Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Virginia Speeding Fines Update
A judge has thrown out Virginia's odious new speeding fines on equal protection grounds—the fines only apply to motorists with Virginia license plates, not motorists from other states passing through or visiting. The fines, you may remember, range from $1,000 to $3,000, and can be applied for as minor an infraction as an improper signal, or driving 15 mph over the speed limit.
Typically, House of Delegates Speaker William Howell and Gov. Tim Kaine have responded to the ruling and to mounting public criticism by promising to address the fines in the next legislative session. Unfortunately, both have said they don't plan to revoke the fines or to make them more reasonable, only to apply them to all drivers, not just Virginians. Meaning they plan to address the public outrage by applying the fines to more people, not fewer.
Also on topic, Tim Carney explained in the D.C. Examiner this week the role private developers have played in pushing the fines into law.
Meanwhile, despite the backlash, the man most responsible for the fines and who probably stands to benefit from them more than any other individual—Del. David Albo—has no opponent in the November election.
My prediction: Supporters of the measure will use the Minneapolis bridge tragedy to explain why the fines are needed to shore up Virginia's infrastructure. The state announced just this morning that 400 of its bridges aren't up to snuff.
|8.3.07 @ 9:48AM|#
With $1000 bucks on the line, I'll go around Virginia, or more likely, fly. Sorry VA businesses, can't afford your crazy state.
edward|8.3.07 @ 9:57AM|#
Surely you can give up a little of your monetary wealth for a safer bridge, can't you?
|8.3.07 @ 10:02AM|#
I was considering moving from Maryland, which is rapidly pushing
the boundries of entering People's Republic status, into Virginia,
where I thought at least a modicum of common sense still
existed.
Nope. Wrong again; so much for that idea.
|8.3.07 @ 10:04AM|#
JW,
Yes, but at least you can still get a concealed-carry license in
Virginia....
Travis|8.3.07 @ 10:10AM|#
For some reason this really gets my blood boiling especially the bills writer being a traffic lawyer. Am I over reacting, or does this p*ss anyone else off ??
|8.3.07 @ 10:14AM|#
"Surely you can give up a little of your monetary wealth for
a safer bridge, can't you?"
Wealth for health? No way! I spend my money on making myself worse
off, not the other way around.
|8.3.07 @ 10:19AM|#
"Surely you can give up a little of your monetary wealth for a
safer bridge, can't you?"
Why should these bridges be funded by a reverse lottery? If the
State of Virginia needs to carry out road and bridge repairs, they
should raise their fuel taxes and licensing fees, and dedicate that
revenue for the projects. Instead, they have gone to this absurd
backdoor system of random tolls, collected by gun-toting
coppers.
|8.3.07 @ 10:20AM|#
I'd say that there's a 50-50 chance that this bill would just
die in the legislature the next time it's brought up.
But...if you're a Virginian (like me) please call your delegate or
state senator. Let these fuckers know. It'll help you to not get
fucked over. And it's your civic duty.
|8.3.07 @ 10:27AM|#
Let me get this straight:
Virginia's roads go to hell if people start obeying the law? That's
a heck of an incentive.
|8.3.07 @ 10:29AM|#
The new span of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge opened a couple weeks ago. To the horror of some, it's a toll bridge. They can never say the money's not there to maintain and repair that sucker.
VM|8.3.07 @ 10:31AM|#
Sage -
hier the old bridge
makes an appearance towards the end of the vid (Los Lobos, "Shakin
Shakin Shakes").
Or from science class :)
x,y|8.3.07 @ 10:32AM|#
To the extent legislatures should pass laws at all, the standard of review for all laws should be at least strict scrutiny.
|8.3.07 @ 10:34AM|#
My prediction: Supporters of the measure will use the
Minneapolis bridge tragedy to explain why the fines are needed to
shore up Virginia's infrastructure. The state announced just this
morning that 400 of its bridges aren't up to snuff.
Pandagon is already trying to say that! Except they want a huge
federal tax, or something.
|8.3.07 @ 10:36AM|#
I think gub may be right, the opposition in VA is growing pretty
fierce, as people (typically) are paying attention to what their
legislatures do AFTER the fact. Jesus, can tehse people not pick up
a freaking newspaper once in a while? This boneheaded set of laws
could have been seen coming as the Dems have been pushing for more
$ for roads (Northern VA, the Dems stronghold, needs the roads is
the idea) and the GOP took one of their "we'll never raise taxes
though the heavens fall" approaches. Business, which calls the tune
that the GOP (especially state GOPers) boogey to started to push
for the $ but the GOP had already made their promises not to raise
taxes very loudly and publicly. So they were at a bind, and this
idea is the result (Albo is a Republican of course). I have to say,
the fines are plainly excessive, but since both sides want the $
for the roads (the GOP has a few delegates and Senators left in
Northern VA who are feeling the heat and begging the party to help
out; typically the rural GOPers basically told them to fly a kite
until it dawned on them that if all the suburban GOPers fom NOVA
lose their seats then the party as a whole loses them) I think this
approach may actually be better than raising taxes on all. I mean,
if you don't do the prohibited acts then you don't pay, and your
taxes don't go up...
I'm suprised that Kaine is sticking with this. Why he doesn't just
say "hey, I wanted to do this though taxes in the first place, this
is the GOP's idea" and escape the heat is beyond me. In my area
(very GOP) the folks who are angry about this tend to be the kind
that usually are GOP. Kaine could use this as a wedge, but he's a
doofus...What a political nimrod...
|8.3.07 @ 10:38AM|#
I live in Virginia as well and this bogus legislation has gotten
a lot of people worked up around here. This ruling was predicted
because of the equal protection clause of the state and federal
constitution.
The thing is, the legislature rammed this through last winter with
little notice. Now that everyone's eyeballs are on it, like gub I
think this will have a fair chance of being killed.
Funny, though, how Reason has pointed out Del. Albo's conflict of
interest in this while our local papers have been very silent on
this point.
|8.3.07 @ 10:39AM|#
RE: Kaine as a doofus, I mean, what can you say about a guy who during the campaign for guv said "I think the death penalty is bad policy and immoral, but as governor I intend to enforce it as its the law." Well, thanks for following the rule of law, mighty nice of ya...
|8.3.07 @ 10:41AM|#
RE: Kaine as a doofus, I mean, what can you say about a guy
who during the campaign for guv said "I think the death penalty is
bad policy and immoral, but as governor I intend to enforce it as
its the law." Well, thanks for following the rule of law, mighty
nice of ya...
The only reason that guy could when is because he ran against an
even bigger doofus--Jerry "Hitler Ads" Kilgore.
I am a Virginian too and very pissed off about these fines, and I
don't even drive very much. I just think its incredibly excessive
punishment.
Why don't we just go all the way and construct a GULAG on the
Eastern Shore and send all the speeders there?
|8.3.07 @ 10:43AM|#
Mr. Nice Guy,
Say what you will about Kaine but he done kicked the cuh-rapp outta
Jerry Kilgore.
|8.3.07 @ 10:43AM|#
Moose,
I can't watch it from work. Is that the old "galloping gerdie" vid?
I don't know why they didn't just leave it that way. Oh yeah, it
fell into the Sound, IIRC.
LarryA|8.3.07 @ 10:43AM|#
Obviously the entire U.S. road and bridge system needs to be declared a Federal disaster area. Then we can get FEMA involved and the problem will be quickly and efficiently solved, right after New Orleans is up and running again.
|8.3.07 @ 10:46AM|#
MNG,
I agree with most of your sentiments regarding the state GOP and
Gov. Kaine. There are too many rural delegates who don't give a
crap for the road needs of Northern VA, Hampton Roads and Metro
Richmond. Of course, the state GOP has been steadily tilting too
right for the past 10 years and getting killed in statewide
elections.
|8.3.07 @ 10:47AM|#
Oh I agree, Kilgore was one of the dumbest in a long line of incredibly dumb GOP state wide candidates here in VA (Mike "Creationist" Farris, Oliver "Plaid Shirt Means I'm Like you" North, Jim "Budget Buster" Gilmore, George "Macaca" Allen...). The GOP in VA really mines the retard farm for candidates... It's a shame really because in Senator John Warner Virginia has one of the most statesmen GOPers in the nation (in fact I would say one of the most statesmen Senators period as with the exception of Webb [another VA statesman in teh Senate] the Dem Senators are all goofballs.)
|8.3.07 @ 10:51AM|#
I want to make it clear that when I talk about the low IQ of GOP statewide candidates in VA I am not necessarily talking about their policy stances, but the intellectual capacity of the actual candidate. They can barely talk much less debate and seemed terrified of going of talking points. When they do, the fun begins (Macaca-Allen, the Wizard of Oz is satanic-Farris, etc.). It's surely a function of the power of the sticks in the VA GOP and of course, our old pal the Religious Right (Falwell and Robertson and Farris all have College Inquisitions, I mean Institutions, here in VA).
|8.3.07 @ 10:52AM|#
Kilgore was a buffoon. So was Mark Earley. (Hehe, I forgot about
Mr. Creationist Mike Farris; that was a scary prospect).
The Dems in VA have got it right because they are centrist.
Unfortunately, the state Repubs still want too right candidates.
And, thus, they lose.
They may figure it out one day.
|8.3.07 @ 10:54AM|#
MNG-
I completely agree with you about Republican statewide
candidates.
Also, Webb and John Warner are probably the only two candidates I
can vote for without feeling like I need to take a shower
afterwards.
|8.3.07 @ 10:54AM|#
Isn't the Constitutional logic rather bogus here? We're talking
penalties for in-state residents. Why do penalties have to apply
equally? I understand the argument equal-protection argument where
penalties are invalid if they only apply to out-of-state, or if
they are higher for out-of-state, but the reverse isn't an equal
protection issue.
Otherwise, the logical endpoint is that all state law is
invalid.
|8.3.07 @ 10:58AM|#
Isn't the Constitutional logic rather bogus here?
Well, we are talking about a decision made by a U.S. court, so that
would be expected.
|8.3.07 @ 11:00AM|#
MP,
The Constitutional logic applies because Virginia's state
constitution also has an equal protection clause (being one of the
oldest, it is very similar to the federal constitution ... except
for that ridiculous marriage amendment passed last fall, but I
digress).
We don't apply harsher penalties on bank robbers if they are from
in- or out-of-state.
|8.3.07 @ 11:04AM|#
Now, where this ruling could falter could be the counterargument that driving is a privilege, not a right.
Dave W.|8.3.07 @ 11:08AM|#
The Minnesota bridge disaster should cause us to take something
of a critical look at bridge maintenance.
At the very least, it would be nice to get a compelling,
transparent account, presented in a truly adversarial context, of
why that bridge did come down.
If it was a systemic lack of routine maintenance, then, yeah, more
money probably does need to be spent on bridges.
(The Onion's "Libertarian Reluctantly Calls Fire Dept"
headline comes to mind here.
|8.3.07 @ 11:09AM|#
The Constitutional logic applies because Virginia's state
constitution also has an equal protection clause (being one of the
oldest, it is very similar to the federal constitution ... except
for that ridiculous marriage amendment passed last fall, but I
digress).
A state constitution's equal protection clause is provide equal
protection to residents of the state. It does not apply to
non-residents.
We don't apply harsher penalties on bank robbers if they are
from in- or out-of-state.
But you could.
Ayn_Randian|8.3.07 @ 11:11AM|#
MP, I wouldn't think that you could (apply different sentences to different bank robbers)...it seems that the law applies to a geographical area, rather than residents of X state. Otherwise you'd end up with two different legal codes, one for citizens of residents of VA and ones for everyone else.
|8.3.07 @ 11:12AM|#
I don't see how this is a libertaran problem. The law was passed by a democratically elected government. There is an easy answer to this problem, drive at or below the speed limit and you don't got any problem. All the experts agree unaminusly, the 55 limit saves lives, obey it. Don't like it, elect someone to repeel it.
|8.3.07 @ 11:17AM|#
I wouldn't think that you could (apply different sentences
to different bank robbers)...it seems that the law applies to a
geographical area, rather than residents of X state. Otherwise
you'd end up with two different legal codes, one for citizens of
residents of VA and ones for everyone else.
Why not? It may not be sensible, but I don't see it as being
unconstitutional.
|8.3.07 @ 11:26AM|#
MP, what I am really going for here is that the law and the
constitution of X area is restricted (and applicable) within the
borders of that state.
Could VA impose heavier fines on black out-of-staters, but
not white ones?
Dave W.|8.3.07 @ 11:33AM|#
It seems like VA might be able to get around this by making
vehicle registration costs contingent on prior Virginia speeding
tickets.
Maybe this would raise too many loopholes where "clean" drivers
register vehicles for drivers with VA tickets, tho.
|8.3.07 @ 11:37AM|#
Could VA impose heavier fines on black out-of-staters, but
not white ones?That's a different argument, because now your
segregating groups of out-of-state residents.
My point is that I see nothing unconstitutional about levying
higher penalties for in-state residents. All in-state residents are
then treated equally under the state constitution. In-state
residents aren't given favorable treatment vs. out-of-state
residents. The Federal concept of Equal Protection only applies
when out-of-state residents are treated more adversely than
in-state. Providing favorable treatment to out-of-state residents
does not violate equal protection.
Of course, Congress could make that type of favoritism illegal
under the Commerce Clause, but they haven't here.
|8.3.07 @ 11:46AM|#
I don't think the segregation thing is a different
argument...after all, if the in-state equal protection clause does
not apply across the board to out-of-staters, then VA can
pretty much do what it wants with the out-of-staters and not
violate its own constitution.
My point is that the second you cross the VA line, you are under
their jurisdiction, with all laws AND protections applying equally,
resident or no.
The Wine Commonsewer®|8.3.07 @ 11:48AM|#
See, this issue is waaaaayyyy more important than George Allen's
nasty remark about Machaca (Machaca con Huevos, mmmmm).
This affects millions of flesh and blood people who sweat and work
and drive and pay taxes who get shat at by the State of Virginia.
And, of course they won't abolish, they'll extend the courtesy of a
proctology exam to all the out-of-staters as well. And we'll have
to pay, too, because we have all that reciprocity.
BTW, what is the meaning of the trio of crosses that you see
erected all over the northern Virginia countryside? Always in
threes. I was once told they were secret KKK symbols. Not so secret
if they're right out in front of God and everybody said I in
response.
|8.3.07 @ 11:55AM|#
BTW, what is the meaning of the trio of crosses that you see
erected all over the northern Virginia countryside? Always in
threes. I was once told they were secret KKK symbols. Not so secret
if they're right out in front of God and everybody said I in
response.
You mean you don't have those in California? I always assumed those
things were in every state. I'm not sure where they come from,
either, but they are all over the state.
|8.3.07 @ 11:56AM|#
Also, I dislike taxes as much as the next guy but the roads in NOVA are really, really bad. A one cent sales in tax increase is far preferable to this silly back door fine business.
The Wine Commonsewer®|8.3.07 @ 11:57AM|#
Cesar, I'm guessing the crosses are symbolic of the crucification with Christ in the middle between the two thieves. But I can't figure out what the significance is and why it seems to be important to so many people to put up these huge displays of (assuming here) religious belief.
|8.3.07 @ 11:59AM|#
Cesar, I'm guessing the crosses are symbolic of the
crucification with Christ in the middle between the two thieves.
But I can't figure out what the significance is and why it seems to
be important to so many people to put up these huge displays of
(assuming here) religious belief.
Oh, I know it had to do with Jesus. What I mean is, I don't know
who (or what group) got the idea to put them up all over the
place.
|8.3.07 @ 12:03PM|#
TWC Actually, those crosses are to symbolize the Crosses on the Mount (Jesus, two theives). They appear in VA, MD, and South East PA.
|8.3.07 @ 12:03PM|#
Guys Juanita is a troll. Worse. Juanita is a FAKE
troll.
Yes but one that continually gets responses. That's the funny part,
seeing how many people respond to her nonsense.
Juanita/Jane RULES!!!
Scooby|8.3.07 @ 12:06PM|#
"A state constitution's equal protection clause is provide
equal protection to residents of the state. It does not apply to
non-residents."
Maybe your state's constition only applies to residents, but I'm
pretty sure this ruling is evidence that the state of Virginia (or
at least Henrico County) applies their equal protection clause to
all persons in the state (or county).
|8.3.07 @ 12:08PM|#
The Constitutional logic applies because Virginia's state
constitution also has an equal protection clause (being one of the
oldest, it is very similar to the federal constitution ... except
for that ridiculous marriage amendment passed last fall, but I
digress).
So how in the world did the VA gay marriage amendment with
restrictions on contracts and powers of attorney ever pass
Constitutional muster?
|8.3.07 @ 12:16PM|#
I don't know if either of you (cesar or TWC) have noticed, but
one of the triple crosses on 66 (or 81, I can't remember) now glows
in the dark.
It's very bizarre.
|8.3.07 @ 12:18PM|#
I don't think the segregation thing is a different
argument...after all, if the in-state equal protection clause does
not apply across the board to out-of-staters, then VA can pretty
much do what it wants with the out-of-staters and not violate its
own constitution.
That's right. They can. But by the 14th Amendment to the Federal
constitution, they can't do whatever. However, they can
make life harder for in-state residents than for out-of state
residents without violating either Constitution.
My point is that the second you cross the VA line, you are
under their jurisdiction, with all laws AND protections applying
equally, resident or no.
The laws would only apply to you equally if they are written that
way. Again, I see nothing in the VA state constitution that would
imply that they can't treat in-state residents less favorably than
out-of-state.
Maybe your state's constition only applies to residents, but
I'm pretty sure this ruling is evidence that the state of Virginia
(or at least Henrico County) applies their equal protection clause
to all persons in the state (or county).
You can't use as evidence the legal opinion I'm disputing.
|8.3.07 @ 12:27PM|#
So how in the world did the VA gay marriage amendment with
restrictions on contracts and powers of attorney ever pass
Constitutional muster?
I don't believe and amendment to a Constitution can be
"unconstitutional" can it? Isn't that the inherent nature of an
amendment?
|8.3.07 @ 12:32PM|#
The laws would only apply to you equally if they are written
that way. Again, I see nothing in the VA state constitution that
would imply that they can't treat in-state residents less favorably
than out-of-state..
I don't want to get too involved in this debate, but I think your
reading of things is wrong.
I don't think that Constitutions merely apply to residents of a
state but to anyone within a states borders/jurisdiction.
Would someone visiting the US who commits a crime not be guaranteed
due process because they are residents of another country? Could a
vacationer from Canada be jailed without a trial because he doesn't
live here if he is merely accused of a crime?
Don't illegal aliens get Constitutional protections?
|8.3.07 @ 12:35PM|#
I don't believe and amendment to a Constitution can be
"unconstitutional" can it? Isn't that the inherent nature of an
amendment?
So the equal protection clause is no longer operative?
We had to do a new amendment to undo the Volstead Act, wouldn't VA
have to do the same for equal protection (unless it was in the
wording of the gay marriage amendment I guess)?
Chris S.|8.3.07 @ 12:39PM|#
De stijl,
To the extent an amendment to a constitution (or a statute)
contradicts ealier language, that earlier language must be either
interpreted or limited such that there is no contradiction, or the
pre-amendment language is repealed.
You don't need to affirmatively state "I repeal x."
|8.3.07 @ 12:40PM|#
"I can't figure out what the significance is and why it seems to
be important to so many people...."
Seconded.
|8.3.07 @ 12:42PM|#
ChicagoTom,
Debating the status of citizens vs. non-citizens is an entirely
separate debate that I'd rather not get into at this time.
|8.3.07 @ 12:42PM|#
An Amendment (instead of a mere statute) was required to repeal prohibition, because prohibition was enshrined in the Eighteenth Amendment
The Owner\'s Manual|8.3.07 @ 12:50PM|#
From the Examiner article--
The business model appears to work this way: A developer buys
land in a place that's not well served by roads because it is
either too congested...
Is that 'too congested' as in, "That's why they need
more roads," or is it as in, "No one goes up there. It's too
congested.'?
...or inaccessible, which means the land will be sold at a
discount.
If making roads to inaccessible places is a bad thing, the entire
road system is a mistake.
He then spends hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying for
state highway money to make his land more valuable so that he can
then sell new homes for higher prices.
The horror.
You eventually have more roads, but because more people are
using them, it's just as congested
So the objection seems to be that development, which brings more
icky people while rewarding construction, appliance manufacturers,
and local tax revenue, just enables more business activity.
Harrumph! No more new stuff! I have mine, so you can pull up the
ladder.
The anti-capitalist undercurrent of this anti-development
nimby
bananaism should go down well with the H&R crowd, if comments
on the
"Robert Mugabe Exerts Downward Pressure on Prices thread are
any
indication.
Scooby|8.3.07 @ 12:51PM|#
We had to do a new amendment to undo the Volstead
Act
No, we had to do a new amendment to undo the 18th Amendment. The
Volstead Act merely clarified penalties for violating the 18th
amendment.
The Wine Commonsewer®|8.3.07 @ 12:52PM|#
Oh, I know it had to do with Jesus
figured you did, just running my mouth because I love the sound of
my own keyboard. My remark was mostly rhetorical..........
The Wine Commonsewer®|8.3.07 @ 12:54PM|#
Chris, glow in the dark crosses? I've never driven in Va at
night.
I had a glow-in-the-dark Jesus when I was little. It was scary.
Almost as scary as the glow-in-the-dark clown light shade on the
overhead light in my bedroom. Fortunately, the thing would fade out
after a few minutes and I could sleep. Maybe that's why I had so
dam many nightmares.
Scooby|8.3.07 @ 12:57PM|#
The laws would only apply to you equally if they are written
that way.
Do you have any evidence to support your extraordinary claim that
the equal protection clause of the VA constitution is written in
such a way to restrict equal protection of the law to residents, as
opposed to "all men" (which is now generally interpreted to be
inclusive of all persons, regardless of gender)?
The Wine Commonsewer®|8.3.07 @ 12:58PM|#
re: the cross thing
CAP, thanks, but why? It's obviously a widespread cultural thing
that is unique to the area and it fascinates me. Never seen
anything like it anywhere else. Is it specific to one particular
religion?
|8.3.07 @ 1:01PM|#
TWC-
I've seen them in every rural on the east coast that is south of
New Jersey and east of Appalachia.
I didn't see them in south Florida or the Mid-West, but then again
I only have been to the big cities there, so I don't know if they
have them in their rural areas. Never been to the left coast, but
apparently they don't exist there since you said you have only seen
them in Virginia.
|8.3.07 @ 1:01PM|#
The federal government can make the claim, under the commerce clause, that fines against U.S. citizens on U.S. funded roadways must be equal.
|8.3.07 @ 1:02PM|#
The federal government can make the claim, under the
commerce clause, that fines against U.S. citizens on U.S. funded
roadways must be equal.
Sure. So what? This is a court decision, not a legislative act.
The Wine Commonsewer®|8.3.07 @ 1:05PM|#
Owners Manual,
What is objectionable to me is that the developers tend to shift
the costs of the infrastructure to the taxpayers in general.
So long as we have tax paid roads, the developer that creates a
need for new and/or better access roads should pick up the cost and
then it should be incorporated into the price of the homes that the
new road serves.
I also recognize that it's difficult to pinpoint road costs
precisely. For example, my formerly rural road has become a
commuter highway and is, accordingly, trashed. Because it is a
county road, the county is responsible for maint but while most
users are county residents most live in incorporated cities. Gets
tricky to decide who should pay, and, in reality county sales and
property taxes pick up the tab so, to some extent, those who use
the road do pay but it is very diffused.
The Wine Commonsewer®|8.3.07 @ 1:11PM|#
Cesar, tis true, indeed, no crosses on the left coast. Well, of
course, every so often you'll see a cross on a roadside memorial to
a dead Harley guy or one like my neighbor's have (single cross, lit
up at night with white xmas lights). But nothing like rural
Virginia.
But we DO have Reverend
Shuller's Monument To Himself.
|8.3.07 @ 1:13PM|#
But we DO have Reverend Shuller's Monument To
Himself.
Good God, what a tacky Church. And I thought the Southern Baptists
here had bad taste in architecture. That thing looks like it
belongs in Brasilia or something.
|8.3.07 @ 1:14PM|#
Debating the status of citizens vs. non-citizens is an
entirely separate debate that I'd rather not get into at this
time.
Not to push it, but the analogy is apt.
You are saying that non-residents of an an area don't get
constitutional protections afforded to that area by virtue of them
not being resident's despite the fact that they are in the
jurisdiction of that area.
Why does it matter if the area is defined as a state or a nation?
It seems to me that the only proper reading is that if the
constitution is the law of the land so to speak then it's applies
to anyone "in the land" not just to people who permanently reside
there.
|8.3.07 @ 1:16PM|#
Also, No matter what the VA constituion says, the 14th from the
US Constitution says :
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive
any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.
It seems pretty obvious to me that the 14th pretty much backs up
the view that anyone withing the jurisdiction of a state (not just
citizens of that state) is afforded equal protection.
|8.3.07 @ 1:21PM|#
It seems pretty obvious to me that the 14th pretty much
backs up the view that anyone withing the jurisdiction of a state
(not just citizens of that state) is afforded equal
protection.
Except gay people apparently.
|8.3.07 @ 1:25PM|#
You are saying that non-residents of an an area don't get
constitutional protections afforded to that area by virtue of them
not being resident's despite the fact that they are in the
jurisdiction of that area.
No, I am not. I am saying that states (Federal, State, whatever)
are allowed to treat their residents/citizens less
favorably than non-residents/citizens.
|8.3.07 @ 1:26PM|#
"""Judge Archer L. Yeatts, III ruled that the civil remedial
fees violated the equal protection clause by applying additional,
mandatory fines of up to $3000 on Virginia drivers, but not
out-of-state drivers who may have committed the same driving
violation (fee description).""""
I don't see what the problem is. If VA has an equal protection
clause in their constitution, then a state or local agency can not
fine state residence more than out of state residence. If they
could, it's not equal protection.
|8.3.07 @ 1:27PM|#
"""No, I am not. I am saying that states (Federal, State,
whatever) are allowed to treat their residents/citizens less
favorably than non-residents/citizens."""
Unless the state Constitution says otherwise.
|8.3.07 @ 1:28PM|#
Oh nevermind. It wasn't a federal judge.
You can make federal claims in state court, with a few
exceptions.
MP, the commerce clause isn't exclusively used in legislation. You
could theoretically make a negative commerce clause/pre-emption
type claim in this instance. It would be a terrible argument, but
whatever…
A 14th Amendment EP argument would be better.
|8.3.07 @ 1:34PM|#
Unless the state Constitution says otherwise.
If you're going to argue that point, at least back it up by
referring to the language in the VA
Constitution (pdf) that backs up your argument.
|8.3.07 @ 1:35PM|#
Equal Protection is indeed a weak argument against this
law.
EP analysis hinges on whether the class of folks is a protected
class. Up until now, that has included: blacks (strict scrutiny)
and women (intermediate scrutiny).
From what I can remember from Con Law II, everything else is given
a VERY easy pass (rational review).
Stupid fucking law, but hardly unconstitutional.
|8.3.07 @ 1:49PM|#
MP, fair game, but I'm not really making an argument out of it
being I'm not sure what the state Constitutions says, that why I
used the word unless.
Under what basis do claim that a state can give it's citizens less
favor than others on a federally subsidised roadway?
|8.3.07 @ 2:02PM|#
Cecil,
Your list of suspect classes is missing many classes. And actually,
you're entirely missing EP fundamental rights doctrine, incluidng
"the right to interstate travel", which can implicate laws favoring
one state resident over another. E.g., Shapiro v. Thompson, 394
U.S. 618 (1969).
|8.3.07 @ 2:18PM|#
Shapiro v. Thompson isn't a blanket decision that says that all state laws must treat residents and non-residents equally. And also, that decision was addressing state laws (in this case, a waiting period for welfare benefits) that put higher burdens on new residents (not non-residents). We're talking here about putting a higher burden on in-state vs. out-of-state residents.
|8.3.07 @ 2:25PM|#
Chris S. - maybe that is why I got into tax law.
Anyhow, even under a fundamental rights rubric (say interstate
travel), how on earth does this law infringe upon the rights of
anyone to move to another state?
|8.3.07 @ 2:28PM|#
Shapiro v. Thompson isn't a blanket decision that says that
all state laws must treat residents and non-residents
equally.
True, and it's a fundamental rights case re: "the right to
interstate travel", which can implicate laws favoring one state
resident over another. This is exactly what I said -- nothing about
it being a blanket prohibition. For federal con law, fundamental
rights, like the right to interstate travel, are subject to strict
scrutiny for almost all discriminatory classifications.
If we allow that the right to interstate travel is implicated here,
then strict scrutiny ought to apply to the discrimination against
whatever class (in staters or out of staters). Now, I'm not saying
that the right to interstate travel is necessarily implicated, nor
do I have the time or desire to make that argument. I'm merely
saying that there are many plausible arguments here.
We're talking here about putting a higher burden on in-state
vs. out-of-state residents.
That's a red herring. Discrimination is discrimination, and it
really doesn't matter if you're discriminating against your own
people under federal EP (I can't speak for VA EP).
Scooby|8.3.07 @ 2:32PM|#
If you're going to argue that point, at least back it up by
referring to the language in the VA Constitution (pdf) that backs
up your argument.
You're the one claiming that the law doesn't mean what the court
has ruled it means. Maybe you can back up your claim by referring
back to the language of the VA constitution and the 14th Amendment
of the US constitiution.
Please explain how "all men" makes a distinction between residents
and non-residents.
|8.3.07 @ 2:32PM|#
Chris S.: thanks for making me think about this one.
Okay, if traffic laws are so onerous so as to prevent me from
traveling anywhere, I think I might have a substantive due process
argument.
Now, that I could see...
|8.3.07 @ 2:34PM|#
Anyhow, even under a fundamental rights rubric (say
interstate travel), how on earth does this law infringe upon the
rights of anyone to move to another state?
Like I said to MP, I'm only casually throwing out possibilities
here to counter the oversimplified "this can't possibly be!" type
posts.
As I'm sure you'd agree, you can't just write off a legal argument
or an entire case because it doesn't comport with your instincts
(about EP or whatever).
|8.3.07 @ 2:35PM|#
Scooby, the jurisprudence surrounding EP rests on classes of
citizens, not individuals.
I can understand why. We can't have a judidicial system that
adjudicates every law on constitutional principles.
|8.3.07 @ 2:45PM|#
That's a red herring. Discrimination is discrimination, and
it really doesn't matter if you're discriminating against your own
people under federal EP (I can't speak for VA EP).
Yes, it does matter. If out of state residents are treated at least
as well as in state residents, then the 14th Amendment does not
apply.
And EP is not a blanket equalizer either. It's subsumed by the
Rational Basis test. The court's argument in this case is that
there's no rational basis for this fine differentiation (vs. there
being one for differentiations such as for hunting licenses).
However, I'm not arguing the Rational Basis angle. I'm simply
arguing that states have a right to have laws that specifically
apply to state citizens, as long as they aren't to the detriment of
out-of-state citizens.
|8.3.07 @ 2:47PM|#
VA has an EP clause in its constitution (as do most former
Confederate states) because they were required to have it following
the Civil War in order to rejoin the union. I haven't read VA's
strict wording either (nor really desire to as well), but I would
guess it is pretty darned similar.
Now, whether this can applied to the driving laws I'm not sure and
I can see MP's argument. Obviously, at least one judge thinks
so.
But, as I stated earlier, regarding driving in general ... I
thought it was viewed as a privilege, not a right. So, it may be
fun how the higher courts view this ruling.
|8.3.07 @ 2:56PM|#
I haven't read VA's strict wording either (nor really desire
to as well), but I would guess it is pretty darned
similar.
It's not. Article I Section 11:
That no person shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or
property without due process of law; that the General Assembly
shall not pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts, nor
any law whereby private property shall be taken or damaged for
public uses, without just compensation, the term "public uses" to
be defined by the General Assembly; and that the right to be free
from any governmental discrimination upon the basis of religious
conviction, race, color, sex, or national origin shall not be
abridged, except that the mere separation of the sexes shall not be
considered discrimination.
|8.3.07 @ 3:15PM|#
Yes, it does matter. If out of state residents are treated
at least as well as in state residents, then the 14th Amendment
does not apply.
And EP is not a blanket equalizer either. It's subsumed by the
Rational Basis test. The court's argument in this case is that
there's no rational basis for this fine differentiation (vs. there
being one for differentiations such as for hunting licenses).
However, I'm not arguing the Rational Basis angle. I'm simply
arguing that states have a right to have laws that specifically
apply to state citizens, as long as they aren't to the detriment of
out-of-state citizens.
MP, where on earth are you getting all of this? I'm not aware of
any precedent indicating that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to a
state's classifications targetting its own citizens, nor am I aware
of anything indicating generally that a member or a representative
of a class is free to discriminate against other members of the
same class (e.g., VA discriminating against Virginians).
Also, EP is not "subsumed" by the Rational Basis test. That's
merely one test applied to determine whether EP is violated under
certain circumstances. It's the baseline test; you can't avoid
arguing the "Rational Basis angle" unless you're contending that a
stricter standard applies, which wouldn't help your argument.
|8.3.07 @ 3:23PM|#
But, as I stated earlier, regarding driving in general ... I
thought it was viewed as a privilege, not a right. So, it may be
fun how the higher courts view this ruling.
The rights/privilege distinction is a part of procedural due
process, not EP doctrine or even subatantive due process. Also, the
distinction has been steadily eroding since at least Matthews v.
Eldridge (1976). In short, it's not applicable here.
|8.3.07 @ 3:34PM|#
"""I'm not aware of any precedent indicating that the 14th
amendment doesn't apply to a state's classifications targetting its
own citizens,"""
I would say it does apply. If I remember correctly, In Bush vs.
Gore, the recount was stopped because a hanging chad was counted in
one county but not another. SCOTUS ruled this violated equal
rights. If a hanging chad counted as a vote in one county it must
be counted in all counties, if not, it's unconstitutional.
|8.3.07 @ 3:36PM|#
nor am I aware of anything indicating generally that a
member or a representative of a class is free to discriminate
against other members of the same class (e.g., VA discriminating
against Virginians)
We are not talking about arbitrary classifications here. We are
talking about in-state vs. out-of-state. That's a political
boundary, not an economic or social boundary. Political boundary
issues are much more nuanced. Current precedent holds that states
cannot favor in-state residents without a rational basis.
However, it says nothing about whether states can disfavor
in-state residents vs. out-of-state.
And I'm not arguing the rational basis point on this thread (which
was the essence of the decision) because I'm not interested in this
particular case to debate if the in-state fines server a compelling
state interest. That's secondary to the argument I'm making.
|8.3.07 @ 3:47PM|#
And I'm not arguing the rational basis point on this thread
(which was the essence of the decision) because I'm not interested
in this particular case to debate if the in-state fines server a
compelling state interest. That's secondary to the argument I'm
making.
MP,
You can't argue around rational basis. Any governmental
discrimination between classes must he justified, at least, by a
rational basis (or by a stricter standard depending on the class
and right, as described above). Even the dumbest discrimination in
the world (e.g., discrimination on the basis of juggling ability)
merits rational basis scrutiny. This is unavoidable, basic
constitutional law. It's also clear from the text of the law:
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The language is sufficiently broad to cover ANY discrimination
against "any person"; no distinction is made regarding a state's
discrimination against its own citizens.
You might not like the judge's opinion because of your gut feelings
about the rights of states, but let's be clear: the 14th amendment,
for better or worse, severly curtailed the rights of states. The
right to discriminate, on ANY grounds, is subject to that
amendment.
Almost all discrimination can be justified by a rational basis (and
some survive higher scrutiny), but no discrimination evades the
14th Amendment.
|8.3.07 @ 4:04PM|#
Oh, incidently, even non-discriminatory laws are subject to a rational basis type 14th Amendment due process (as opposed to EP) test under the vestiges of Lochner v. New York, which is dead law for ever other purpose. Most people are unaware that Lochner is still good law for anything, but there you have it -- file that away under legal trivia. So even if you could avoid EP rational basis, DP rational basis would be the default.
|8.3.07 @ 4:09PM|#
MP,
Under what basis do you claim that a state can give it's citizens
less favor than others on a federally subsidised roadway?
|8.3.07 @ 4:22PM|#
You can't argue around rational basis.
I'm not. The law may not have a rational basis. I don't care about
that. I'm attacking the EP argument for legislation which is
detrimental to in-state residents only, making the assumption that
for said legislation there is a court certified rational
basis.
Remember, the court in this case argued that there was no rational
basis for the discriminatory practice enshrined in this law. They
did not argue that it failed an EP charge simply because there was
discrimination involved.
but no discrimination evades the 14th Amendment.You're
broad brush is unsupportable. State law is littered with
discriminatory practices, from graduated state income tax levels,
to licensing laws based on education levels, to fishing licenses
with different in-state vs. out-of-state prices.
Under what basis do you claim that a state can give it's
citizens less favor than others on a federally subsidised
roadway?
Under the basis that this law isn't specifically about Federally
subsidized roadways.
|8.3.07 @ 4:40PM|#
""""Under what basis do you claim that a state can give it's
citizens less favor than others on a federally subsidised
roadway?
Under the basis that this law isn't specifically about Federally
subsidized roadways."""
You call that an answer? You expected me to come up with proof of
what the Virginia Constitution sez when I merely suggested it might
provide equal rights, turnabout is fair play.
It's about citizens being fined on a federally subsidized roadway.
You can't seperate the federal from something that is partly funded
by the feds.
|8.3.07 @ 4:42PM|#
They did not argue that it failed an EP charge simply
because there was discrimination involved.
Nor did I say as much. The court held that the law failed the
rational basis test under the equal protection clauses of VA and
the Federal constitution.
State law is littered with discriminatory practices, from
graduated state income tax levels, to licensing laws based on
education levels, to fishing licenses with different in-state vs.
out-of-state prices.
Actually, all of these laws do have to survive the
rational basis test. I'm not painting with too broad a brush. This
is basic constitutional law.
This also has absolutely nothing to do with whether the roadways
are federally subsidized. MP, you have a very romantic notion about
state rights. The 14th amendment doesn't distinguish between
discrimination federal funding, intrastate action, a state's
treatment of its own citizens. I don't know what else to tell you.
You've gravely underestimated the scope of the 14th Amendment. Read
it, and please tell me where you're deriving all of these
limitations.
|8.3.07 @ 5:10PM|#
joe-
Hey, just as long as they don't raise taxes, right?
Its more of a mis-allocation of funds. While Northern Virginia was
choking in gridlock, the commonwealth decided to built a huge
monument to inefficiency and waste right outside of Richmond--the
Pocahontas Parkway. Nobody uses that road--its so empty you could
have a Sunday picnic on it and come away alive. Nevertheless, it
cost the state a ton of money that could have been used where it
was really needed--namely, NOVA and Hampton Roads.
|8.3.07 @ 5:33PM|#
Actually, all of these laws do have to survive the rational
basis test. I'm not painting with too broad a brush. This is basic
constitutional law.
Then I misinterpreted what you wrote. You appeared to state that
rational basis was subordinate to discrimination (i.e. that
regardless if there was a rational basis, the mere existence of
discrimination was the trump card). It's clearly not. States are
welcome to discriminate in many ways as long as there is a rational
basis. Only when the discrimination violates basic Constitutional
principles does rational basis need not apply and one can go direct
to EP.
However, inter-state discrimination, when dealt with in the courts,
has always been with issues where the state plays favorites with
its own residents. The courts have not dealt with issues where the
state is discriminatory towards its own residents vs. out-of-state
residents. Again, I would argue that "equal" in the 14th Amendment
only ensures that a state does not treat non-residents
worse than residents and that true equality being mandated
only applies to state laws pertaining to in-state residents.
And cut the "basic con law" crap. There is no precedent that
contradicts my position. We are not talking about state sanctioned
favoritism to state residents. That was the basis for the negative
Commerce Clause decision in
Granholm v. Heald. We're not talking about states who tax
out-of-state residents in excess of in-state residents (various
cases). We're talking about a state that levies a fine on in-state
residents only.
And don't pin the "federally subsidized highways" thing on me.
That's all TrickyVic.
|8.3.07 @ 5:52PM|#
Cesar
Is the Pocohantas highway the 288 one that links Chesterfield and
the West End of Henrico county? Cuz I think that's a useful road
(and will be even more so since those two areas are the boomtowns
around Richmond).
I won't argue with you though that the state can spend money on
roads in some pretty dumb ways though...But I take that as a
given...Given they will get 8 bucks of efficiency out of every 10
bucks they spend it figures they still we need to raise taxes or do
something dumb like this to fix the roads problems...
|8.3.07 @ 6:00PM|#
Wait, we're both in agreement that the rational basis test is
part of EP, right? Just to be clear on that. This test is one that
courts apply to determine whether a state action is lawful under
the Equal Protection clause. We're also in agreement that for
certain classes and certain right, a higher form of scrutiny is
used, right?
Caselaw I cited (and other caselaw that exists out there) stands
for the proposition that discrimination against out-of-staters is
sometimes subject to a higher standard than rational basis
("strict scrutiny" for "fundamental rights").
I didn't cite any cases to show that discrimination against
out-of-staters or in-staters is subject to the rational basis test,
because this isn't arguable. I'm not trying to be a jerk here with
all "basic con law" stuff, but no one has EVER succeeded in arguing
that state discrimination of any sort is not subject, at least, to
rational basis. This is a totally baseless argument given a plain
reading of "equal" and "any person." Thes are broad terms that
cover any discriminatory classification. That doesn't mean every
act of discrimination is illegal, but that every act of
discrimination must be analyzed by, at least the "rational basis"
test.
|8.3.07 @ 6:26PM|#
Is the Pocohantas highway the 288 one that links Chesterfield and
the West End of Henrico county? Cuz I think that's a useful road
(and will be even more so since those two areas are the boomtowns
around Richmond).
Thats what Im referring to, and I never see anyone use that road.
Most will just avoid the toll and go to the airport the old
way.
I just think the money could have been better spent in NOVA (or
widening that godawful highway known as I-64).
|8.3.07 @ 6:28PM|#
On second thought, no thats not the road I mean. I mean the
big-ass toll road that links 95 to 295.
http://www.pocahontasparkway.com/
that one, the one that links the busy Bellwood-Varina corridor
(sarcasm).
288 is a useful road.
The Wine Commonsewer®|8.3.07 @ 8:11PM|#
Doesn't Pocahontas Parkway go to Gretchen Wilson's old place? No, wait.... wrong state.
|8.6.07 @ 4:05PM|#
""""And don't pin the "federally subsidized highways" thing on
me. That's all TrickyVic."""
Yeah, that's all me, not MP. Maybe it's my own romantic interests
with state rights, but I'd like to see a federal reason before the
feds can get involved.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245