Here a Nanny, there a Nanny:NYC bans aluminum ball bats

The NY City council has voted and high school baseball teams are now banned from using aluminum bats.
Reasoning: The ball generally travels faster off an aluminum bat (from 0%-10%) and little Bobby or Suzy could get hurt more easily.
ALSO: Mayor Gloomberg wants to charge cars entering NYC $8.00 and trucks $21.00 for the pleasure of entering New York City. Why? Because NYC is Going Cra...I mean, Going Green.

Bloomberg must be a billionaire because of his unique views on economics. He said,

No votes yet

will have to use wood bats as a choice of weapon, too.

Until the lion writes his own story, the tale of the hunt will always glorify the hunter (African proverb)

Until the lion writes his own story, the tale of the hunt will always glorify the hunter (African proverb)

"Using economics to influence public behavior is something this country is built on"

You seem to deride this comment, but it's true. Think of things like tax-deductible mortgage interest to promote home ownership, EITC to promote work over welfare, etc.

Mayor Gloomberg wants to charge cars entering NYC $8.00 and trucks $21.00 for the pleasure of entering New York City

I think that this is a great way to encourage use of public transportation. This has worked in London and a few other cities. Why not try it here?

Reducing the amount of traffic entering a city well known for grid lock and parking lots that are upwards of 45$ a day and up and the air pollution to use public transportation which one can do from Conn., New Jersey and upstate, brilliant!

Metro North has service that is clean and efficient and you can ride the subway for $1.00 point to point with transfers included.

I am not seeing the problem.

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

Capitalism and Socialism

Capitalism is an open commerce system that is loosely regulated by the government. Those that are successful set social trends but they do not direct them.

Socialism is a government owned commerce system and a society structured and directed by the government. In theory it was believed this would work because the government would be fair and mete out equal treatment to everyone IN the society. In practice it did not work because of human greed and a desire for wealth and control.

There is a big difference in being a trend setter vs. a dictator.

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

"Using economics to influence public behavior is something this country is built on."

This has been overwhelmingly true in the US. Tobacco taxes used to decrease smoking rates, child tax credits to encourage having kids, enterprise zones that lure investment to certain areas with tax abatements, fines for any number of illegal activities, copays for physician visits to decrease haphazard use of the healthcare system, and tax credits for using environmentally friendly components when building a house are all examples of economic incentives or disincentives that alter behavior.

I don't necessarily agree with the decision to charge $8 to enter Manhattan below 86th street (actually this is still just a proposal), but that doesn't make his comment untrue. I would rather them make mass transit more appealing to the people that currently use cars to travel to work. In my opinion, positive motivating factors (better service, cheaper rates, etc) leading to behavior change are always superior than negative motivating factors (taxes, fees, fines, etc).

As for baseball bats.......the city should stay out of Little League. If the Little League organizers want to change the rules for safety reasons then go right ahead. Men's softball has long had rules prohibiting certain bats because of the danger posed to 3rd basement. However, for the city to step in and force them to make this rule is a little absurd.

They'll have to make the street private. :-)

As it is, this is a public street and the 'public' has a right to use it. Since they paid for it and all....

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

With no citation to a url, I went looking and found; "The major thruways along Manhattan's east and west sides would not be included, so it would be possible to go from Brooklyn to Harlem along the FDR Drive without entering the zone. Also, commuters who already pay a toll to come into Manhattan via tolls and tunnels would pay the price of the new fee minus that previous toll."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18263582/

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

Just for clarification purposes. The public owns entirely, public roads. They may vote to allow a local municipality to make decisions regarding the management of or approve parking meters for revenue. A state may approve by vote - the construction of a public highway and the collection of tolls. But this in no way affects their ownership of the actual roadway.

As far as the right to uninterrupted travel and the public ownership of public roads, it's such an old and well accepted doctrine that I have never had it come up in conversation before. The right to travel the roads is well addressed here:

"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135" (e.a.)

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

:-) It's just a Constitutional guarantee they're discussing.

Constitution schmonstitution - right?

Back to real life.

Your locally elected government makes the laws concerning traffic controls and vehicular registration. They work for you. This is no way is a surrender of rights. This is our hiring people (by voting for them) and paying them (typically with tax dollars) to do a job which is to administer services.

If they happen to be a legislative body - then they make laws that reflect their best understanding of the electing publics' desire and needs. That's why we have a drivers' license. Not because we don't have a right to drive without one, but because we compromised as a state - as did all the others - when a need to have a registry of drivers' became apparent. In Ohio that year was 1906. Henry Ford has started building cars in 1896 and by 1903 he had incorporated and entered into mass production.

The resultant activity on the streets was described by my great grandfather as 'mayhem'. Thus a registry was needed and the legislature provided one.

Little bit different than a license being your right to drive as it is presented today.
Curfews are the same way - they are offered up as a resolution to a governmental body to meet the needs of a community as it comes up. Enforced by the police department that the community owns.

Course the nannies don't want any one to actually know any of this :-)

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

The constitution is a living document and one that is interpreted by the courts since its writing. This http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20010213.htm url contains citations to many cases where courts have adjudicated that there is a right to travel and one that is not limited because there were no cars when the document was written.

"Indeed, quoting a legal encyclopedia is the lowest form of legal thought. It's merely a starting point."

I cannot help but wonder how many first year law students would agree that the a dictionary meant to help them understand the complexities and further how many paralegals and lawyers still turn to the books for advice and help.

If one searches for Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135 there is found many references to the courts of many jurisdictions that have held that there is a right to travel on streets.

Applying the right to drive on streets and to move from place to place would there be a case for denial of constitutional rights by the toll or entrace fee to just some streets and not all?

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

The constitution is a living document and one that is interpreted by the courts since its writing. This http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20010213.htm url contains citations to many cases where courts have adjudicated that there is a right to travel and one that is not limited because there were no cars when the document was written.

"Indeed, quoting a legal encyclopedia is the lowest form of legal thought. It's merely a starting point."

I cannot help but wonder how many first year law students would agree that the a dictionary meant to help them understand the complexities and further how many paralegals and lawyers still turn to the books for advice and help.

If one searches for Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135 there is found many references to the courts of many jurisdictions that have held that there is a right to travel on streets.

Applying the right to drive on streets and to move from place to place would there be a case for denial of constitutional rights by the toll or entrace fee to just some streets and not all?

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

held truths that it is really unusual to have to defend them. Such as the right of the public to use their roads.

Junta - you state the obvious that there weren't automobiles when the Constitution was written - and I'll sure give you that. However, the Constitution is indeed a living document and written to assure broad rights and protections. The rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a brilliant way to ensure that no matter what conventions or inventions that we came up with in the future - we would be guaranteed of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

There also were not computers - so does this mean to you that there is no right to free speech on the internet? I don't understand your thought process here - but I'm probably missing something again.

I referenced the American Jurisprudence because it's a compilation of discussion, references and research reports from American Law Reports, Thomson law - Am. Jur. Trials, Am. Jur. Proof of Facts and it's a staple of most of the law libraries I have been in. Our own counsel refers to it in the office often. And oddly enough the argument that the public has the right to use their roads comes up often.

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

When I made the comment that the constitution is a living document what I was meaning to imply and I did so poorly, was that the constitution is that the passages are read and applied to today's world and interpreted by the courts of now.

There a great deal of cases that were ruled to be constitutional and not and if we look for the words used, like abortion for one, abortion is never mentioned in the constitution.

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

SO, just to be clear. The Declaration of Independence was just that. A declaration of our independence from a tyrannical ruler.

Then the Constitution set up our branches of government and the controls upon each of them. This document was amended to include a bill of rights.

The Declaration declared in the first sentence of the second paragraph of its preamble that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

These are the declarations of what America would come to be. The Constitution is the government that was designed to create the intent of the Declaration of Independence.

I'm not going to keep having discussions with you like this. Read the documents! You will find them downright fascinating.

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

to catch my attitude on that. Yes, I do deride it. Capitalism was NOT designed to influence behavior/cause social engineering. That's called socialism/communism, IMO.

----------------------

BRING THE TROOPS HOME-NOW!
Why should one more drop of our soldiers blood be spilled on foreign soil? Why fight/die for 'freedom' anymore when our citizens are pissing it away at the voting booth?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

Thinking about that comment more, I wouldn't go so far as to say that the country was built on economics changing behavior. Certainly that happens as evidenced by examples given, but when I think about the things the country is built on I think of freedom of religion/speech/assembly, free market capitalism, and democracy.

They can use it by riding the bus or walking.

What about toll roads and parking meters on steets? The public paid for those as well.

In order to drive on city streets, I must have a street legal vehicle. This isn't just about protecting the investment, i must have, for example, a front and rear bumper that must be placed properly on my car.

I must have a license plate.

For minors and for all citizens during certain emergencies, a curfew is in place. Even minor emergencies like snow-emergencies.

I must obey laws regulating a given road, like speed limits and traffic signals.

I can't drive in car pool lanes unless I'm carpooling.

Etc Etc Etc

Laws governing the access and use of roads are abundant. This is no different.

Yes, because the founders contemplated automobiles (a little over 100 years later). Wow. While I admit that all people may have the right to use the roads, I will repeat my previous point. The means by which people use the roads is not constitutionally guaranteed. While the use of the roads may be a right, there is no right to drive. Regardless, I still see nothing in the constitution about the use of the roads as a right. Quoting a legal encyclopedia is not the same as quoting the constitution. Indeed, quoting a legal encyclopedia is the lowest form of legal thought. It's merely a starting point.

And where in the constitution does it say that it is a living, breathing document, or any language to the same effect? It doesn't. The constitution only provides that it may be changed by amendment. There is no such amendment to create the enumerated right to drive, or use the public roads (save the commerce clause). Additionally Kate, the Declaration of Independence is not the constitution. No where in the constitution does it mention "life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness."

Additionally, driving is a privilege and not a right. You would be surprised by how many people get caught driving either without a licence or with a suspended license. Perhaps there is a reason they get caught so easily. In the same respect, since the government gives the privilege to people to drive, the government can do what it wants in respect to that privilege, and that includes discouraging congestion by fees and other means when deemed necessary. Sure, you can use the roads, but the means by which are certainly not your right.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.