Posted on 01/25/2005 4:37:42 PM PST by Cornpone
Drives me insane. How ever did industrialized people survive without children in car seats? This law can force you to get a larger vehicle than you might prefer, due to the mandatory space-hogging safety seats.
Another technique is to use Federal grants to enforce their agenda.
"The dominant role of the federal government in road finance has enabled it to pass laws in areas outside of the powers enumerated in the federal Constitution. By threatening to withhold highway funds, the federal government has been able to force state legislatures to pass a variety of laws. Examples include increasing the legal drinking age to 21, for a number of years reducing the maximum speed limit to 55 miles per hour, passing Megan's Law legislation, lowering the legal intoxication level to 0.08/1000, and other laws. " -- Wikipedia
They are getting more intrusive. Now the shape and size of city street signs are mandated.
Guys, I would add mandatory automobile insurance {NOT driver insurance} that allows insurance companies to set any price they want. And, they want HIGH. Although most states "regulate" increases, the average is higher each year, added onto the year before. BIG money. Not to mention the socialist "land use" policies being put into place that drive property prices high. I think{?} I'm getting old too. Peace and love, George.
I didn't know that. I've always wondered why so many women are driving these suburban assault vehicles. I didn't think it was all because hubby needed the legroom.
Not so much the carseat and the idea of having to put the baby in the back seat with mommy and daddy in the front seat or mommy and baby in the back seat with daddy driving.
It separates the family.....the idea sticks in the child's mind and stays with him forever.
You keep mentioning these same things while dozens of other abuses are being pointed out by other people here. I'm trying to an optimist. Don't you have anything else?
Speaking of insurance, how about these mandates that health insurance companies increase coverage to include fertility treatments, quack mental health treatments, etc.
This may be just a Texas law.
Open space laws are another example of the same thing. Cities use taxpayer funds to buy or to coerce concessions of property (through selective use of zoning laws). Ostensibly it is to provide "open space". But then you notice homes being built on tiny 1/4 acre plots. And we can only wonder what happened under the table.
What's that old saying--- A $50 helmet protecting a $5 head...
These are the reasons I started to pay attention to what is really going on out there, beyond my little world. I wish I would have been paying attention much earlier, but be sure I try my hardest to stay informed, (thanks to FR) and the fact that our president won again in the last election really gives me hope that many people are starting to realize as well, that they have to start paying attention to what the politicians are doing, and stay informed.
I looked it up. I think about half the states have these laws. There is a movement to cut federal highway funds for states that don't toe the line. I wonder if the people who make SUVs and child car seats have a lobby in Washington?
Interesting observation. A few years ago, and I don't remember if it was the entire state or just a corporate entity, but somewhere in California they passed a mandatory bicycle helmet law. Of course the legislation was in response to a 'mother' whose child had been severely hurt riding a bicycle without one. Later it was revealed her whole campaign was being financed by insurance companies and a helmet manufacturer. What was the result? A year later studies showed that more young kids were suffering severe head injuries from other kids trying to rip the helmets off their heads because their parents couldn't afford to buy them one and they couldn't afford to pay the fine if they were caught riding without one. Would I wear a helmet? Yep. I've dropped every motorcycle I ever got on. But that should be my choice based on my circumstance.
Agree it should be your choice. How about kids wearing helmets while sledding. Where does it end.
Good question. A few years ago there was debate about whether OSHA should have the right to make unannounced inspections of homes to determine if 'work at home' offices, which were springing up as a result of the phenomenal growth of telecommuting, were safe. The rational was that the employer was liable for the working conditions of the employee and if the employer was large enough to fall under OSHA requirements OSHA had the obligation to inspect the 'work at home' arrangements. I think it was the eventual recognition that the threat of deadly force by those that still felt we are a free people killed that idea.
Wouldn't be surprising in the least.
Congress shall make no law" meant what it said, but did not mean that only Congress was so restricted.
The 10th made clear that States were also prohibited powers, among them the power to infringe on peoples RKBA's.
Yes, this is true. That's because the 2nd amendment doesn't mention the States or Congress. It simply guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.
But the 1st does specify Congress.
Congress shall make no law" meant what it said, but did not mean that only Congress was so restricted.
The founders spent days arguing and carefully choosing the words that went into the Constitution. Do you really think they would have been so sloppy as to have written "Congress" when they meant "Congress and the States"
They had already written down that concept -- [ALL officials, 'Fed & State' are pledged to support the US Constitution] -- in Art VI.
After the civil war, southern States were denying freed slaves the RKBA's, under the pretense that the BOR's did not apply. The 14th was ratified to end that controversy.
The tenth amendment reserves rights not given to Congress and not prohibited to the states, to the people or the states.
I'm curious. Is this something that they are teaching in schools these days? -- that the original Constitutional restrictions on Congress also applied to the states?
I'm curious why you think it shouldn't be, as they always have. We fought a civil war to settle the issue, as a matter of fact.
A war does not change the meaning of what the founders originally intended.
Obviously, they intended that our Constitution would be the supreme Law of the Land, obeyed by all Officials, Fed & State alike. See Art VI.
The Civil War was fought over the right of succession. In fact, the right of secession was assumed to be a given when the Constitution was ratified even though some states declared that they reserved the right to succeed when they ratified. A war may subjugate people, but it doesn't change the truth.
And the truth is that various "States Rights" [among them 'secession'] were the cause of the war.
That was a lost cause, as States do not have, and never had, -- the power to infringe on individual rights to life liberty, or property.
One thing that happens when a housing developer has to deed part of his land to the government for open space is that they have to build more homes on smaller lots so they can giveaway the land and still make a profit.
This creates a "real estate bubble" in the smart growth development as well because buyers have to pay more to cover the cost of the "giveaway".
Local and state governnments approve this because they are on a densification binge funded by the EPA, among other government agencies. They also like the price bubbles because they can charge more property tax on the homes. The free market wouldn't put up with this,since most people don't like that kind of density, but they get you over a barrel when the houses are in a slow growth area because then you are no longer in a free market situation, but a government controlled housing situation.
But there is no basis for that. Requiring that state officials swear to obey the Constitution does not change the wording of the 1st amendment from "Congress" to "States and Congress". It means state officials are sworn to abide by whatever restrictions the Constitution placed on them.
When you make a contract with another person, it can place obligations on one party that aren't required of the other. And when both parties sign the contract or swear to it, it doesn't somehow oblige the first party to comply with the obligations of the second.
All I have to do is look at what is stolen out of my paycheck every two weeks, and then look at the arrogant waste, fraud and corruption it feeds.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.