It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by beezzer
If someone gets in trouble, isn't it their own responsibility? Why risk sending an EMT unit?
The way I see it, the question is: What kind of people would drive out in this weather?
3. And idiots that think having a vehicle with four-wheel drive makes it safe to travel in this weather. To those I say, Hey idiots! It's not how fast can you go in the snow, it's how fast can you stop! I don't care if you have a hundred wheel drive, if all the wheels are on ice you're going to kill someone before you stop.
reply to post by rmo4lx
If I have a 4 wheel drive vehicle and have business to attend to, I should not have a government telling me I cannot drive on the roads that I pay for with my tax dollars.
Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
reply to post by hawkiye
Yuo can yak all day about constitution and rights during peacetime, but when a declared emergency call is made, of a dire situation and immediate threat to the safety of the People, the issue is who will take responsibility if lives are lost?
Do remember, SOE is not forever, but only for a limited time as long as the genuine threat lasts and in this SOE instance - a very real storm.
If the People foolishly take your advice, and they lose their lives as a result, can you assume that responsiblity and sleep peacefully at night, even if you will not be charged as they made their choice?
That storm may be bad, or perhaps just a breeze, but none knows for sure, for no man can be certain for sure with Nature. Prevention is better than cure. Staying safe for a few hours or days is not going to infringe or make the citizen lose their rights, but if they do not heed emergency warnings and lose their lives, or the lives of others trying to save them....it is forever.
Take care all...edit on 8-2-2013 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by hawkiye
It is quite Constitutional. The founders were very clear that Governors shall possess "supreme Executive Powers". Sometimes you have to read beyond the Constitution to actually understand the Constitution. These executive powers include the authority to declare martial law.
There is no "Right to Drive".. Check the Constitution and understand the facts
The Highways are owned by the government.. either local, county or state.. They "GRANT" you a license to drive on them if you qualify within the parameters "THEY" set.. If you don't, you can not drive on them
Yes, I have heard all the many and varied arguments, I used to teach Constitutional Law to academy cops, and they are all moot.. YES the government is of the people and by the people but that does NOT make the highways YOURS.. It mean YOU grant the elected officials the power to regulate who drives and when..ie.. YOU
Those that hate the government will always hate them and never agree with any decisions they make
They typically quote Robertson v. Washington State Department of Public
Works as their case law precedent.
As an example, one such site is
There's a current discussion on Amazon.com wherein one of the discussion
participants states he was part of a "mass dismissal" of infractions.
What research I've been able to do does not support any of the claims.
Robertson V. DPW does discuss a "right to travel over public roads" as
fundamental, but nowhere indicates that "right to travel" equals "right to
operate a motor vehicle."
It is a privilege granted by the State you live in. The State regulates the rules and restrictions for driving. The State can also pull your privilege and deny you the ability to legally drive. The States also have reciprocity with the other states so if you are licensed in one state you license is valid in all states.
Originally posted by snowspirit
They're referring to him as an "emergency vehicle". :shk:
This was in Boston.
I thought Boston was used to snow.
edit on 8-2-2013 by snowspirit because: (no reason given)