Amazon.com Widgets
  • speed cameras constitutional?

    A worker for the Hamilton County Sheriff's Department dismantles a traffic camera in Elmwood Place this summer after a judge's order. A court fight over the legality of the cameras could result in them being declared unconstitutional./The Enquirer/Cara Owsley Written by Kimball Perry Filed Under News Crime & Courts While Judge Robert Ruehlman didn't rule Thursday on if the controversial speed cameras in Elmwood Place are unconstitutional, it sounded like that's what he believes. After listening to the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge's comments Thursday, Judd Uhl, the Elmwood Place attorney, also thinks Elmwood Place is going to lose until the appeal.

  • Government Overreach Is Bad

    While we do like to keep our citizens safe, it should not come at the hands of trickery. The government can't be at all places at once, but that does not mean they can do anything they want. Often times, the cameras make mistakes and is very costly for the tax payer. It sometimes seems like the government tries to profit off of its citizens.

  • Keeping our laws

    Yes, I think that speed cameras are constitutional, because they are just upholding our laws, that the citizens are supposed to be following anyway. The only people who will say these are not right are the people who were speeding, and needed to get caught by any means we have.

  • Yes, they unfortunately are.

    Speeding is against the law, therefore speed cameras are constitutional. If you get caught breaking the law of the land, you are to be punished for it. I don't agree with speed cameras and find them to be absolutely ridiculous, but they are constitutional. It's just the enforcing of existing traffic laws.

  • No, They're not when the state can't prove who committed the alleged infraction.

    A speed camera that only captures the license plate then sends the fine to the owner of the vehicle cannot be constitutional. The owner of the vehicle is forced to prove that they are innocent even when the state has no proof of guilt. The state can only prove that the vehicle committed a moving violation, They cannot however prove who was driving at the time. Why should an owner have to prove their own innocence while the state does not have to be burdened by proving guilt?

  • Speed Cameras Constitional

    I personally think that speed cameras is not constitutional it has nothing to do with the government but it has a lot to do with the sate. I personally think that speed cameras is not constitutional because it deals with the state in which an individual lives in. I personally think that speed cameras is not constitutional because constitutional deals with the government.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.