Re: Individual mandate is unconstitutional...
No. The translation is: Cause is not Effect.
Originally Posted by Dick Martin
There is a difference between driving drunk and causing an accident. What is greater is the RISK of causing an accident. Joe Drunk can get hammered and not cause an accident. Why do we punish people for potential damages in this case but not others?
I can understand the argument that driving fast in a winter storm is negligent, while driving drunk and causing an accident is gross negligence but that does not mean driving drunk = actual damage. Criminal and civil law require actual damages except in "conspiracies," e.g., conspired to commit murder. Even then, usually an actual murder has occurred. This is fundamentally different than "attempted" murder. A drunk driver is grossly negligence not deliberately trying to cause an accident.
On a side note, I am really opposed to our justice system that has our government benefit but not the victims of certain crimes. For instance, if someone is caught drunk driving, they have to pay a fine. If that person hit a bus like you said, why doesn't the fine for being drunk go to the victims?
"No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."
-- Patrick Henry