The intellectual firepower behind the Constitution and Declaration of Independence came from “deists,” an 18th century version of political correctness that was used to describe agnostics and atheists.

Jefferson coined the term “wall of separation” for a reason. Clearly, we didn’t build that wall high enough. Should have included a fringe of barbed wire along the top and a few guard towers, while we were at it.

Otherwise we’d merely be robots. That is why there is free will. You can believe that or not, too. It’s still a free country!

But the facts are that many of the founders were devout Christians of various denominations or traditions, in fact the vast majority were. That is historically accurate and very well known. At least, until “newspeak” rewrites history, anyway. It’s also known that many did not believe that this nation could stand long without God, and that God delivered this nation to freedom in our war for independence.

I have an agnostic or possibly atheist friend and colleague at work who has worked relentlessly to see that Ron Paul is elected President of the United States. I would describe him as a constitutionalist and libertarian, and I respect him and his right to have his own beliefs and opinions about faith, and all other subjects.

Even agsnostics and atheists can recognize that there is something “special” and unique about the United States and recognize that going back to basics – and actually paying attention to the United States Constitution – would be advantageous for all.

Personally, with regards to speed limits, I would love to see higher speed limits on roads where this could be safe, AND even more importantly, would love to see the retraining of all drivers on the road to British or German standards, which will do more to improve safety than anything else we could do. Because in the UK and Germany, a good number of drivers actually concentrate on their driving while driving! I know, what a novel idea, eh? That is they are driving, instead of behind behind the steering wheel while-

-drinking latte
-slapping the kids in the back of the minivan
-yakking continuously on the cell phone
-eating a Burger King whopper while steering (?) with their knees
-texting friends
-or doing all of the above pretty much at the same time

And another analysis from the 90’s which concludes mainly traffic density kills.
http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/speedsci.html

Speed limits are not about safety. Cars are required to by federal law in the US to meet certain minimal standards to ensure the passengers in vehicles will likely survive a 30 mph crash.

So if the speed limit is really about all this maximal safety, at best, you would not allow any speed limits to exceed 30 mph. I guess considering two cars can hit head on you might really need to make it 15 mph. (Yes I know the physics of a head on at 15 mph doesn’t equal 30 mph into a fixed object, but we would be requiring way too much of our gov’t to get that involved). So if you let limits be more than 30 mph it isn’t just about safety. Either there are other trade offs from maximum safety for higher speeds or it isn’t about safety at all.

Okay so maybe it is about reasonable safety. Speed at which at least an observant driver can safely operate. Plenty of info indicates posted speed limits are usually below this speed. Over and over again it is observed the speed at which 85% of the people drive on a road is the safe speed limit for the road. Google “85th percentile” and “speed limit” and knock yourself out reading about it.

Furthermore, I believe we have the RIGHT to free (unrestricted) travel within the US. Since we no longer use horses and carriages, I would argue that driving a vehicle on the roads is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. Unfortunately, the sheeple have let the guv’ment turn it into a state granted (and denied) privilege.

except that it doesnt…

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/main.html

half the facts used by the do-gooder-we-know-better-than-you-do-do-as-we-say thought police are made up/fudged

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

-Thomas Jefferson

It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

-John Adams

That’s The Truth About the Founding Fathers. No more religious revisionism, please.

I hear, respect you.

But as Robert likes to keep things on-topic, and as I’ve already strayed enough for one day, instead of addressing your concern in this forum, might I hope you would thoughtfully consider the view expressed here:

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=143

My father drove our tiny Ford Anglia from Ithaca, NY, to Bar Harbor Maine, 679 miles in 12 and a half hours, and a lot of it was 2 lane.

We stopped only for gas and nature, and had good fun passing all the Saab two strokes. We could do 80, but they couldn’t. Most cars were doing about 75.

That was my first visit to the US, and we were impressed with the roads compared to Canada.

Now it’s 2008, and while folks may travel at 80 plus, the speed limit is usually less. Cars are 10 times more capable than 1960 models, no 2 ply rayon bias ply tires, no drum brakes up front.

Speed limits have not moved with the times, that’s for sure, and over in the UK, it’s bullshit city with the speed cameras. Even good drivers over there have citations and points on their license. So, if they take it on the chin without changing their government, well tough luck on them.

Actually this is a disputed point. “Due process of law” doesn’t, and can’t, merely mean “we filled out all the forms we’re s’posed to, now you’re going to jail”.

Hence a stronger term, “substantive due process” came into use, indicating that authorities really have to have a case against you.

I didn’t mean to leave the term ‘rights’ unguarded. The context, above, shows that I mean inalienable rights.

If the Government gives you a ‘right’ to deliver some mail, say, over a given distance, they can take it away from you later.

Many people see rights similarly. You have the right to live, be free, only until the majority goes against you. Then you lose your rights.

The Civil Rights Movement worked because King and others appealed over the heads of the majority (who didn’t allow that blacks had certain rights) to the Declaration and inalienable rights.

Rights given by a Creator, are part of who you are, and cannot be separated from you.

I’m sorry you think me silly because I think a speed limit could violate my rights.

Do you believe that driving faster than five mph, on a good road, etc. is a crime ?

If not, then it is an innocent activity.

The speed limit was 5 once. I didn’t mean to write 55, either. The speed limit was five.

If our legislators make the limit 5 again, are you now a criminal for driving six ?

[TexasAg03 wrote:] “Obviously, a gum ban (that sounds a bit familiar) would be ludicrous and no one would ever propose such a law.”

OK, how about a law against growing wheat–for your own use–on your own property ? Such a law was upheld by the Supreme Court and the ‘violators’ punished.

Finally, if you guys are indifferent to whether ’speeding’ penalties go only to those driving too fast, or to all who are merely in excess of posted limits, that seems to suggest that we can cure ’speeding’ once and for all.

Raise all limits to 270 mph, and you’ll have almost no speeders on the roads.

Raise the blood alcohol limit to 100% and you’ll have no drunk drivers either.

“But !” you might say. “We’d have so many impaired drivers, who’d kill so very many people !”

Exactly.

It’s not ‘violating’ some statute that kills, it’s driving dangerously.

Hence, the Basic Speed Law:

“No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property”

The United States Constitution was written for a people who believed in God and is wholly unsuited for any other (peoples) – paraphrased but accurate.

I was completely agreeing with you up to this point. Then it went horribly wrong. I do not have a belief in any higher power. Yet, strangely, my belief in the truth and wisdom of the Constitution might well equal that of your religious belief. How can this be? Either there is something wrong with me, or your absolute association of religion with constitituional republicanism is wrong.

Jefferson wrote “…are endowed by their creator…”. Despite my agnosticism, I have never had a problem with this line because it is no problem whatsoever for me to believe that my rights come strictly because of my existence, regardless of who or what created me.

That is precisely the problem. I wish I had enough confidence in other drivers to have unlimited speeds (in certain areas). It’s not that I wouldn’t like to be able to drive as fast as I want, but there are too many people who can’t handle it. That’s why I don’t have an issue with speed limits as they are set now (with some exceptions).

That then implies that no, the legislators may NOT make any law they wish against any activity they wish.

The point I was trying to make is that legislators already pass virtually any law they want and many times there is no challenge. Obviously, a gum ban (that sounds a bit familiar) would be ludicrous and no one would ever propose such a law.

Look, I am not a huge fan of government; I hold conservative views on almost every issue. If people had more sense, then I would be in favor of relaxing speed limits. I also think that the infrastructure would need some upgrades. I just don’t see where having speed limits is a violation of anyone’s rights.

If we could make it so that the people driving were properly trained and the roadways were of better quality, then I would be all for higher speed limits and, in some areas, no speed limits. I just don’t think that the current culture in America would submit to the training and discipline that would require. Could many people do it? Yes, of course. I just don’t know if it would be enough.

The fate of our American nation was and always will be tied to the faith or lack of faith, of the population, in a manner which the world has never seen before and probably won’t see again.

Well put.

If they have rights, that means they have rights absolutely secure against the will of the majority.

Of course the people have rights. Hundreds of thousands of people died for that ideal in this country. To say that we don’t have rights is just flat-out silly. Even sillier if you feel a speed limit violates your rights. I’m sure there are families of dead soldiers who would gladly shake your hand because you stood up for the little guy about speed limits.
Not being able to voice your thoughts to the government violates your rights. Denying you an attorney when accused of a crime violates your rights (you don’t need an attorney for minor traffic violations like speeding). Depriving you of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law violates your rights (meaning all those can be taken away if you are found guilty of breaking the law). Having a speed limit does not violate your rights.
You have the right to petition your local, state and federal representative if you do not agree with a law. Just because you don’t agree with a law doesn’t mean it has to be changed. The Civil Rights Movement worked because a majority of people DID believe in equal rights for all. But that is FAAARRR more important than a 25mph speed limit in a residential neighborhood.
You may need to check out the Schoolhouse Rock “I’m Just a Bill” cartoon to refresh you on how the government works rather than listening to Lou Dobbs or Glen Beck.

If they have rights, that means they have rights absolutely secure against the will of the majority.

That then means that the majority must confine itself to Constitutional laws only, laws that do not violate the rights of the people.

That then implies that no, the legislators may NOT make any law they wish against any activity they wish.”

Precisely and well said. To accomplish this (” majority must confine itself to Constitutional laws only”) requires living in a REPUBLIC, and not a Democracy. In a Democracy, the majority which rules simply sets rules to steal from the minority. The United States was established and is to this day, supposed to be a REPUBLIC, not a Democracy.

But a massive majority of the US public think we live in a Democracy, and don’t even understand the difference.

Ignorance (by design by those intent on obtaining and retaining power) is our downfall.

When I swore to defend and protect the United States Constitution from enemies both from without and within, the day I joined the military, there was no time-limit on that oath.

99% of the current politicians are seditious and a good portion are treasonous.

That is, if you believe in God, the United States of America and the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Yeah it may sound corny, but if you don’t believe in any higher power than other human beings, then the laws of man will simply come and go at the whim of the powerful, and the people will be in no better situation than East Germans were under the heel of the Stazi blackboots, or under Stalin’s KGB.

The United States Constitution was written for a people who believed in God and is wholly unsuited for any other (peoples) – paraphrased but accurate.

98% of teens are unchurched. 95% of churched college students leave their faith. We Americans are less than a generation from being in the same situation as Western Europe and Britain, and all that entails.

The fate of our American nation was and always will be tied to the faith or lack of faith, of the population, in a manner which the world has never seen before and probably won’t see again.

Here in Pennsylvania, 75 mph is about the average speed on limited access, rural highways. That is more a function of improved cars with better control of noise, vibration and harshness than the higher speed limit (which went from 55 mph to 65 mph in late 1995).

When the speed limit initially changed, I noticed no real increase in the speed of traffic. People do drive faster NOW, 13 years later, but, as I said, that is largely because of improved vehicles.

TexasAg03: At what speed would you say people should be ticketed? I am curious. At some point there has to be a limit.

Yes, we should ticket left-lane campers, regardless of their speed. If there has to be a speed limit, I would set it at 80 mph for Pennsylvania in rural areas.

Realistically, many western states wouldn’t need one for rural interstates.

The question of whether I’m low and/or disgusting I’m content to leave for another day.

The question, central here throughout, is whether people have rights.

If they have rights, that means they have rights absolutely secure against the will of the majority.

That then means that the majority must confine itself to Constitutional laws only, laws that do not violate the rights of the people.

That then implies that no, the legislators may NOT make any law they wish against any activity they wish.

I would be happy and pleased to drive 65 mph on two lane roads in a 1956 Studebaker Golden Hawk with single circuit drum brakes, a big supercharged V8, no collapsable steering column and only accessory option dealer fitted lap belts – IF – the roads were kept as well as they should be considering the taxes I pay in; my fellow drivers were as competent as British or German drivers generally are; and my car was in safe and sound condition.

It speaks volumes that in 2002, I finally concluded that, being surrounded by inattentive, often imbecilic and downright dangerous drivers who apparently think rules don’t have any place on the roadway and drive accordingly, I chose to specifically buy a car with side-air-bags.

By 2005, I had added curtain air bags, ABS, vehicle stability control and brake assist to my requirements for a safe car. Not because MY driving was getting worse, but because tailgating, red light/stop sign running, cell phone use/weaving and other dangerous driving had become absolutely pandemic.

So, we should just let everyone do what they want? It sounds to me like you want no rules.

Certainly it’s the view of Stephen A. Douglas, who wanted the States to be able to simply vote, up or down, on whether to be slave states.

What could be more fair ?

So now speed limits are the equivalent of slavery? I think comparing the issue of speed limits to slavery and the civil rights movement is low. As a matter of fact, it is disgusting.

I’m willing to bet if we eliminated the speed limits on the highways, people wouldn’t be doing the things you mentioned while driving. You would see the skill level would rise dramatically, quickly.

You may be right, and I certainly would hope so. I still say we need more rigorous driver training, not to mention better roads…

I’m willing to bet if we eliminated the speed limits on the highways, people wouldn’t be doing the things you mentioned while driving. You would see the skill level would rise dramatically, quickly.

It’s BECAUSE they don’t HAVE to pay attention to herd their vehicle along at the speed limit that they DON’T. Remember, the speed limit is set for the slowest common denominator… where ANY incompetent, ignorant, idiot SHOULD still be able to keep it between the lines.

Actually, I’m among those who is more interested in what they won’t give me, because I know that means they are taking something away from others and myself as well in order to give something to me.

In a nation where voting is possible, the people get the government they deserve.

I would actually say that any nation gets the government that they deserve. In many places throughout the world, people have revolted only to replace one despot with another.

I’m enjoying all the comments though. It’s refreshing to see someone questioning authority in a positive way.

Sure, what could be more fair, let the people vote !

And let the rights of the minority (to Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, to Bear Arms, etc etc) depend on the whims of the majority, how they feel that day ?

I fail to see how this differs from a lynch mob, men with guns and opinions, unless it’s somehow important that the lynch mob happens to write down their decisions, and bind them into a little book…

Certainly it’s the view of Stephen A. Douglas, who wanted the States to be able to simply vote, up or down, on whether to be slave states.

What could be more fair ?

Unless, of course, it so happens “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.”

Would you approve of this conversation ?

“Miss Parks, if you’ll just move to the back of the bus I won’t arrest you.”

“I’ve as much right to be here as that white woman. In fact, I sat down here first, and she just now boarded the bus.”

“Look, ma’am, that’s the law–if you want the law changed, change it!”

No, no, a thousand times no.

“All men are created equal…they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights”

If you are engaged in an innocent activity, no lawmaker, no law, and no police can change that.

They cannot take away your rights–they can only VIOLATE your rights.

Maybe you should read a prior posting in the News section of this site about the effectiuve elimination of vandalism as a crime in at least one UK jurisdiction (that is what I was referring to). My personal experience is that many police don’t give a rats ass about property crimes unless its their property.

Case 1:
A guy nailed your car and fled the scene? You can come down and file a report which will promptly be placed in the circular file, thank you. You have his license plate number? Oh, it’s an Oregon license. That’s out of state; and well, practically speaking, there’s nothing we can really do. We don’t have the time, and neither do the Oregon police, to follow up on a minor crime involving property damage.

Case 2:

Sir, do you know why I pulled you over? Your registration tag is expired. (Takes proof of registration and license to police car and comes back.) I see that your car is registered, but since you did not have your tags properly displayed (I hadn’t received them yet from the DMV though I paid the fee several weeks prior)I’m issuing you a ticket. You can send in the ticket with the court fees and proof that you have your tags within the next 30 days to avoid paying the fine.

Those have been my experiences.

65 was reasonable in the ’50s and ’60s, given the handlng characteristics of the cars of the times. Also interstates were almost non-existent in 1956–the program was inaugurated by Eisenhower on June 29, 1956–although a few of the roads that became part of the interstate system were already built–PA tpk, NJ tpk, Maine tpk, and maybe others. Bottom line: 65mph would have been quite fast most of the way from Chi to NYC.

I can remember driving the Merritt (from close to New Haven to NYC) with my family of origin in the late ’50s and early ’60s in the 57 Chevy. It was twistier then than it is now, but there were curves where between the car and the road, you really didn’t want to exceed 45mph. Very different in my Accord.

Remember, I am talking about America, where people can’t be bothered with paying attention to what they are doing while driving. They may need to text their kid while eating a Jumbo Jack and drinking a 44 oz. Coke. It’s all about the skill level and, in Germany, they’ve got the skill level to do it.

It is also much harder and more expensive to get a license in Germany. They take driving seriously. I think that if the typical American treated driving the same way the typical German does and the training was more rigorous, then we could have places with no speed limit.