CSA 2010 disassemble it 1 inspection at a time

A fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one's life, liberty, or property. Also, a constitutional guarantee that a law shall not be unreasonable, Arbitrary, or capricious.
The constitutional guarantee of due process of law, found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, prohibits all levels of government from arbitrarily or unfairly depriving individuals of their basic constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property. The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, ratified in 1791, asserts that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This amendment restricts the powers of the federal government and applies only to actions by it. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, declares,"[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (§ 1). This clause limits the powers of the states, rather than those of the federal government.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has also been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the twentieth century to incorporate protections of the Bill of Rights, so that those protections apply to the states as well as to the federal government. Thus, the Due Process Clause serves as the means whereby the Bill of Rights has become binding on state governments as well as on the federal government.
The concept of due process originated in English Common Law. The rule that individuals shall not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without notice and an opportunity to defend themselves predates written constitutions and was widely accepted in England. The Magna Charta, an agreement signed in 1215 that defined the rights of English subjects against the king, is an early example of a constitutional guarantee of due process. That document includes a clause that declares, "No free man shall be seized, or imprisoned … except by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land" (ch. 39). This concept of the law of the land was later transformed into the phrase "due process of law." By the seventeenth century, England's North American colonies were using the phrase "due process of law" in their statutes.
The application of constitutional due process is traditionally divided into the two categories of Substantive Due Process and procedural due process. These categories are derived from a distinction that is made between two types of law. Substantive Law creates, defines, and regulates rights, whereas procedural law enforces those rights or seeks redress for their violation. Thus, in the United States, substantive due process is concerned with such issues as Freedom of Speech and privacy, whereas procedural due process is concerned with provisions such as the right to adequate notice of a lawsuit, the right to be present during testimony, and the right to an attorney.







Now if we are agreed this is a reasonable explanation and definition of due process I will hazard the question again.

What is the violation?

The fact you were written up for a violation, or keeping track of those infractions?

 

So they ar not giving points? They are, "They are assigning point values to be used in generating a carrier rating". But they are ALSO giving a rating to the drivers... a driver rating which they also assign points to generate. Either way... It's freaken points.

I am also curious what you feel the child like play on sematics is supposed to accomplish?

 

There is NO legal violation of the law... It's a warning that cannot be legally contested under due process for it's validity. Which can infringe on my 'liberty' to gain future employment. Which can and does effect my 'life'.

So your correct: CSA 2010 is unconstitutional

 

It is not semantics.

A carrier has a rating. A driver does not. It is that simple.

A drivers record can be pulled much like an MVR. On that MVR there are no points. There is just a record of your inspections both good and bad, and a record of your crash data.

A PSP is an MVR of your inspections and crash data more or less. Now a carrier can look at that record and make whatever decision they want from it.

The FMCSA makes no peer rating for drivers. They hold no influence over issuance of CDL's(OK no individual issuance). They make no recommendations of employ ability. They specifically prohibit the viewing of that record without your permission.

 

Here ya go.

http://www.aclu-mn.org/

Schedule an appointment and make your case. I have to tell you it may not be the response your seeking though. You may not trust my opinion on the constitutionality of CSA(really it is not called 2010 anymore of this you can be sure), but I believe you'll find even the lawyers who thrive on such cases will share my opinion.

 

Ok, back to semantics... Driver has a safety profile... that is 'rated' by 'points' given for warnings at inspections.

Is this specific enough for you?

 

There are no points. None zero, and there is no rating provided judging the competency of the driver. There is simply a record that is releasable by you to show your inspection and crash history.

You can keep lying but it does not change the facts. All a PSP does is report your record. If your record indicates to the company your a substandard driver in comparison to your coworkers they have every right to terminate you.

No constitutional violation, no revenue generation, no evil gestapo oppressing the poor drivers or any other silly fantasies people create to excuse their record.

Now I know it is and has been en vogue to spread this paranoia through out the industry. It builds a sense of camaraderie through the axiom misery loves company. All used to assuage the feelings of inadequacy of those worried about their records being examined.

 

Yes the goverment keeps track of points and are threatening your job no matter how good of driving record you have. Another thing is these inspections are misused by dedicated unionized police members to harrass non union drivers , don,t take my word just drive your truck thru the Spokane,Wa or Mt. hood, or scales!

 

Now I understand, the problem here is you actually believe what the FMCSA is saying... and they ARE collecting the data... AND they are issuing points.

" If something waddles like a duck, has webbed feet like a duck and quacks like a duck, it may be a horse, but it’s probably a duck. "

Here is what we know they are doing with CSA:

And with CSA 2010, there will be a Safety Measurement System (SMS). SMS includes two distinct safety measurement systems.

One for carriers [Carrier Safety Measurement System (CSMS)]
One for drivers [Driver Safety Measurement Systems (DSMS)]

Points ARE assigned to the DSMS for the following:

Unsafe Driving BASIC and Controlled Substances and Alcohol BASIC
Fatigued Driving BASIC and Driver Fitness BASIC
Vehicle Maintenance BASIC and Improper Loading/Cargo Securement
Crash Indicator

So the REAL questions ARE... If drivers are NOT being assigned points under the DSMS... which of course they are... Why does the SMS have the distinct DSMS measurement system? What is being done with the data? Why is it being compiled for individual drivers in the first place? Could they use it for future enforcement... say, going back a certain number of years and enforcing from there? Sound familiar?

 

If your going to continue to use outdated information your going to live a life of fear and ignorance for no reason.
DSMS is not available to the public. In fact it is only generated during an intervention(audit).
But to your original point none of that is done without due process.