• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Should ADA be Repealed?

Should ADA be Repealed?

  • Yes, completely eliminated.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No, but private right of suit eliminated.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No, but it should remain Federal law and not in Building Codes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No, it's fine just like it is.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
I think that was Brudgers subjective way of saying Bill is not very smart. Seems to be a slam on you too, Fatboy. I guess some people need to massage their egos a bit to feel better.
 
Hence.....my curiosity.

Seemed a bit schoolyard to me.......but I come here to learn.

So, I guess I got schooled. I'm just a dumb-a$$ biker also.
 
Back to the topic. . . . .

The federal government has broadened the "public welfare" clause to the point that it is no longer anything that the founding fathers would recognize. To that extent, we have gone too far from the exacts on the constitution. The question, now that we have traveled off the holy path, it whether we "should" address discrimination at all; and, if so, should disabilities be included in that collective discussion.

If we contend that all men (in the generic - not gender - sense) are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights including liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then maybe there needs to be something to address the issue. And, if there should be something to address it, politicians will always assume they know best and make laws to address it. It's what they do. The best we can hope for is a law that allows rule-making which addresses things in a manner consistent with the best and most reasonable minds. Step into the 2003 A117.1! . . . The basic framework for the 2010 ADAAG; just as the 1986 was the framework for the original ADAAG. We are fortunate that the IBC and the ADAAG align to a 99% degree due to this involvement.

The ADA law should be maintained. The process needs to be fixed to address the realities of construction. The lawyers and politicians need to back off as much as possible and let us build the environment in a manner in which we do not discriminate against people to the greatest extent feasible. Ah! Now we can all debate what's "feasible."
 
Gene Boecker said:
Back to the topic. . . . . The federal government has broadened the "public welfare" clause to the point that it is no longer anything that the founding fathers would recognize. To that extent, we have gone too far from the exacts on the constitution. The question, now that we have traveled off the holy path, it whether we "should" address discrimination at all; and, if so, should disabilities be included in that collective discussion.

If we contend that all men (in the generic - not gender - sense) are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights including liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then maybe there needs to be something to address the issue. And, if there should be something to address it, politicians will always assume they know best and make laws to address it. It's what they do. The best we can hope for is a law that allows rule-making which addresses things in a manner consistent with the best and most reasonable minds. Step into the 2003 A117.1! . . . The basic framework for the 2010 ADAAG; just as the 1986 was the framework for the original ADAAG. We are fortunate that the IBC and the ADAAG align to a 99% degree due to this involvement.

The ADA law should be maintained. The process needs to be fixed to address the realities of construction. The lawyers and politicians need to back off as much as possible and let us build the environment in a manner in which we do not discriminate against people to the greatest extent feasible. Ah! Now we can all debate what's "feasible."
Click to expand...
The public welfare clause is in the Constitution, the inalienable rights stuff is in the Declaration of independence...RoboCop is on a Unicorn.

If you want to pick a place to start going back to "original intent," I suggest starting with the idea that corporations are persons.
 
ADA, and public facilities regulations are not enforced; except in rare cases where an individual uses them for personal financial gain. Don't beieve it? Go to any strip mall and ask to ues the restroom. Most times you will be informed that they don't have a public restroom or if pushed; it's out of order. The overall purpose of social (and so called public good) laws are to restrict individual rights; not protect them.

We used to have mostly, mom & pop stores. In order to run them out of business; new laws that made it impossible for them to stay in business, were passed (for public safety and/or the public good); including the ADA and public restroom laws. Remember when all gas stations were required to put in new holding tanks? Probably not; it did not run you out of business.

When the government passes a law "for the public good"; it is to minimize the individuals rights; not, improve anything.

Uncle Bob
 
Uncle Bob said:
ADA, and public facilities regulations are not enforced; except in rare cases where an individual uses them for personal financial gain. Don't beieve it? Go to any strip mall and ask to ues the restroom. Most times you will be informed that they don't have a public restroom or if pushed; it's out of order. The overall purpose of social (and so called public good) laws are to restrict individual rights; not protect them.We used to have mostly, mom & pop stores. In order to run them out of business; new laws that made it impossible for them to stay in business, were passed (for public safety and/or the public good); including the ADA and public restroom laws. Remember when all gas stations were required to put in new holding tanks? Probably not; it did not run you out of business.

When the government passes a law "for the public good"; it is to minimize the individuals rights; not, improve anything.

Uncle Bob
Click to expand...
Psssst....you're using the internet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top