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.

---

[Bobby Chang]

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. Little did we know why Mrs. Dole put the rule into play for mandatory seat belts . . . to prevent trial lawyers from making a mockery of the system from being worse. Any conservative would love to derail a trial lawyer's favourite way to milk money out of industry. Make it impossible for them to sue and collect damages for negligence, and the trial lawyers are out millions.

[dread78645]

My goodness, if we just let everyone run around willy nilly doing whatever they pleased we would have utter chaos in this country.

Uhmm .. No.

I'm positive my fellow nation-men can act with their (and their neighbors) best interests as the goal.
Government force is needed for the minuscule part that can't be handled by the community
(God forbid the "utter chaos" of un-strapped auto occupants!)

Of course our government, state and federal, has the right to make laws that protect me from the nutjobs in this country.

Again, No.
Governments only have powers, the people have rights

Under Anglo-Saxon culture, all power granted to the government originally rests with the people. Any exercise of power by the state is an extension of the power of the people, and the people can revoke that grant of power at any time.

The US states might make laws concerning "nutjobs" as far as their citizens might permit. The Federal government, as a "state-of-the-states" can only pass laws in accordance with the Constitution as ratified by the states.

In the real world, only you (& maybe your neighbors) can protect you.

Why don`t you go back and read my post again. I never said I would support this, only that I was open to the idea.

That you are "open to the idea" of Congress-nanny making laws concerning conduct in our automobiles is deserving of ridicule.

Please tell me that you're 15 years old and have nothing more responsible to do but your trig homework?!

[Hank Rearden]

I'm curios, do you think there will be one?

Of course there will be one, if our country continues on its present course. Giant-Government Republicans are just accelerating the process.

Either enough people will finally get fed up and toss the whole mess, or the creaking monster currently being enlarged by Bush & Co. will collapse of its own weight and ridiculousness.

The current trend cannot be sustained indefinitely. It'll get tossed, or it'll break. One or the other.

[Peace will be here soon]

I am going to take a wild guess that you don`t like to wear your seatbelt. Well, get used to the idea bucko , because we communist are going to make you wear one !! So grab your rifle and head to the capitol !!! And let the revolution begin !!!

[billbears]

Any conservative would love to derail a trial lawyer's favourite way to milk money out of industry. Make it impossible for them to sue and collect damages for negligence, and the trial lawyers are out millions.

Not at the expense of finishing off any power the states have against the national government. This nation was designed to be a federal republic, not a socialist democracy. Every law passed at the national level that is not covered in the Constitution just goes a little further down the road of making that document worthless. I'll take my chances with trial lawyers if it means that the states decide, and not some bureaucrat in Washington, on their internal affairs and their respective citizens.

[billbears]

Little did we know why Mrs. Dole put the rule into play for mandatory seat belts . . . to prevent trial lawyers from making a mockery of the system from being worse

I seriously doubt that. Have you ever heard the woman give a speech? She's like an overprotective mother. Can't have certain guns because of the children. Have to lock ourselves down in our cars because of the children. Need to destroy tobacco manufacturers while 'promising' tobacco farmers they'll get more money in the buyout program. Why? Of course smoking is bad for you, and the children. 18 years can go fight but danged if they can drink. You really, really need a bag of air blowing up in your face in an accident because some crackpot safety group said so.

This 'conservative' Senator was involved in all of these actions. Mind you not while she was elected for most of them but rather appointed. And every one of these moves took away decisions from the citizens of the respective states and put them in Washington. Because she knew better than we did.

[CWOJackson]

Seat belts - Ruby Ridge.

That's quite a leap there but I'm not surprised.

[pageonetoo]

It would be like shooting fish in a barrrel and a terrific "revenue enhancement".

Can anyone say "red light cameras"?

"Click it or ticket" is becoming the law of the land. It isn't just about money from the citations, though. It mainly gives JBT's an opportunity to stop a citizen, and request "your papers, please!", and ask "may i search your car?"

Yes, I do not like what our g'umt has become... and IMO, it ain't going to get any better! Welcome to the 21st Century, in Amerika!

[philman_36]

Just one more step in making this nation into merely another country.
If any don't understand this, ask.

[A CA Guy]

Fine, don't wear your seatbelts, but be prepared for your accident insurance to be rendered null and void by your own behavior when you are in an accident regarding any benefit the insurance would have given you.

[ThinkDifferent]

be prepared for your accident insurance to be rendered null and void by your own behavior when you are in an accident regarding any benefit the insurance would have given you

Yes, that's an excellent free market solution that lets the police focus on actual criminals.

[A CA Guy]

There is no free-market system solution to stop people from being a horses ass behind the wheel.
We have limitations in dealing with buffoons or low IQ people who are among the public, therefore laws direct a lack of common sense.

We have to have people seat belted up behind the wheels of cars, there can be no other way.
Doesn't take much of a hit to remove a driver from behind the wheel unless that belt is on.

If there is no belt and an accident begins:
#1 Babies go flying.
#2 Adults go flying, crushing children and others.
#3 A bump in a minor accident could dislodge a driver and send the car on to kill someone, whereas if they were belted in, they would remain with the controls to help stop further destruction.

I've been hit by a drunk driver as a kid at 45 miles per hour at a red light.
Being belted in, I was (despite a broken neck) able to still control the car in a straight line to avoid injuring another.
If I had no seat belt:
#1 I would be dead and had worse injuries (I was told by police)
#2 I would have been removed from behind the wheel from the jolt and would have become a moving missile out-of-control that could have killed others (IN THE NAME OF FREEDOM?)

No, you are wrong, this is not a free-market issue.
This is a responsibility issue.
You may move to an island if you wish to drive without seat-belts where nobody cares or is inflicted due to your choices.
In a population you have to be more responsible because what you may decide is a form of freedom can very easily be an uncontrolled deadly weapon.

We must agree to disagree on this one issue...sorry.

[Bobby Chang]

>Fine, don't wear your seatbelts, but be prepared for your accident insurance to be rendered null and void by your own behavior when you are in an accident regarding any benefit the insurance would have given you.<

But . . .

With activist judges being the majority in the nation, one attorney will simply find the biggest activist judge they can to do their wish and pay the millions.

That's how these activist judges work, and we have to restrain them and unfortunately there are things we must do to stop them.

[meyer]

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?

The problem is, the government has no vested ownership over anybody's life, and certainly not mine. Speeding laws generally (and there are plenty of exceptions) have the effect of protecting other people on or near the road, as do DUI type laws. It makes sense in most cases to provide laws that encourage that what we do doesn't have a large detrimental effect on others. But seat belt laws, like helmet laws and such, have no effect on the general population, but only on the person who chooses to wear or not wear them.

The point is that I own myself and only I have the right to decide my fate. As one of adult age, if I choose to wear or not wear a seatbelt is my decision and nobody elses. Having government protect us from ourselves is silly. They work for us - we are not to be beholden to them.

[meyer]

Feel free to not use your seat belt but also accept total responsibility for the risks you are taking.

Also consider that in terms of medical costs, death is far cheaper than survival if that survival requires long-term care.

[Jeff Gordon]

death is far cheaper than survival if that survival requires long-term care.

Darwin's theory works if you give it a decent chance.

[meyer]

Darwin's theory works if you give it a decent chance.

Of course it does, and the government does mankind no service by attempting to interfere. How are we to improve the breed if the nannies in Washington keep protecting the weak ones?

[dinodino]

Hey, CA Guy, what about States' rights? The main problem here is that the proposed legislation is Federal. If any State (or all States) wish to impose seatbelt laws, they may do (and have done) so; the Feds, however, do not have the Constitutional authority to do this.

[Peace will be here soon]

But seat belt laws, ........, have no effect on the general population, but only on the person who chooses to wear or not wear them.

Unfortunately, I disagree. Not securely restraining yourself behind the wheel of your vehicle does put others at risk, and in some cases great risk. Have you ever seen someone get thrown from the drivers seat after hitting a curb ? I have. The result was the their car going completely out of control and causing several other accidents. If that driver was belted behind the wheel, they very likely would have simply applied the brakes immediately after the incident ( which could not be done from the passengers seat or floorboard). What was initially a very minor accident, turned into something much worse. And it was only because of the drivers unwillingness to act in a responsible manner that caused the initial event and the event there after. If someone cannot act in a responsible manner behind the wheel of their car/truck, then they have no business being on the road. And personally, I believe wearing a seat belt is part of acting responsibly. --

---

A federal mandate ??? I don`t know. It is not like the federal government has never over-stepped its bounds before !!!! If they only applied it to interstate highways, then maybe I can accept that. It is about they only way I can see it even happening, without a huge court battle ( which will likely happen anyway).

[Peace will be here soon]

Darwin's theory works if you give it a decent chance

---

If it was that easy I would agree. Problem is to many times Darwin award winners don`t go out without taking a few innocent victims with them. I don`t want to be one of them. Call me selfish.