Massachusetts-State of Emergency

reply to post by strokker


Mass resident here.

The way I see it, the question is: What kind of people would drive out in this weather?

Three answers come to mind:

1. Idiots.
2. Young inexperienced idiots.
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.

With sane people staying safely in their homes, what the governor is doing is making sure the idiots stay off the roads. Unless I am convinced otherwise, I don't have a problem with this.

Does the governor have a legal right to do it? I don't know. But then, if people weren't idiots he wouldn't have had to do it in the first place. Cars don't kill people in bad weather - idiots do.

Originally posted by beezzer


If someone gets in trouble, isn't it their own responsibility? Why risk sending an EMT unit?

Sure it's their own responsibility. That is, until they get into an accident on a highway, making it so that no other cars can get by. Then these people are stranded. Plows can't do their job, and the highways become a mess upon where even an ambulance can't get through. Not pretty.

LONG time lurker first time poster. I live in Worcester, MA. Second largest city in the state next to Boston. Just want to clear a couple things up. This is a bad storm, yes. People should not drive in this, yes. Should our state government tell us if you drive, you will be imprisoned and fined? Hell no.

We live in New England and we have seen our very fair share of bad storms at least one per year. Not like other states who get an inch of snow and declare state of emergency. 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. Believe me, nobody is out joy riding in this..

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.

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.

reply to post by rmo4lx


Thank you for proving my point. Jeez.

people need to stay off the roads so they don't get stuck and impede the plows, or crash into an ambulance

if you have a real reason to be out like a medical issue or whatever, I'm sure the cops will take it into consideration

even the dunkin donuts were closed round here and most restaurants at 3:00

reply to post by jiggerj


Theres ice whether there an inch or 2 ft, lol. 32 degress is the temp that liquid turns to solid..This is why MA is the most educated state in the country :p

And D&D's is open, 24/7. Live right next to one

Watching CNN. Just saw some guy with a pick up truck with a plow attached to the front.
It did look like a 4 wheel drive, but he was stuck in what looked like only about a foot of snow. sideways on the road.
I guess he was trying to help, but his tires were just spinning.
You could tell he had no weight in the back of the truck.
Likely doesn't have very good winter tires either.
He's one of those people that should just get out of the way and let the professionals do their job.
There's no way he should be stuck in only a foot, even if he's on pure ice, if he's got the right winterization.

People should just stay home for a few days.
It's safer.


**omg. They went back to the journalist that was reporting by the stuck pickup with the plow.
He got out and is now plowing again.
They're referring to him as an "emergency vehicle". :shk:
This was in Boston.
I thought Boston was used to snow.

reply to post by Kali74


emergency apparatus and utility apparatus

Sometimes i become intoxicated with the excessive exhuberence of my own inexhaustable verbosity.

emergency vehicles and utility vehicles?

reply to post by slugger9787


They're called apparatus because they hold more than just driving function, don't blame me for English, I just use it. I don't particularly like the word either.

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)

I did not give anyone advice I stated a fact neither the governor nor the president has any authority to suspend rights for any reason. The Constitution is the law they are supposed to abide by. Rights do not exist only in peace time they exist ALL the time! When government passes laws denying rights for any reason they are breaking the law they are supposed to abide by.

That fact that folks do not know this and then try and justify this BS is why we are on in this mess. All tyrants have killed millions in the name of protecting them... Lots of folks are in for a rude awakening eventually... Sigh!

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.

No its not. Executive powers only apply to his office and its employees not the people. There is no reading beyond the constitution if its not in there they cannot do it! That is the maximum of law for the constitution. The constitution is a restriction on government not the people it is meant to confine government within limited parameterrs to keep it in its place and from violating the rights of the people. That's the problem with not knowing your history and the constitution and its origins. There is NO authority granted by the people to suspend rights for any reason whatsoever granted to any executive office no congress nor the judicial period! Read the law that governs them the constitution!

16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 98:
“While an emergency can not create power and no emergency justifies the violation of any of the
provisions of the United States Constitution or States Constitutions.

wouldnt be suprised if haarp has a hand in this storm

Im in mass nd trust me it is not illegal or unconstitutional for him to make this call. Its only 2 1/2 ft but awd chargers are getting stuck nd without a pickup ur done for going anywhrere. He has precedent to act and made the right call. All his advisors agree nd any sane person who doesnt want grandmas trying to go to CVS during this storm. Aside from that, state vehicles, workers, and plows are allowed to drive under exemptions DEVAL personally made... he is smart. that being said Lexington cops (corrupt scumbags) were profiling any driver and citing them for 500 bucks regardless even if you HAD to work. But alas, they aint got but 2 pickups so basically everything that is sane is off th edge road... they pulled all sedans a few mins ago. noone is driving nyways whats the matter with idiots today? Im holed up with my girl nd friends walk over to smoke in my car, which is buried. Keepin it real here folks. If aclu wants to drive out, let em. Its their ass thatll get stuck nd run outta gas in a snow bank. Or die of carbon monoxide poisioning trying to not freeze....

reply to post by semperfortis

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 

Perhaps you should take your own advice and actually research the facts. Of course there is a right to drive we have the right to travel freely by any means of locomotion we chose. The is well settled in American jurisprudence. unfortunately Americans do not know their history and allow themselves to be extorted and abused for their lack of knowledge.

And no the highways are not owned by the government they are owned by the people Drivers licenses are a scam to subjugate the people and extort revenue from them!

Here are the supreme court cases affirming this right:

"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." [emphasis added] Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163.

"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." [emphasis added] Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.

So we see that it is a right upheld by the court and you cannot license and charge a fee for the exercise of a right:

Mudook v. Penn. 319 US 105: (1943)
“A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution
and that a flat license tax here involves restraints in advance the constitutional liberties... No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it.”

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham Al. 373 US 262: (1962)
“If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it, you can ignore the license and a fee and engage the right with impunity.”

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 

Apparently you have not heard all the arguments. Perhaps now that you have been provided proof that you are wrong you might want to rethink your position? I cringe at the thought of you teaching supposed constitutional law to cops and you failed to even know about these fundamental landmark supreme court cases affirming the right to travel and that rights cannot be licensed and charged a fee.

Those that hate the government will always hate them and never agree with any decisions they make 

And those who prefer to protect and preserve their rights from encroachment will always disagree with any decisions government makes that violates those rights!

May I suggest you review the 9th and 10th Amendments and review the link in my signature before you ever suppose you know and understand the constitution and please do not teach about the constitution until you do. There are lots of cops out there violating peoples rights no because of your lack of knowledge on the constitution and American jurisprudence.

isn';t this just regular weather in canada, or is there something different about this storm, is it more of an ice storm or something??

reply to post by hawkiye


You are falling for the same old hash that everyone that does not read deeply falls for

They typically quote Robertson v. Washington State Department of Public
Works as their case law precedent.

As an example, one such site is
educate-yourself.org...

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."

Snopes

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.

G

Everytime it has come before the SCOTUS, it has been ruled a NON-Constitutional issue as the Constitution DOES NOT address driving.. Only movement

Sorry but you are wrong

Semper

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)

Well, this kinda gets to my point when it comes to weather and Massachusetts.

I live in Mass, and this type of response only happens when Springfield, Boston or Cape Cod are affected. If western mass or the worchester area get a ton of snow... no big deal. If they say Boston is going to get 10", well call in the National Guard! We had a storm a few years ago where people in western mass went without power for 11 or more days, and it was no big deal. Last October the people of Springfield lost power from a snow storm for a few days and all hell broke loose. People demaned payment from power companies, gas companies, reduction in rent, payments from the state..... It just never stopped, and the are still fighting this today. I just watched a little of the local news and they covered towns from the Vermont border to the CT border, and all we got so far is around 6"-7", hardly a reason freak out.

So people, when you hear about the snow (which so far has not amounted to much) keep in mind the main concern is not for the state, but for the people of Boston, Cape Cod and Springfield.

I live in south eastern Mass. A few hours ago I shoveled over a foot of snow off my deck, there's already another foot out there. Everyone around me has lost power, thankfully I still have power. We've had one tree in the yard fall and have heard others fall. I agree with people needing to be off the roads, as they put themselves, others and emergency personnel at risk of injury/death. Unless you have a real emergency to attend to, it's just not worth the risk to go out. This is also more than just a snow storm with large snow fall, it's a blizzard with some hurricane force wind gusts, I've heard them make a few references to comparing this in some way to hurricane Sandy a few times now, although personally I wouldn't.

No doubt, this is a bad storm, almost 1 AM here and watching the weather and supposedly now over 300,000 people with no power in MA alone. I can't blame the call for the State of Emergency, in a perfect world it wouldn't be necessary, but you can't regulate stupid. Without the banning of travel there would be idiots trying to travel in the storm. Freedom ends where it impacts someone else and if someone is dumb enough to be out and about and gets stranded, and they were in the way of a rescue vehicle trying to get to someone else they would be infringing on that someone else's right to live. It is a huge deal this time because Boston is the city getting the brunt of the storm. They are not used to it like people in Worcester County, when there is a storm we almost always get it worse then the people in the Boston area.

Oh wow, a state of emergency? For two feet of snow? Geez, you guys down south must be pretty soft. Up this way, two feet of snow might close everything down for a day. Are you all severely lacking in plows and snowblowers or something?