At 07:13 AM 1/2/96 GMT, Jammer wrote: >On another note, it occurs to me that not all laws would be bad. > >For instance, a law that said no one is responsible for anyone else, that >it's always the diver's responsibility, period. A law that says if you go >underwater, you forfeit your right to sue anyone for anything in >connection with the dive. > >Like the law that says it's always the fault of the guy who rear ends >someone. > >A blanket law that protects shops, DM's, Instructors, agencies, and >everybody else who knows how to spell "dive". First, lets check out the 10th amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Now, since there is no mention of scuba diving found in the US Constitution, (although, through the interstate commerce laws they tend to weasel into everything anyway) any laws regarding diving should be left to, "the States respectively." This would mean each state would have it's own laws, (if any) and many said laws would most likely differ from state to state. It is for this very reason that the Fed's get involved, and everything gets screwed up, and thus costs ME more money. So from this we learn? NO MORE LAWS!!! This we can apply to any, and all subjects. There are already too many laws, and this is why all the scuzzy lawyers can clutter up the justice system with frivolous law suits. This is what would most likely occur if applied to diving. There could be things left to interpretation, that would serve as fuel to the "scuzzies." We will never pass a law limiting scuzzy lawyers from suing *negligent* dive operators. I take this time now, to apologise to any scuzzy people who may feel wronged, by me grouping them with lawyers. RT
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]