[OT] Judges discover constitutional rights to bike lanes and also drug use in homeless shelters

Post by moviePig

On May 6, 2025 at 9:43:26 AM PDT, "Rhino"

I misread this at first and thought you'd found an *American* judge ruling
that bike lanes are constitutionally protected. I was about to lose my shit.

Is Canada's Constitution much more "liberal" than the U.S.'s?

Our equivalent to the US Constitution is the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. Whether it is more liberal than the US's depends on how you
define "liberal". Overall, I would say it is considerably weaker in
terms of individual rights with more emphasis on "peace, order, and good
government" than a strong interest in "life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness". We have nothing like the 2nd Amendment to protect gun
ownership and whatever rights we had have been dramatically eroded
during the past 10 years of Liberal governance.

You can make your own assessment by reading the Charter here:
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/

--
Rhino

Adam H. Kerman

2025-05-06 19:22:41 UTC

. . .
Regardless, however, the idea that bike lanes would be constitutionally
protected in America would have to be one of the most absurd legal takes
I've ever heard. Bikes weren't even invented until 1817 so there's
no question the Founders didn't intend for "freedom of biking" when
they wrote the Constitution. And regulation of traffic of any kind is
squarely in the jurisdiction of the state and local governments per the
10th Amendment. Which is why I started hyperventilating when I mistakenly
thought Rhino's article was about the U.S. at first.

The Founding Fathers didn't intend that constitutional language would
be used to restrict liberty, anticipating changes in technology. Nor was
the Constitution written to restrict liberty to enumerated civil rights
only, hence the Ninth Amendment. Freedom to travel predates the
Constitution and wouldn't have been a right the Founders would have
infringed upon.

Or do you believe 'freedom of the press" was limited to only that mass
communication produced by printing press and distributed by means that
hadn't changed since the 18th century, or does it mean any form of
publishing using any method to fix words and ideas and any means of
distribution as the technologhy of commucation changes?

. . .

BTR1701

2025-05-06 19:27:57 UTC

The Founding Fathers didn't intend that constitutional language would
be used to restrict liberty, anticipating changes in technology. Nor was
the Constitution written to restrict liberty to enumerated civil rights
only, hence the Ninth Amendment. Freedom to travel predates the
Constitution and wouldn't have been a right the Founders would have
infringed upon.
Or do you believe 'freedom of the press" was limited to only that mass
communication produced by printing press and distributed by means that
hadn't changed since the 18th century, or does it mean any form of
publishing using any method to fix words and ideas and any means of
distribution as the technologhy of commucation changes?

I simply don't believe the Founders intended federal jurisdiction over local
traffic laws and road design.

Adam H. Kerman

2025-05-06 19:41:48 UTC

The Founding Fathers didn't intend that constitutional language would
be used to restrict liberty, anticipating changes in technology. Nor was
the Constitution written to restrict liberty to enumerated civil rights
only, hence the Ninth Amendment. Freedom to travel predates the
Constitution and wouldn't have been a right the Founders would have
infringed upon.
Or do you believe 'freedom of the press" was limited to only that mass
communication produced by printing press and distributed by means that
hadn't changed since the 18th century, or does it mean any form of
publishing using any method to fix words and ideas and any means of
distribution as the technologhy of commucation changes?

I simply don't believe the Founders intended federal jurisdiction over local
traffic laws and road design.

It's inferred in the postal clause. Furthermore, if a letter carrier
violates restrictions on road use, he isn't subject to citations for
nonmoving violations per national supremacy.

The way it's worked throughout the entire automobile era, predating
Johnson's Department of Transportaton as a Great Society program and
predating Roosevelt's WPA/PWA, is that state highway commissioners,
acting through AASHTO, would agree upon highway designs, and if these
designs were thought to benefit from federal standards, the standard
would be incorporated by regulation of FHWA and predecessor agencies.

There actually have been major aspects of road design standards with
federal regulation and it does not violate federalism.

But there's absolutely an argument that road design can and does violate
the unenumerated right of freedom to travel.

The Constitution doesn't address all human liberty, nor was it intended
to.

Adam H. Kerman

2025-05-06 22:15:03 UTC

The Founding Fathers didn't intend that constitutional language would
be used to restrict liberty, anticipating changes in technology. Nor was
the Constitution written to restrict liberty to enumerated civil rights
only, hence the Ninth Amendment. Freedom to travel predates the
Constitution and wouldn't have been a right the Founders would have
infringed upon.
Or do you believe 'freedom of the press" was limited to only that mass
communication produced by printing press and distributed by means that
hadn't changed since the 18th century, or does it mean any form of
publishing using any method to fix words and ideas and any means of
distribution as the technologhy of commucation changes?

I simply don't believe the Founders intended federal jurisdiction over
local traffic laws and road design.

It's inferred in the postal clause.

That's exactly the kind of judicial fantasy that I despise.
If the Founders had wanted the federal government to have the power to tell
the states how to design their roads and local traffic laws, then they would
have made that an explicit enumerated power. "Inferring" federal power where
there is none is what got us Roe v Wade and Wickard v. Filburn.

. . . and the Louisiana Purchase violated strict construction too. You
think Napoleon will refund the money if we give it back?

Post by Adam H. Kerman
. . .

Adam H. Kerman

2025-05-06 19:03:14 UTC

I misread this at first and thought you'd found an *American* judge ruling
that bike lanes are constitutionally protected. I was about to lose my shit.

Article I, Section 8, postal clause

To establish Post Offices and post Roads

It's a delegated power.

A "post road" is any transportation facility the mails might move upon.
Letter carriers have made deliveries by bicycle.

Furthermore, the right to travel is a common law right, hell, the right
predates common law. Our current system of roads and who gets highway
access infringed upon ancient rights to promote automobile use.

Of course there's a legal argument to be made.

Now, bicycle lanes infringe upon my rights as a pedestrian to cross the
street, but I'm already in danger from drivers of motor vehicles who
refuse to yield when they don't have right of way, so I'm probably not
worse off.

As far as the right to a homeless encampment without rules against open
air drug use, I have no problem if the encampment were relocated to the
street in front of the judge's home, physically protecting it with
barriers to allow the homeless to live right on the street in safety
from automobile accidents.

BTR1701

2025-05-06 19:25:34 UTC

I misread this at first and thought you'd found an *American* judge ruling
that bike lanes are constitutionally protected. I was about to lose my shit.

I know you are frustrated by the bike lanes in your own area and how
they are being made by closing car lanes in already over-crowded
streets.

And they sit completely unused.

This is Southern California with its perfect year-around weather, so naturally
many people bike.

For recreation!

They do it on weekends and holidays on the dedicated bike trails in the hills
and on the beach. Not on the city roads. They don't use bikes to commute to
work or run grocery errands or any of that stuff. I couldn't bike to my former
job and survive the trip even if I wanted to bike 48 miles/day (24 to the
office and 24 back home). There's no way to get from where I live to downtown
that doesn't involve cutting through some of the most violent and
gang-infested neighborhoods in the country. Imagine how long a white guy
pedaling along on his bike would last in Compton or Watts or Inglewood.

Toronto city council is gung ho for bike lanes - as are just about all
the municipalities in this area. Virtually EVERY candidate for public
office ritually affirms their support for bike lanes, as if there is
some widespread demand for them. If there is, I have yet to hear it: I'm
convinced that this is coming from city planners because that is what
their governing bodies have deemed the right thing to do.

Here it's the Climate Cult that's responsible for the proliferation of bike
lanes everywhere. They really believe 14 million people are going to give up
their cars and start biking vast distances to work and back everyday. Like I
said, my trip would be 48 miles. But there are hundreds of thousands (maybe
millions) of people who live in the Valley and commute into downtown or to
places like Hollywood or Century City. Those people would not only have that
same 50-mile roundtrip commute, but they have a mountain range in between
their homes and their work. Nothing like biking through the Sepulveda Pass and
over the Santa Monica mountains in high summer when the temps are 90-100
degrees. Even if you survive the coronary, you arrive at work a sweaty sopping
mess.

The Climate Cult is simply nuts when it comes to their utopian vision of bike
lanes, just like they are with everything else.

We used to be able to park in front of the house overnight if we wanted,
for example if there was an overnight guest who'd come by car. But the
city banned overnight parking many years ago. I don't remember the
rationale they used but I think they were worried about snow removal
being more difficult if cars were parked on the street.

Our city bans overnight parking to keep people who live in their cars and vans
from setting up a permanent 'residence' right in front of people's homes. It's
an anti-vagrant ordinance and thank god for it.

Then a few years
back, they put in bike lanes - bike lanes that basically only run down
our street but don't connect to anything else, making them esentially
useless for getting around town. Then they put in a cross walk which has
an island in the middle of the road but which is almost never used. (I
can see it from my kitchen window.) Because of the island, it is now
illegal to even STOP on our block so people actually risk a ticket even
for stopping for a moment to drop someone off. Progress!

Rhino

2025-05-06 19:53:57 UTC

I misread this at first and thought you'd found an *American* judge ruling
that bike lanes are constitutionally protected. I was about to lose my shit.

I know you are frustrated by the bike lanes in your own area and how
they are being made by closing car lanes in already over-crowded
streets.

And they sit completely unused.

Our bike lanes don't get much use either, even in good weather. (We also
get the odd loony that rides a bike in the winter, even on a snowy, icy
day.) You're more likely to see bicycles on the sidewalk than in the
bike lane. I recently had a guy hauling ass down the sidewalk on his
bicycle as I was coming toward him. He moved over a bit on the sidewalk
to avoid hitting me and I pointed and said "There's a bike lane RIGHT
THERE!". He just ignored me and stayed on the sidewalk.

Post by BTR1701
This is Southern California with its perfect year-around weather, so naturally
many people bike.
For recreation!
They do it on weekends and holidays on the dedicated bike trails in the hills
and on the beach. Not on the city roads. They don't use bikes to commute to
work or run grocery errands or any of that stuff. I couldn't bike to my former
job and survive the trip even if I wanted to bike 48 miles/day (24 to the
office and 24 back home). There's no way to get from where I live to downtown
that doesn't involve cutting through some of the most violent and
gang-infested neighborhoods in the country. Imagine how long a white guy
pedaling along on his bike would last in Compton or Watts or Inglewood.

Here it's the Climate Cult that's responsible for the proliferation of bike
lanes everywhere. They really believe 14 million people are going to give up
their cars and start biking vast distances to work and back everyday. Like I
said, my trip would be 48 miles. But there are hundreds of thousands (maybe
millions) of people who live in the Valley and commute into downtown or to
places like Hollywood or Century City. Those people would not only have that
same 50-mile roundtrip commute, but they have a mountain range in between
their homes and their work. Nothing like biking through the Sepulveda Pass and
over the Santa Monica mountains in high summer when the temps are 90-100
degrees. Even if you survive the coronary, you arrive at work a sweaty sopping
mess.
The Climate Cult is simply nuts when it comes to their utopian vision of bike
lanes, just like they are with everything else.

I expect that our city planners are inspired by the climate cultists. It
certainly isn't some massive demand from ordinary people, who
overwhelmingly prefer cars.

--
Rhino

BTR1701

2025-05-06 23:33:28 UTC

. . .
We used to be able to park in front of the house overnight if we wanted,
for example if there was an overnight guest who'd come by car. But the
city banned overnight parking many years ago.

Parking infringes upon shared use of the public way, and overnight
parking usurps the public way for private use. There's no issue with
short term parking but there's sure as hell an issue with long term
parking.

Here's a guy who stuck it to NYC when they tried to tell him he owned the
sidewalk and the street for purposes of personal injury liability for
pedestrians and cars.

"The property is yours when ownership is inconvenient and expensive for us,
but it's ours when we want it for parking and sidewalks."

I don't remember the
rationale they used but I think they were worried about snow removal
being more difficult if cars were parked on the street. Then a few years
back, they put in bike lanes - bike lanes that basically only run down
our street but don't connect to anything else, making them esentially
useless for getting around town. Then they put in a cross walk which has
an island in the middle of the road but which is almost never used. (I
can see it from my kitchen window.) Because of the island, it is now
illegal to even STOP on our block so people actually risk a ticket even
for stopping for a moment to drop someone off. Progress!

That's ridiculous. The whole point of a road is to access property. Of
course it's there for pickup and delivery, and to allow people to get
dropped off or picked up.

Adam H. Kerman

2025-05-07 00:39:51 UTC

Post by BTR1701
Here's a guy who stuck it to NYC when they tried to tell him he owned the
sidewalk and the street for purposes of personal injury liability for
pedestrians and cars.
http://youtu.be/doQBGhwKVR0
"The property is yours when ownership is inconvenient and expensive for us,
but it's ours when we want it for parking and sidewalks."

Good point

Ok. I could have done without the narrator and his ads, but that's
un-fucking believable. 100s of assistant corporation counsels and they
forget to obtain an easement? I wonder if there are utilities down
there. Bet the city is going to have to pay him, plus reimbursement for
the judgment against him for the woman.

BTR1701

2025-05-07 02:11:23 UTC

Well, I did see a manhole in the pavement inside his fenced area.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Bet the city is going to have to pay him, plus reimbursement for
the judgment against him for the woman.

Pluted Pup

2025-05-08 04:17:17 UTC