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

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

[PISANO]

Feds mandate or stop funding......that is their gimmick. If a state opts out....they get hit in the pocketbook and we all know that the States are addicted to FED MONEY!

[A CA Guy]

The driver without the seat belt will be the one to lose their coverage by not wearing it, their liability would still be active for others.

[A CA Guy]

I think we can exclude any state who did not take any Federal funds for highways.

Oh wait, there isn't any state that didn't take federal funds.

Sorry, the laws will be allowed and are needed.

[dinodino]

You are deliberately avoiding the question of constitutionality.

[A CA Guy]

Your joking right? Common sense should be a higher priority.

At the time of the Constitution, there were no cars, planes or space ships.
There were no paved roads with vehicles capable of going 120mph at times.

Belts work, are needed for your safety and as importantly everyone else.

Rights include OTHER PEOPLE'S RIGHTS and the right to not be put in jeopardy for "your" self-perceived rights when you want to be irresponsible on FEDERALLY FUNDED ROADS.

We've had it for years here in CA and it has been very good, don't hassle it.

[dinodino]

Who said I want to be irresponsible? I religiously wear my seatbelt. In fact, I religiously wear my seatbelt even WITHOUT an unconstitutional Federal mandate to do so.

Of course, you guys out in CA wouldn't have a clue about how personal responsibility works, so little wonder you are in favor of this bad legislation.

P.S.--"Common sense" is not a higher priority than our Constitutional rights.

[A CA Guy]

Throwing away common sense law or objecting in the name of the Constitution is great form over substance, that is about it.