Grieve In Private, Not Along Maryland's Highways

[SxyPrincess]

Originally posted by jazz lady
Save your flowers for their graveside. Better yet, donate the money you would have spent to a charity. THAT is a way better way to remember somebody.

'Cause Lord knows there aren't any tacky cemetaries.

 

[tlatchaw]

And if you need them to remind you to drive right, maybe you shouldn't be on the road at all.

Hmmm. Sounds like road rage to me. Pardon me while I get out of your lane.

 

[Otter]

Originally posted by tlatchaw
Sounds like road rage to me.

Not as bad as forum rage, tho..

 

[jazz lady]

Originally posted by otter
Not as bad as forum rage, tho..

 

[Hessian]

Different take

I know several that are tastefully done...simple, limited.

I don't object: Sadly I see all these memorials as a testament to a society that a) rushes too much and b) is too crowded. Zoning boards have opened the flood gates for thousands of people to pour in, and drive like NASCAR idiots down roads that were designed for horses and carts.

Formula:
Bring in thousands of out-of-state Harvey-homeowners....
Demand that everything in life be faster....
results: Dozens of dead on Hwys
....and lots of memorials.

 

[Sharon]

Originally posted by tlatchaw
And if you need them to remind you to drive right, maybe you shouldn't be on the road at all.

Hmmm. Sounds like road rage to me. Pardon me while I get out of your lane.

I could explain it to you but somehow you'd probably still miss the point.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by http
That group and the article are both BS. Anyone has the right to gather and peacefully protest and carry signs on public land under the FIRST AMENDMENT. Yes FIRST! It’s called the right to assemble.

Interesting statement here. And no, you do not have the right to assemble on private property without the owner’s permission. While the state or county has a “right of way” on the property very little of it is actually owned by them. Property lines extend out to the center of the roadway and if you recall from the snow removal legislation the property owner was required to provide the service on what were thought to be public sidewalks (because they were on the county or state right of way) to make sure the area was clear for pedestrians.

Now if these “memorials” have been constructed with the property owner’s permission and don’t create a hazard then there is no problem with them. But I would venture to say that we all have seen the exception that does make it more hazardous to operate on the roadways.

 

[http]

Originally posted by Ken King
Interesting statement here. And no, you do not have the right to assemble on private property without the owner’s permission. While the state or county has a “right of way” on the property very little of it is actually owned by them. Property lines extend out to the center of the roadway and if you recall from the snow removal legislation the property owner was required to provide the service on what were thought to be public sidewalks (because they were on the county or state right of way) to make sure the area was clear for pedestrians.

Now if these “memorials” have been constructed with the property owner’s permission and don’t create a hazard then there is no problem with them. But I would venture to say that we all have seen the exception that does make it more hazardous to operate on the roadways.

You are right in that most public land is "right of way" but I disagree on the snow removal legislation.

Snow removal legislation is slowly but surely being enacted everywhere because the state/county/city whatever just doesn't have the resources to keep up with all of new concrete for these new developments. That was the law in DC since I was a kid forever. My grandmother didn't actually own the sidewalk. But she was requred to shovel snow and was allowed to plant flowers and crap like that in the median and I actually had to cut the grass. It is still public property though. I'm not talking about imaginary plat lines, I am talking about actual concrete.

Believing that you actually own land under the road in front of your driveway is just as silly as actually going out there and try to fill potholes on your own.

 

[http]

"And no, you do not have the right to assemble on private property without the owner’s permission."

I said public.

 

[SurfaceTension]

Originally posted by http
That group and the article are both BS. Anyone has the right to gather and peacefully protest and carry signs on public land under the FIRST AMENDMENT.

Non sequitor - Nobody said anything about carrying signs. The article was about planting signs/memorials. You do not have a 1st Amendment "right" to plant a swastika (sp?) on the White House lawn, 100mph speed limit sign on your street, or a dancing gnome on the hood of a County dump truck because it is "public" property.

These things are just another symptom of the "look at me/feel my pain/I'm hurting so notice me" society.

 

[http]

Originally posted by SurfaceTension
Non sequitor - Nobody said anything about carrying signs. The article was about planting signs/memorials. You do not have a 1st Amendment "right" to plant a swastika (sp?) on the White House lawn, 100mph speed limit sign on your street, or a dancing gnome on the hood of a County dump truck because it is "public" property.

These things are just another symptom of the "look at me/feel my pain/I'm hurting so notice me" society.

There are two types of law. There is constitutional law and statutory law. You actually DO have th right to plant a swastika on the whitehouse (people actually do it everyday down there, swastikas, abortions, go see for yourself) or a 100mph speed limit sign on your street until a JUDGE makes it illegal for that district. And that usually comes from some group of people making a case. Ever heard of cross-burning? Constitutional law exists only until the judicial system makes their subtle footnotes to suite a group of people in demand. Happens everyday.

 

[SurfaceTension]

Originally posted by http
You actually DO have th right ....

Oh c'mon...If you lit a 100' cross on the steps of the Capital, you're saying that the Park Police would just say "Dayum, there's a guy who knows how express his 1st Amendment Rights"?!

The State law prohibitng you from installing a sign at the end of your driveway that says "SPEED LIMIT should be 100 MPH" is unconstitutional?

You from the ACLU?

 

[http]

Originally posted by SurfaceTension
Oh c'mon...If you lit a 100' cross on the steps of the Capital, you're saying that the Park Police would just say "Dayum, there's a guy who knows how express his 1st Amendment Rights"?!

The State law prohibitng you from installing a sign at the end of your driveway that says "SPEED LIMIT should be 100 MPH" is unconstitutional?

You from the ACLU?

If this was 1950 I would actually answer your question yes. Only due to the pressure of the civil rights movement did burning crosses become illegal. That is what is meant by "statutory law" ie changing "constitutional law". The people can do a whole lot if they get themselves organized. Remember over the last 5 years, the people have even managed to get a State flag changed and a concrete nativity scene removed from a PUBLIC BUILDING!!!!

As far as your second question, the operative word is State law (that's what I mean by statutory) State laws don't just come poof out of the air. So technically, yes it is unconstitutional.

Here's how law works in the States:

A. Soldiers take land from Natives and Brits.
B. Declare new country.
C. Declare God's inaliable rights the highest Law of the land and call it the Bill of Rights.
D. Establish new laws of the land under God and call it the Constitution (so people don't start practicing biblical stuff like eye for an eye, etc.)
E. Forget a bunch of stuff and add them later calling the amendments (this is where idiots such as Rush argue about. Conservatives vs. Liberals. Conservatives wanted law to stop right here after the 1st 13 ammendments I think. Liberals wanted to continue to add new ammendments as times changed.)

And lastly, E. Establish courts to overide God given AND constitutional rights AND amendments as times and situations change, since no situation is ever the same.

Think of it this way, The God given right is Americans can have sex and procreate (Bill of Rights). Constitutional Rights says you can have sex as long as it is with another human. An amendment would say as long as its not sodomy. Then the local courts chop it up all the way down to not being able to have sex with minors or in public (hint hint.)

So yes, it is all unconstitutional when you think about it. Give us rights and slowly take them away. That's just the way it goes to protect ourselves from ourselves. Imagine if there were absolutely no gun control laws and the 2nd amendment was taken *VERBATIM* today. Would you feel safe with every person in your office, CHILD, CRIMINAL, neighbor having a concealed .32 strapped to their waist?

 

[http]

Originally posted by *archimedes*
e plurubus dillhole

Are you trying to say "e PLURIBUS unam" dillhole? What the h@ll does that have to do with anything? Who are you talking to?

 

[mainman]

Originally posted by http
Are you trying to say "e PLURIBUS unam" dillhole? What the h@ll does that have to do with anything? Who are you talking to?

he was calling you a dillhole. you gonna take that?

 

[SurfaceTension]

A(n uncostitutional?) law was passed to stop burning crosses.
A(n unconstitutional?) Statelaw was passed prohibiting signs resembling traffic signs.

Originally posted by http

Maryland CANNOT prevent the laying down of these memorials.

Call me dense, but explain again to me why they CANNOT pass a law prohibiting the memorials given the above. Then, please, explain why you have a problem with this, but not the gun control example in the last post.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by http
"And no, you do not have the right to assemble on private property without the owner’s permission."

I said public.

The premise you pushed, if I am following this right, was that roadside memorials were an expression of one’s 1st Amendment rights and that the memorials were on “public lands”. My point is that most aren’t on “public land”, I say that they are on private property designated for specific public use (roadways or utilities) and that the individual must have the land owners permission to place their displays upon it.

Believing that you actually own land under the road in front of your driveway is just as silly as actually going out there and try to fill potholes on your own.

I’ve filled potholes on streets down here (at least in Compton). Back when what we had were mostly dirt roads. Wasn’t silly as my Dad had me load and move dirt while he sculpted what I just dumped into a temporary patch. It was work, the whole community was doing it, but we had to if we wanted smooth streets? County didn’t have money for us that far off the main roads.

Because the county has lain pavement does not give you, the individual, the right to use the surrounding property as you see fit.

 

[tlatchaw]

Ooooh! We're getting testy about this (where exactly is the dill hole? Is that anatomy of some manner?)

 

[http]

Originally posted by mainman
he was calling you a dillhole. you gonna take that?

Dillhole? Yea I am. You wanna know why? If memory serves, he just quoted a famous line from Beavis and Butthead. Anyone who quotes Beavis and Butthead is not worth dealing with.

 

[http]

Originally posted by *archimedes*
you misspelled it, too, ass

Unum. Happy now dipsh!t?