is dangerous.

The Government cannot "take away" your constitutional freedoms without having to face the courts. We have more freedoms today than we have EVER had in the history of this country.

The government tossing legislative or regulatory bullshit is another issue and the voters are responsible for that.
Whose idea do you think it was for these stickers?
Donna Weeks, mother of Kyleigh D’Alessio whose death in 2006 resulted in citizens petitioning their local representatives to creat Kyleigh's Law. The law thats forcing these stickers.
Dont blame government. Blame your neighbors for using their constitutional rights to petition government. Blame your other neighbors for being both ignorant and apathetic towards their local government.