States should oppose seatbelt mandate: Congress acting outside its scope, authority

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, December 19, 2003 | Jon Dougherty

[JohnHuang2]

States should oppose seatbelt mandate

---

Posted: December 19, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

Don't look now, but Congress is preparing more legislation aimed at blackmailing states into going along with another unfunded, unconstitutional mandate Washington has no original authority to issue.

Earlier this month, Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and John Warner, R-Va., teamed up to sponsor a bill that would create a national seatbelt law. The motivation is, of course, said to be noble. Advocates want the new law because they claim it will save countless lives. Auto insurance firms support it because they claim it will improve their bottom lines, though there is something wrong with using government force to shore up profits.

In any event, the bill calls for withholding a portion of federal highway funds from each state that a) does not pass a law requiring drivers to wear a seat belt; and b) not achieving a 90 percent compliance rate within three years of passage.

Perhaps this is naïve, but constitutionally speaking, legislators supporting this bill have their roles – and that of the federal government – backward.

There is no constitutional power granted to Congress to force American drivers to buckle up. It doesn't matter a whit if all the research in the world proves buckling up saves lives, saves money, or saves the whales – Congress has no authority to force drivers to make smart driving decisions. States, on the other hand, have the authority to pass or not pass such laws, but on the federal level, this authority does not exist.

On the other hand, Article I, Sect. 8 of the Constitution says one of Congress' duties is to "establish post offices and post roads." So when Congress threatens to withhold highway funds unless states enact federal seat belt laws, they are acting outside the scope of their authority.

In order to continue operating in the constitutional darkness, Congress always employs a number of useful idiots to sow propaganda, fear and anger among the population. So it is with the national seatbelt law.

"When people don't buckle up, all of society pays," says Phil Haseltine, president of the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety, or ACTS, a group pushing Congress to pass a national seatbelt law. "An estimated $26 billion is spent annually on medical and emergency response care, lost productivity and other injury related costs."

These half-truths are intentionally misleading. Insured drivers pay their own way, and the federal government was never authorized by the Constitution to get into the insurance business in the first place. If states want to tax their citizens for same, that's another story.

OK, so Congress acting outside its scope and authority is nothing new. But that's partly because political leaders are too infrequently challenged about their extra-constitutional actions and too frequently asked by special interests to violate their oaths of office.

Another reason is because local and state leaders have done nothing to stand up to Washington's power-mongering habits. Congress cannot impose its unconstitutional will on states unless states are willing to accept it.

Americans should know two things: It's never too late to reclaim lost liberties, and there is no reasoning with a political system whose sole purpose is self-perpetuation. Change, if there is to be any, must be forced on unwilling federal-crats who will continue to override the Constitution as long as they are permitted.

Thomas Jefferson once said, "A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." This is entirely within the realm of possibility, even today. But it's up to us. Washington isn't going to surrender power willingly.

State leaders who don't have the intestinal fortitude to combat Washington's power greed should be replaced. They are only helping to perpetuate an out-of-control federal system contrary to that which was established by our founding fathers.

---

[JohnHuang2]

Friday, December 19, 2003

Quote of the Day by Political Junkie Too

[agitator]

Thomas Jefferson once said, "A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate."

I suppose that's why everybody is forced to pay the exortionists at the DMV for a license.

baaaaaaa baaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[thegreatbeast]

Here in the People's Commonwealth the pols are dying to make seatbelts a primary offense for which they can stop, and fine, you. Right now undone seatbelts are a secondary offense that they can only tack on after they have stopped you for some other reason. Having the feds mandate seatbelt usage would be just the impetus needed to elevate the "offense" to primary status. It would be like shooting fish in a barrrel and a terrific "revenue enhancement".

[Hank Rearden]

Anyone else out there just sick to death of the damn government?

[Richard-SIA]

I wonder if this post will get the same hostile reception mine did when I announced my intent to fight my seatbelt ticket?

I did fight it, to no avail of course.
But as I told the judge, having lost I now have legal standing to join in any future effort to repeal the "law".

Blackmail is a criminal activity, it does not matter if it's some thug or the Fed. Gov. doing it, it is still criminal.
"Our" Gov. resorts to this tactic frequently when they feel a need to abridge our constitutional rights without a legitimate venue to do so.

Seatbelt laws, national speed limits, drinking age, DUI thresholds, age of consent.....
All of these are being determined by federal blackmail!

I guess that once enough of the individual states laws have been homogenized, the liberals will feel free to disband our state legislatures, and implement their dream of a omnipotent socialist federal government.

The recent repeal of the first amendment facilitates this goal.
We had better start resisting this trend, or we will find ourselves disenfranchised all the sooner!

[raisincane]

Amen, Hank.

[Peace will be here soon]

Putting on a seat belt is really not that hard. I am a convert to buckling up. I never thought much about it until a co-worker of mine ended up just about going completely through a windshield in an accident, at least his face and shoulders did. He was told by his doctors that he came very close to bleeding to death. His face is now partially paralyzed and can hardly smile because of muscle and nerve damage. If he had been buckled up, more than likely he would have walked away from the accident unharmed. After watching him go through everything he did, I now buckle up on a regular basis. It is almost a reflex to reach for the belt when I get in the car. Should it be mandated by the federal government ? I don`t know. I buckle up now so it is not much of an issue with me. But I did not like this line : "and b) not achieving a 90 percent compliance rate within three years of passage." This was an eye catcher for sure !!!

[Hank Rearden]

Why do these parasites (who can only get worthless government jobs, it seems) persist in pestering normal people? Why can't they just leave us alone? Do their useless jobs depend on continually pissing us off?

Counting down to American Revolution v2.0.

[Hank Rearden]

Should it be mandated by the federal government ? I don`t know.

You don't know? You think "maybe"?

Government in our country was instituted to secure the individual liberties of a free, self-governing people.

Not to be some brainless, all-controlling army of morons sucking on the taxpayer tit.

[HiTech RedNeck]

This is the United States, not Sweden.

[agitator]

It's much worse than people think.

http://taor.agitator.dynip.com/on_law.htm

[Peace will be here soon]

I never said I agreed with this. I would like to see the end result or final make up of the bill before making a decision. I may be on your side when its all said and done, then again I may not. I like to make decisions when I have all the info. You think I am a loony for this ?

[Hank Rearden]

Sure I do.

My immediate answer is "HELL no!" to this kind of Big Stupid Government meddling.

What constitutional justification is there in Big Stupid Government having a say in every aspect of your life and every decision you make?

[countrydummy]

I don't like the "Law" and the reasons behind the "Law". However, I am a RN, I have worked ER most of all my life, I have seen patients come in that lived because of a seat belt, and I have seen decapitated bodies that did not......you decide! By the way, they drive me crazy!
The shoulder straps always end up around my neck! lol

[Peace will be here soon]

My immediate answer is "HELL no!" to this kind of Big Stupid Government meddling.

What constitutional justification is there in Big Stupid Government having a say in every aspect of your life and every decision you make?


So by wanting to get all the facts before I make a decision on this issue, I am a loony ! You got me smiling on that one. I really don`t have the same problems you do with our government. I have more problems with the public in general, to be honest. They effect me far more than our federal government does. Is there corruption in our government, well yeah. Do they abuse the power we have placed in them, of course. Does it need to be corrected, absolutely. But not everything they do is bad. I know that must be a shock to you. So do you think speed limits are bad? How about blood alcohol limits ? Are these over- reaching government policies?

[clee1]

You are right on target Hank.

v 2.0 is imminent.

[Ff--150]

"I guess that once enough of the individual states laws have been homogenized, the liberals will feel free to disband our state legislatures, and implement their dream of a omnipotent socialist federal government. The recent repeal of the first amendment facilitates this goal. We had better start resisting this trend, or we will find ourselves disenfranchised all the sooner"

Do you feel alone on this conservative forum? Don't you understand Sad-dam has been captured, the economy is about to explode and our IRA's and 401ks are going to be so full we can kick back, and our prescriptions will be paid for.

So what if we have to buckle up? It's for our own safety--and more importantly, OUR CHILDREN>/sarcasm>

[Bobby Chang]

Nextel drivers are required to strap into their six-pointed safety harnesses AND wear elaborate head and neck restraints.

Fighter pilots must wear special clothing designed to withstand the g-forces and six-pointed harnesses.

And guess who can win if seat belt laws aren't existant AND people are injured or killed in vehicles without them?

Yes, the trial lawyers.

[billbears]

And guess who can win if seat belt laws aren't existant AND people are injured or killed in vehicles without them?

It's my private property. I choose not to wear a seat belt. The national government has no place in how I use my private property. If. God forbid, I go through the windshield, it's my own fault. How did people drive before the mid 80s when a nosy, power hungry, nanny type Republican DOT Secretary (who BTW I'm now stuck with as a 'conservative' Senator) first forced the states to enact such legislation? Didn't have a lot of lawsuits then did we? Perhaps the situation calls more for a change in what trial lawyers can and cannot do than it calls for an abridgement of the liberty of the citizens of the respective states

Seat belt laws are nothing more than coffer filling taxes. Thanks Mrs. Dole. Yet one more 'legacy' from the 'conservative' Senator

[Bobby Chang]

John Edwards would be the most likely to oppose such a bill because it helps him collect damages in trial courts.