And add in the volunteer group that decided to save the project, working out of an abandoned McDonald's.

Oh, wait....

Just like surveillance technology (whoops, it *is* surveillance technology), or tracking technology, and those are just so helpful. Especially to those in power.

I'm just as suspicious of this as I am of the police, the government at all levels, or our elected representatives. These entities all need adult supervision. And good controls.

More than ever? I'm not yet convinced. Seems no one remembers the past

It seems like you present the hypothesis that the government would propose an amendment to do what you then ask if I would accept.

The government could not be trusted to propose an amendment to serve the people. Certainly not now, nor for the foreseeable future. In fact, if the states were to attempt to convene a convention, I expect the federal government to attempt to prevent it.

Such an amendment would be unworkable and a sincerely bad idea. One of the most powerful aspects of our constitution of the fundamental nature of it. Specificity of principle, not narrowness of action.

There is no 'rampant' failure. And technology enabling encroachment on our freedoms does not justify the encroachment. Are you even paying attention? Technology is being used to harm us, not protect us.

These responsibilities have been with local authorities all along. What has changed? Technology? Funding?

The federal government can continue to monitor and enforce constitutional protections without new mandates forced by federal law and the narcotic of federal money.

I disagree. Care to elaborate on what conditional authority the feds would be operating under?

Lots of infractions do not reach the DA. Minor traffic infractions in particular. These are so 'routine' that there is virtually no due process available to a citizen any more.

But cameras are not addressing running red lights or speeding. It's the violent confrontations these will be used for. Just as the courts 'don't have time' to process traffic stops properly, they will not be taking time to review video evidence either.

I'm not ready to give in yet.

Highway funding is regularly tied to compliance with federal laws, some of which are simply usurpation of local or state authority. Speed limits, for instance, drinking age, and DWI laws. There are other examples too numerous to easily list here.

The fight is to prevent the feds from tying the money to anything. Which should mean states and municipalities solving the problem themselves.

It may be missed in this debate, but cameras should change the behavior of citizens also. If a moron is arrested, claims the usual 'brutality' defense, and is confronted with video that prejudices the judge or jury against them to the tune of some time in jail, perhaps they will stop short the next time and try not to pile on additional charges.,

i'm not hopeful that morons will stop breaking the law, but they might stop being excessive idiots when the police are documenting their idiocy.

Wishful thinking, maybe, but a chance to calm down the interaction is not a bad thing. Can't much make it worse.

You have not been paying attention. Must be Democrat.

You don't know very many republicans, I suspect. I'm one, and I'm all for this.

What I am opposed to, for the moment, would be:

- Federal compulsory regulation requiring this. Local governments (and state governments as well) have the responsibility and so can make the decisions themselves. Claims that federal civil rights law would compel this are specious. Federal intrusion here leads only to more federal control, and I'm still enough of a Conservative to oppose this.

- Federal funding, which would be the vehicle for regulation. Federal funding is the hammer to drive control. Just say no. Those dollars came from somewhere, you know.

Police departments and communities that have problems with their police already know this, and should be acting. Citizens need to elect officials that ensure that problems are solved.

And some nations don't. Your point?

More to your point, do the nations that rely on oil for electricity generation seem to be good candidates for solar replacements?

We don't use oil to generate electricity, we use gas. Solar is not cheaper than gas.

Take away solar subsidies and it gets to the point the alarmists want. Deprivation.