Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(60,567 posts)
49. Those examples, i.e. equipment standards for cars, all involve interstate commerce
Sat Apr 28, 2012, 10:32 AM
Apr 2012

The Constitution. Read it.

You do have a point about an unfunded mandate with a simple ban, which is why they need to require technology to have the phones or the car to enforce the ban.

Wait, what?

You're saying the government should REQUIRE that cell phones be installed in cars, so that their (I assume non-emergency) use can be BANNED?

That might address the interstate commerce issue, but wow. Just wow.

How many people have been in an accident whilst arguing 2on2u Apr 2012 #1
Ray LaHood is a Republican - the timing for this wedge issue is too coincidental. kristopher Apr 2012 #17
Next will have to be: no kids in the car. They're sure as hell more distracting than cell phones williesgirl Apr 2012 #81
Watch this video: Then tell me texting and driving is like "... {making} waffles ..." panzerfaust Apr 2012 #72
My failure to put a sarcasm thingy or a humor icon has left 2on2u Apr 2012 #80
this was the first thing Hitler did Enrique Apr 2012 #2
Damn Nazis........ Stainless Apr 2012 #22
I've almost gotten hit several times by drivers who were distracted with their cell phones Art_from_Ark Apr 2012 #3
Distracted or negligent driving can be caused by anything. AtheistCrusader Apr 2012 #34
Like I said, I have been almost hit several times by drivers who are engrossed in their damn phones Art_from_Ark Apr 2012 #46
I have been hit. 5 times. Mostly in the city of bellevue. AtheistCrusader Apr 2012 #67
I heard on the radio today shawn703 Apr 2012 #4
I'd like to see non-anecdotal evidence that it will help. TheWraith Apr 2012 #5
Probably not... Serve The Servants Apr 2012 #7
In BC for the first year after the ban, not much OnlinePoker Apr 2012 #13
What states have banned cell phone use? thesquanderer Apr 2012 #18
Chapel Hill, NC melm00se Apr 2012 #41
It hasn't helped in a measurable way here in California because the law is widely ignored slackmaster Apr 2012 #27
Here are some statistics bhikkhu Apr 2012 #31
Accellerometers in the phones, which will explode above 15mph. Problem solved. (nt) Posteritatis Apr 2012 #42
Finally. MiddleFingerMom Apr 2012 #6
But, but... Serve The Servants Apr 2012 #8
Our state law has an exemption for 'emergency situations'. AtheistCrusader Apr 2012 #35
I'd ban them. People drive like shit anyway...they don't need any help driving more shitty. BlueJazz Apr 2012 #9
I agree. n/t RebelOne Apr 2012 #19
Good. As a pedestrian OBEYING ALL LAWS I have nearly been struck by I-don't-know-how-many kestrel91316 Apr 2012 #10
agreed..... dhill926 Apr 2012 #24
I'm not sure but I think Los Angeles goclark Apr 2012 #53
".....Los Angeles is filled with CRAZY DRIVERS....." - sums it ALL up. kestrel91316 Apr 2012 #86
You can't ban phone use in cars. Texting, yes, that should be illegal unless parked, but hands-free truthisfreedom Apr 2012 #11
Depends on the conversation/argument They_Live Apr 2012 #33
We gonna ban passengers too? AtheistCrusader Apr 2012 #36
There have been studies; hands-free mobile phone use is as distracting as using a handset. Spider Jerusalem Apr 2012 #50
Then conversing with a passenger should be just as much so. Occulus Apr 2012 #60
You clearly didn't bother to read the links Spider Jerusalem Apr 2012 #62
There needs to be a regulation on the phones themselves. denverbill Apr 2012 #12
banning phones in motion... thesquanderer Apr 2012 #15
And? Thor_MN Apr 2012 #26
Why in the hell would one do that? AtheistCrusader Apr 2012 #37
because some people are just afraid of technology i guess.. frylock Apr 2012 #40
Hey now, brandishing a cane while using a cell phone is a complex juggling act. (nt) Posteritatis Apr 2012 #43
An acceptable price for removing millions of impaired drivers from the roads Thor_MN Apr 2012 #47
I use my phone while driving all the time. AtheistCrusader Apr 2012 #68
Well, possibly you are the exception to the rule, so far... Thor_MN Apr 2012 #73
That would spoil all the fun. Quantess Apr 2012 #55
Hello 1984 Ter Apr 2012 #45
It is not the phones it is the people. Exultant Democracy Apr 2012 #14
they will be giving tickets to the people Enrique Apr 2012 #23
They ought to ban arguing about cell phones while driving, while driving. Orrex Apr 2012 #16
This has to be the dumbest ... JustABozoOnThisBus Apr 2012 #32
Hopefully, our cars will drive themselves soon and it won't be an issue (NT Eric J in MN Apr 2012 #20
I, too, want to see this happen. kentauros Apr 2012 #79
Bwahahahaha! nt ZombieHorde Apr 2012 #21
I absolutely agree it should be banned but where in the Constitution would the federal government... slackmaster Apr 2012 #25
Ohhh, nobody follows that silly little document anymore. N/T Serve The Servants Apr 2012 #28
What is the justification for the seat belt? Airbags? Third, high mounted brakelight? Thor_MN Apr 2012 #48
Those examples, i.e. equipment standards for cars, all involve interstate commerce slackmaster Apr 2012 #49
And standards for communication equipment are? Thor_MN Apr 2012 #57
You haven't addressed the issue of federal regulation of privately owned phones being used for... slackmaster Apr 2012 #58
Can you make the same arguement for brake lights and airbags please? Thor_MN Apr 2012 #61
The USES of brake lights and air bags and brake lights are regulated by state laws slackmaster Apr 2012 #64
I believe I addressed that, but you have still ignored federal regulation of cell phones themselves Thor_MN Apr 2012 #66
The Courts have long ruled, it is CONGRESS that decides what is interstate Commerce happyslug Apr 2012 #63
Having a certain weed growing in your yard is "interstate commerce" according to the SCOTUS.. Fumesucker Apr 2012 #52
Yes, I've read all about Wickard v. Filburn and how expansion of federal power is based on ICC slackmaster Apr 2012 #54
Using a cell phone doesn't involve commerce? Fumesucker Apr 2012 #56
Yes, of course. Also the frequencies, power, etc. are all regulated and MUST be to avoid chaos. slackmaster Apr 2012 #71
Some can do it, some can't customerserviceguy Apr 2012 #29
AT&T and Verizon will ensure this never happens high density Apr 2012 #30
Then, no more talking to the control tower while piloting an airplane. leveymg Apr 2012 #38
Damn, you beat me to it. PavePusher Apr 2012 #51
Training panzerfaust Apr 2012 #70
Not advocating texting while driving. Talking is a different matter. Fed law? - No. leveymg Apr 2012 #76
How is this business of the feds? SpartanDem Apr 2012 #39
It isn't. harun Apr 2012 #65
Anything that can effect interstate commerce in any way is the business of the feds.. Fumesucker Apr 2012 #75
Come on, there's no need to make this federal Ter Apr 2012 #44
Would it even be legal if the federal government tried? Just wondering. cstanleytech Apr 2012 #83
I'm almost convinced that he's announcing things like this fujiyama Apr 2012 #59
I thought most states had bans against this already. Guess i was wrong. Lars77 Apr 2012 #69
(Raises hand) Get out of my way! Can't you see I'm on the phone?! sofa king Apr 2012 #74
What people are failing to realize is that arikara Apr 2012 #77
A simple Faraday cage around the driver's cranium would solve that problem slackmaster Apr 2012 #82
LOL... I know its not something most like to hear arikara Apr 2012 #84
Good. n/t Fearless Apr 2012 #78
Who enforces such a law, local law enforcement? madville Apr 2012 #85
I think we should have a ban on bans Blue Hen Buckeye Apr 2012 #87
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»U.S. ban sought on cell p...»Reply #49