Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucsfcgl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!arnold
From: arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL)
Newsgroups: net.auto,net.legal
Subject: Re: Radar Surveillance
Message-ID: <623@ucsfcgl.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 25-Aug-85 21:32:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucsfcgl.623
Posted: Sun Aug 25 21:32:49 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 27-Aug-85 01:24:30 EDT
References: <1081@homxa.UUCP> <4891@allegra.UUCP> <269@ihlpl.UUCP> <1090@homxa.UUCP> <719@homxb.UUCP> <> <229@proper.UUCP>
Reply-To: arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold)
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab
Lines: 55
Xref: watmath net.auto:7848 net.legal:2168

In article <229@proper.UUCP> elric@proper.UUCP (Elric of Imrryr) writes:
>3) The national 55mph speed limit was forced down the states throats by
>the federal gov't. (States that don't enforce the 55mph limit don't get
>any highway $$$ from uncle. Even those that $$$$ came from the
>taxpayers of that state.  So I'm not speed because the 55mph is
>illegal. It says in the consitution that the Federal Gov't is not to
>interfear in the laws of the states.

[all grammar and spelling from the original]

The Constitution says nothing of the sort.  It states (10th Ammendment)
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people."  The U.S. Government has the
constitutional authority to allocate funds to the states, and if it
chooses to put restrictions on those funds they have that right (modulo
many questions of violation of personal and state's rights), since the
Constitution gives the Congress the authority to allocate funds.  And
states are free to refuse the funds because they don't like the
restrictions (or for any other reason, like, say, that they don't like
the color of the money :-).

This is no different from the U.S. offering money to any public
institution with the proviso that the instution not discriminate on the
basis of sex (which is not an explicitly guaranteed constitutional
right).  If the goverment gives money away, it has the right to ensure
that the money is used in what it deems is a proper way, and, currently,
it considers that building and maintaining highways were gas is
wasted by driving over 55mph is not proper.  (This is NOT an invitation
to debate if they are CORRECT; they have the constiutional right to
do so, correct or not.)

Of course, this says nothing about interfering with state law, since no
state has had its law superceded by federal law; they all voluntarily
changed it in order to continue reaping the benefit of federal money.

[certainly irrelevant discussion on hierarchy of national vs. state law
 follows, and can be ignored by people only interested in issues of 55mph]

As far as interfering with state law goes, the national goverment has
the constitutional right to make laws which superceded not only state
legislation, but state constitutions as well.  The Voting Rights Act is
a supreme example of this.  It can only do so in areas where its
legislative authority is clear in the Constitution, such as in
interstate commerce, the guaranteeing of republican goverment to the
states, etc.  But within those areas, if it chooses to legislate, its
word is law in all states.  In fact, if its legislation is
comprehensive enough, states can not even make more restrictive
legislation.

This would only apply to 55mph if the Congress had passed a maximum
speed limit law which set the maximum speed directly.  All they did was
set a condition for receipt of federal money.

		Ken Arnold