We Need A Mudflap Amendment In The Constitution

One of the unfortunate perks of being elected to public office is the power to bring your little pet peeves before the legislative process.

PHOENIX -- It's still going to be legal in Arizona for trucks to have splash guards with racist terms and silhouettes of naked women.
The state House on Thursday rejected a Democratic amendment that would have banned splash guards with images that are "obscene or hateful."
Tempe Democrat Ed Ableser sponsored the amendment. He said he'd seen a splash guard that used a derogatory term for black children and said he wanted to make sure that people with hateful motives didn't inflict them on others.

Democratic Rep. Theresa Ulmer of Yuma supported the amendment and said it fit with lawmakers' other efforts to crack down on pornography and sexual predators.

Flash to Arizona Dems: See, this is the trouble with freedom. People use it.

Having bad taste and making a public ass of yourself are protected under the Constitution. An exaggerated silhouette of a woman is not obscene, it's just unrealistic. Racist speech is still protected speech.

You cannot protect kids from rudeness. And you probably shouldn't, unless you want them to grow up to be fragile milquetoasts.

No one, not even 'the children,' are harmed by these images. Kids are far more durable than that. Get over yourself.

If these folks have nothing better to do all day than take on the deadly threat of tacky mudflaps, maybe they should leave public office and let somebody with an understanding of the U.S. Constitution and a sense of priorities take their seats.

Posted by: LauraW. at 10:35 PM

Comments

1 Was the expression for black children "Bebe Kids"?

Posted by: Birkel at February 18, 2007 10:55 PM (f9DT5)

2 I've had the following design on the back window of 3 different vehicles I owned over the years. I've recently been considering putting it on the back of my current truck.

http://carl.lscode.net/finger.png

Posted by: ArmedGeek at February 18, 2007 10:57 PM (vjHOi)

3 Yosemite Sam says "Back off!"

Not only are girlie mudflaps are protected by the 1st amendment, but for OTR trucks, they're also protected from state regulation by the commerce clause. :-)

Posted by: pbrown at February 18, 2007 11:03 PM (O+9Yg)

4 Niglets?
Jigababies?

Posted by: Cracker-ass Cracker at February 18, 2007 11:05 PM (RJBDR)

5 Having bad taste and making a public ass of yourself are protected under the Constitution.
AOSHQ Lifestyle!

Posted by: Nordbuster at February 18, 2007 11:12 PM (jYT9+)

6 I don't think there is a commerce clause anymore. Didn't Raich kind of take care of that?

Posted by: kate q at February 18, 2007 11:14 PM (HbJ+d)

7 Having bad taste and making a public ass of yourself are protected under the Constitution.

What , what ?

Posted by: Bill D. Cat at February 18, 2007 11:16 PM (Je+mw)

8 Niglets?

Jigababies?

Posted by: Cracker-ass Cracker
The only term specifically for black children that springs to mind is "pickaninny." It's archaic, though not necessarily derogatory. But I don't remember seeing any "pickaninny" mudflaps. Maybe it's an Arizona thing.

Posted by: Nordbuster at February 18, 2007 11:17 PM (jYT9+)

9 "Why, no, officer, it's not a silhouette of a naked woman. It's a silhouette of a woman wearing a skintight body suit."

Posted by: cirby at February 18, 2007 11:22 PM (ZMgaW)

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

However, as many scholars have noted - and I think the preponderance of evidence is with them - this Amendment was intended to limit the ability of the Federal Government to usurp State governments and their actions and not to create a new list of rights not listed in the previous eight amendments.

It was never intended as some sort of blank slate which people could use as supporting what new rights they believed we had.

Does the state of Arizona have the authority to demand the removal of these mud flaps?

Have to read the Arizona constitution for that answer.

Posted by: EricH at February 18, 2007 11:33 PM (RD7Lp)

11 I don't think kids need to see racist crap on the highway. States will not grant vanity plates with offensive words, so I don't see how this is any different. Anyway, my solution would be go ahead and have your racist mudflaps and when your truck gets keyed, don't expect anyone to do anything about it.

Posted by: at February 18, 2007 11:38 PM (GNUDK)

12 Ace is probably layin around on the floor drunk while Laura keeps the place going. Shameful behavior really. This leaves me with no choice but to turn to CBS or PmsNBC for my news.

Just shoot me now.

Posted by: Goat Balls at February 18, 2007 11:40 PM (oVmwG)

13 Strangely enough, the State of Mississippi does have a Mudflap Amendment.

Posted by: nobody in particular at February 18, 2007 11:43 PM (rFLG5)

14 With more Authoritarian plutocratic corporate rule, we could shove those flaps right up Theresa Ulmer's nostrils.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at February 18, 2007 11:50 PM (G9607)

15 WE MUST NOT ALLOW A MUDFLAP GAP!!!

Posted by: General Jack D. Ripper at February 18, 2007 11:58 PM (FuM7z)

16 "States will not grant vanity plates with offensive words, so I don't see how this is any different."

The difference is elementary: a vanity plate is still a license plate, an official state document issued to you with specific entitlements and obligations, and as such the state is entitled to regulate it. Try having your drivers-license photo taken giving the one-finger salute to the camera. Won't happen.

"Anyway, my solution would be go ahead and have your racist mudflaps and when your truck gets keyed, don't expect anyone to do anything about it."

Not quite: You have the right to free speech, and you should indeed expect responses to it if someone finds it offensive. While those responses may be upsetting to you, you also have the right to expect that they will be legal responses. Keying a car is vandalism, and is a crime, period. I mention this because when I exercised my right to have a Bush-Cheney sticker on my bumper, my car was vandalized, and in a manner that left no doubt about why. Since many of the liberals that I know believe that anything they find irritating somehow gives them a pass on obeying the law, I just thought I should clarify that for you.

Posted by: sherlock at February 19, 2007 12:06 AM (5eQQx)

17 We were concerned for a while there...

Posted by: Brass Tow Hitch Scrotums at February 19, 2007 12:11 AM (HDpFt)

18 It's a silhouette of a woman wearing a skintight body suit.

Geez, you must live in a state full of prudes. Mine is wearing nothing but a G-string and pasties.

Posted by: pbrown at February 19, 2007 12:15 AM (O+9Yg)

19 "Does the state of Arizona have the authority to demand the removal of these mud flaps?"

Nope. Amendment XIV, ratified in 1866.

We fought a war over that issue, actually. The South lost.

Posted by: FirstAmendmentAbsolutist at February 19, 2007 12:24 AM (XUDZ2)

Having bad taste and making a public ass of yourself are protected under the Constitution.

Reminds me of the Ghostbusters line:

"Being miserable, and treating other people like shit, is every New Yorker's God-given right!"

Posted by: Nameware Down at February 19, 2007 12:29 AM (41Dd+)

I remember seeing a bumper sticker that said "Kill A Commie For Christ." This was when the Cold War was still going on. It was offensive to me for about half a second, and then I decided it was just funny and got a good chuckle.

Posted by: Michael at February 19, 2007 12:30 AM (ExFsT)

22 Are we allowed to shoot at obscene mudflaps with our unregistered assault rifles?

"I'll take 'Questions You Don't Hear Much in Boston' for five hundred, Alex..."

Posted by: richard mcenroe at February 19, 2007 01:07 AM (iySs8)

23 This waste of time and money is right up there with the other non binding drivel.

Posted by: forest hunter at February 19, 2007 01:55 AM (TjUVb)

24 unless you want them to grow up to be fragile milquetoasts

There is a wing of the democrats that desire exactly that.

The whole PC thing is really a eugenics scheme to breed the new generation of humans to be called homo-pansyassus

Posted by: Purple Avenger at February 19, 2007 02:46 AM (HDpFt)

25 Proposals like this illustrate the totalitarian impulses that hide at the heart of liberalism.

Posted by: Barry in CO at February 19, 2007 05:20 AM (KOkrW)

26 The difference is elementary: a vanity plate is still a license plate, an official state document issued to you with specific entitlements and obligations, and as such the state is entitled to regulate it.

It's against the law in my state to park with a for sale sign in your car. It's okay if your driving but not parked. Survived a challenge on constitutional grounds. Granted, it would only be afforded the protection of commercial speech but I wouldn't call racial slurs of children polictical speech.

Again, polictical speech has greater protections. Good luck finding a prosecutor who 1) will file on the case, and 2) a jury that will convict, and 3) a judge who would impose a sentence beyond restitution if found guilty.

Posted by: at February 19, 2007 05:46 AM (GNUDK)

27 Anonymous, what about a black man wearing a NWA T-shirt? Can we tell him what he's allowed to wear, to protect 'the children?'

You pussy.

I don't think children 'need' to see racial epithets either; the issue is whether we can stifle other people because we're offended by them.

What happens to them, can happen to us. What does it matter if it's political speech or not? That's a meaningless distinction. So if it doesn't have to do with politics, and it bothers you, we can outlaw it?

Think about the Vagina Monologues. Lots of people find that offensive and would jump at the chance to legislate keeping away from State campuses.

You start talking about getting rid of obscenity, well that can be used against liberals with the same legislative club they design. The key of course is not to design the club.

You have to resist the temptation to go around shutting up people you don't like with the power of the State. Because eventually those people may be in power and they will not hesitate to use those laws against you.

Posted by: lauraw at February 19, 2007 08:50 AM (DbybK)

28 I saw a big, ole Dodge RAM pickup recently that had a chrome-plated nut-sack hanging from the trailer hitch.

Now THAT is friggin' offensive! Oh, and kinda funny too.

Posted by: too many steves at February 19, 2007 09:01 AM (0QaNZ)

29 Ace is probably layin around on the floor drunk while Laura keeps the place going. Shameful behavior really.

Shameful or admirable?

Posted by: el greco at February 19, 2007 09:51 AM (R6yie)

I'll tell you what they need to ban from cars. Those freaking woofers that shake my house from a hundred yards away.

Posted by: roc ingersol at February 19, 2007 10:21 AM (m2CN7)

Talk about mudflaps, my girl's got 'em!

Posted by: David St. Hubbins at February 19, 2007 10:31 AM (1tlBF)

32 Ok, I'm going to give it a guess here and say, Tar Baby. That's my final answer.

Posted by: pajama momma at February 19, 2007 11:11 AM (+Aq+d)

33 I would guess �pickaninny�, AZ had a governor Evan Meacham who got recalled for using the term in a press conference. He was also a used car dealer.

Posted by: Paladin at February 19, 2007 11:22 AM (AfORa)

34 "You have to resist the temptation to go around shutting up people you don't like with the power of the State."

Well said... but that's a temptation many liberals I know just cannot resist - their sense of outraged moral superiority is so much stronger than their sense of fairness and respect, that when they hear something they disagree with, their first response is to shout it down and start calling names. They have simply never learned to tolerate thoughts that they find to be disagreeable.

For example, I saw a letter in the "Letters to the Editor" section of the local rag that went on and on about how everyone should have free speech. The last sentence was the payoff... "Except of course people who are clearly telling lies." This analytical gem was found inside a newspaper that had a headline to the effect that Senate Republicans had "cut off debate on the war." What slippery stuff "truth" is!

Posted by: sherlock at February 19, 2007 11:52 AM (5eQQx)

35 I'm gonna go out on a limb and agree with Pajama Momma and say tar baby. I figure that in the context given, it would be meant to apply to the driver of the truck and the amount of time he spends on asphalt roads. It is probably not meant as an epithet in that context.

Honestly, I've never seen the word used outside of the story of B'rer Rabbit or in reference to the story.

Really, who picks insults that you would have to be 100 years old to get?

How often do you hear, "Fie on thee, thou unprepossessing corpulent bounder!" And if you heard that, how insulted would you feel?

Posted by: robert at February 19, 2007 12:02 PM (6VFW4)

36 aaawww, man.

I miss Monty.

Posted by: lauraw at February 19, 2007 12:31 PM (7JlNW)

37 Tar Baby. That's awesome.

I'm just curious... It's offensive to make fun of blacks and women, but it's perfectly okay to display stickers on your bumper that directly bad-mouth the President of this Country? Oh, okay I guess it makes sense. I get confused easily. I need to give away some of this common sense I've been harboring for years.

Although I still can't tell if this is against our president, or non-trimmed women... Hmmm...

Posted by: Smith at February 19, 2007 12:45 PM (Gpfe0)

38 Although I still can't tell if this is against our president, or non-trimmed women...

Depends. If there's also a "No Fat Chicks" sticker on the car, then I would probably go with the latter meaning. If there's a "Save the Northwestern Oregon Reticulated Booger Snipe" sticker, then you would probably be better leaning towards the former.

Posted by: wiserbud at February 19, 2007 01:00 PM (1tlBF)

39 Geepers, I'm awfully offended by those all those hateful, anti-Christian bumper stickers that leftists put on their cars. Children shouldn't have to see that! Let's ban those.

Posted by: Warden at February 19, 2007 01:10 PM (rZ5uY)

40 a "No Fat Chicks" sticker on the car,

Not gonna lie... I need one of them.

Posted by: Smith at February 19, 2007 01:12 PM (Gpfe0)

41 No fat chicks allowed...
Stupid people shouldn't vote...
No Ugly chicks allowed...

All my favorites ^_^

And if any of you find any of those bumper stickers because you are Fat and/or Ugly then I suggest you invest in 1) a diet plan 2) a plastic surgeon or3) both

And if THAT doesn't work....might I suggest finding something more important to complain about

Posted by: Kite at February 19, 2007 01:27 PM (fdeNn)

42 Fat chicks=Ugly on the outside
Liberals=Ugly on the inside
Fat liberal chicks=lowest level of hell

Posted by: TheManTheMyth at February 19, 2007 01:53 PM (Gvo/q)

43 "I personally am tired of explaining to my 11-year-old son why they (women) are depicted on mudflaps , but not all women are 36Ds. He's very confused by that," Ulmer said.

So, Democratic Rep. Theresa Ulmer of Yuma has an 11 year old that keeps asking the exact same question over and over and over again.

And rather than deal with the parenting skills required to answer a question, shed' rather the impetus for the question be removed. Because she doesn't believe her kid is screwing with her and can easily come up with another way to do so.

I guess that's what I'm reading anyhow.

Oh, and anonymous (well blank name, whatever). Blank names offend me. Under my newly found right not to be offended, I'm asking that you be permanently banned from this board and silenced to avoid my being offended... that'd be ok with you right?

I mean, my right to avoid being offended does trump your right to speech, unless I misunderstood you...

Posted by: Gekkobear at February 19, 2007 01:55 PM (X0NX1)

Whatever the term, I sure it would perfectly acceptable as long as you put it in a (c)rap song.

Posted by: Some Schlub at February 19, 2007 02:01 PM (QGY37)

45 "I personally am tired of explaining to my 11-year-old son why they (women) are depicted on mudflaps , but not all women are 36Ds. He's very confused by that," Ulmer said.

So, Democratic Rep. Theresa Ulmer of Yuma has an 11 year old that keeps asking the exact same question over and over and over again.

It sounds to me like he's asking her why she isn't as well developed as those ladies on truck flaps. Heh.

A bumper sticker that should be seeing a return in popularity: Ass, Gas, or Grass: Nobody Rides for Free.

Posted by: TXMarko at February 19, 2007 02:44 PM (4jzvA)

46 "So, Democratic Rep. Theresa Ulmer of Yuma has an 11 year old that keeps asking the exact same question over and over and over again."

So retarded people have retarded children. What's the point? Wait, was that offensive? Damn.

Posted by: Smith at February 19, 2007 03:44 PM (Gpfe0)

47 "Talk about mudflaps, my girl's got 'em!"

Damn you for beating me to the punch, St. Hubbins. Damn you to hell.

Like lukewarm water.

Posted by: Knemon at February 19, 2007 04:31 PM (LgEUS)

48 TX, I'm with you, that has to be my all time favorite. It's best on a seventies van though. That's still the only place I've seen one. I think the one I saw was Ass, Grass or Cash, Nobody Rides For Free

Posted by: carl hungus at February 19, 2007 05:16 PM (bWkaR)

49 Would it offend them blacks if they had LITTLE BLACK SAMBO in all the libraries as well after al he only made those tigers melt into butter

Posted by: spurwing plover at February 19, 2007 10:12 PM (mi9uJ)

50 Where do we draw the line?

I was in a mall last weekend here in Phoenix and saw a guy walking around in a black T-shirt with bold white lettering reading "Fuck You, You Fucking Fuck!" There's kids all over the place for crying out loud. Do we need a law? Or just leave in the hands of business owners i.e. the mall to kick this guy out? Are you a fascist censor (or some shit) if you complain to mall security?

Posted by: burnitup at February 19, 2007 11:53 PM (WLu9/)

51 Are you a fascist censor (or some shit) if you complain to mall security?

I know you know better, but this is a perfect time for a reminder civics lesson:

Only the State can censor.

Not me, not you, not TV networks, not mall security.

Now, sloppy vocabulary may deem my kicking my brother-in-law out of the house after a school voucher debate/screaming match "censoring"---but it's not. He exercised his freedom of speech in my home. I exercised my property rights. Nothing was censored.

Semantics, I know, but it always pisses me off when non-State entities are accused of censorship.

Posted by: Cuffy Meigs at February 20, 2007 01:21 PM (MRI9M)

52 My brother had a pick-up with mud flaps showing YOSIMITE SAM with his gun dorawn and saying BACK OFF

Posted by: spurwing plover at February 20, 2007 10:51 PM (PObDu)

53 Maybe call Representative Ulmer directly. She apparently has an office and also email: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/MembersPage.asp?Member_ID=57&Legislature=48

Posted by: Lisa Lorette at February 21, 2007 12:47 AM (WAWKM)

54 Seems she has her own website and direct email to boot through the Arizona House of Representatives. Maybe contact her directly to ask what all the fuss is really about: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/MembersPage.asp?Member_ID=57&Legislature=48

Posted by: Lisa Lorette at February 21, 2007 12:16 PM (WAWKM)

Posted by: �Ƚо�� at January 30, 2009 05:00 AM (hXNNS)

Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 10:44 AM (xpuiO)

Posted by: replica watches at November 18, 2009 06:24 AM (C/zDM)

Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.0307 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0072 seconds, 66 records returned.
Page size 55 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.