dksuddeth

Again, you've shown me how the states have authority to regulate just about everything BUT the person on the road. They can regulate the operations, the vehicles, the safety limits, etc. but I see no direct and specific wording that says the state has the authority to regulate the who. The why's, the how's, the wherefores, yes, but not the who. Before the civil war, Most of the courts decisions lay along the very specific wording of whatever law they were arguing about and if it wasn't there, or it exceeded authority, they ruled against it or declared it unconstitutional. Not so much anymore because nowadays it's all about 'government interest'. Legislatures purposefully create ambiguous laws because they know that the courts will generally side with 'government interests'.

This is where the problem lies. The courts have made very ambiguous decisions to allow the government to incorporate just about anything in to their fold of power, leaving the courts to decide, at their sole discretion, whether the government oversteps its authority or not. Take a look at the differences between US v. Lopez and Gonzalez v. Raich just as a single example. State courts aren't very much different, with the exception of a few states that i've read about.

For the second time in my existence on this board, I think i'll take your advice.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."