The Nanny State Strikes Again

Fox News ^ | 12/26/03 | William A. Niskanen

[jimkress]

Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, who must have little else to do, has recently urged state governments to pass "primary" seat-belt laws, which allow police to stop and cite motorists solely for failing to wear a seat belt.

And the Bush administration has proposed a $400 million incentive to reward state governments that pass such laws.

[MEG33]

Well said!!

[nopardons]

Not really and ANYONE, on FR, who supports Dr.Death, over President Bush, does NOT belong here and should have his/her membership revoked ASAP !

[nopardons]

Thank you...so was YOUR post. :-)

[Congressman Billybob]

You're absolutely right that it's not "a federal issue." The Congresscritters get around that the same way they did with the former 55 MPH spped limit. Congress said to the states, "We can't write motor vehicle laws. But we hope you will adopt these new state laws. And if not, we will withhold all federal highway aid."

Well, that created a loud sucking sound in all the state capitols, and they dutifully fell in line, all 50 of them. And the Supreme Court upheld that, saying that "Congress can place whatever conditions it wants on the spending of tax money,."

Grimm's Fairy Tales understood the point three centuries ago when it wrote, "He who pays the piper calls the tune."

John / Billybob

[MEG33]

Am I crazy or was there a 35 mile an hour speed limit duringWW2? We had a gas shortage,the troops needed gas.There rare trip to my grandparents house seemed to take forever(it's an hour and a half drive!)

[NMC EXP]

...who scream " statist ", " police state ",and worse, without any sense, at all, as to what, exactly, these terms mean.

Here is a definition of "statist". I should ring a bell for you:

=====================================================

WHAT IS A STATIST? Statism is the doctrine that maintains that your life, money and property are not yours, but the property of the state. A statist is any individual who upholds this doctrine and/or supports its implementation.

A statist knows that he cannot get away with—at least, not yet—openly declaring that your life, money and property are not yours, so he advances these ideas by implicit means. Statists enact laws that forbid you from taking certain actions altogether or only if you have their permission—and the idea is: if you may only act by permission, you do not have a right to your life. Statists, through their regulations, determine how much of your money you will be allowed to keep—and the idea is: if you do not have the right to decide how your money is spent, your money is not yours. Statists issue decrees restricting how you may use your property—and the idea is: if you do not have the right to control the use and disposal of your property, your property is not yours. These are the indirect means by which statists promote and implement their ideas.

An adult statist is grown up, physically, but in a state of self-arrested, stunted, mental development. His worldview is that of a child who can only do what his parents permit and who is dependent on his parents for everything. In the adult world, he seeks to forcibly impose this view on others. You are the child and the state, run by statists, is the parent. The statist may do anything he wants, while you may only do what the statist permits—bringing us a complete reversal of the way it should be. In fact, you should be free to do whatever you want (so long as you do not violate the right of another to do the same), while government officials should only be able to do what the law specifically permits—and no more.

Fulton Huxtable

======================================================

Hope that clears it up for you.

Regards

J.R.

[mvpel]

The Eighth Circuit is apparently ruling in contradiction to the US Supreme Court, which established that "A competent person has a liberty interest under the Due Process Clause in refusing unwanted medical treatment," in Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, [110 S.Ct. 2841, 497 U.S. 261, 111 L.Ed.2d 224, 58 USLW 4916, 1 NDLR P 38 (1990)]

[Still Thinking]

This issue is a real hot button for me. You are exactly correct in noting that when the feds send money contingent on a state's adoption of some favorred policy, it is at least an implicit admission that this is a sphere where they lack the jurisdiction to require compliance. So if, after they discharge all the responsibilities that ARE within their jurisdiction, they still have money left over with which to meddle in issues they ADMIT are none of their business, how can they maintain they haven't overcharged us on our taxes?? This is the strongest argument for deep tax reductions I can think of, to prevent Big Brother meddling in what is properly state and local business.

[nopardons]

Thank you for posting that, as it PROVES , for a certainty, that every single person, here, who uses that term , against those he/she disagrees with here, has used it erroneously ; just as I have said.

And,as far as cases of arrested development " go, it is the fringers and the fringers ALONE, who are the proud owners of that title. THE BELL RINGS FOR THEE !

[nopardons]

Thank you for posting that, as it PROVES , for a certainty, that every single person, here, who uses that term , against those he/she disagrees with here, has used it erroneously ; just as I have said.

And,as far as cases of arrested development " go, it is the fringers and the fringers ALONE, who are the proud owners of that title. THE BELL RINGS FOR THEE !

[MEG33]

Oh my..I feel so restricted.I've bought and sold farmland,and houses,pay taxes and gripe about them like everyone else and live in the greatest country in the world.

I have the luxury of sitting at a keyboard while brave volunteers fight to keep it that way.God bless our armed forces and all the loved ones who wait at home........BUSH/CHENEY '04.......

[inquest]

It's also a strong argument in favor of the conclusion that such expenditures are unconstitutional.

[Still Thinking]

It's also a strong argument in favor of the conclusion that such expenditures are unconstitutional.

Ding, ding, ding! I think we have a winner!

[NMC EXP]

That Huxtable excerpt was like looking in the mirror for you, wasn't it?

Regards

J.R.

[garv]

Studies have continually demonstrated that the primary factor in automobile deaths is the size and weight of the vehicle. Bigger and heavier vehicles dramatically reduce accident fatalities.

Based on that fact, it would seem our benevolent guardians in the federal government would serve us best by mandating or encouraging the production of larger, heavier vehicles. Disturbingly, just the opposite is taking place, as federal regulations on emissions and gas mileage are made more stringent year after year, thus creating smaller and lighter vehicles in which we are more likely to die. Strange? Unless of course public safety isn't really the primary goal.

[MEG33]

Take it to the Supreme Court!

[inquest]

I'll take it right to here (among other fora), thank you very much.

[Still Thinking]

Yes, they've certainly demonstrated their respect for the Constitution of late! </sarcasm>

[MEG33]

Write your Congressman!

[nopardons]

Not in the least. But, it was a shining beacon, as to what those, like you, really are.You and your ilk should really stop misusing such terms, stop attempting to tar others, for things they do NOT do/think,and, instead, learn civility, see reality for what it is and not how you imagine,and, at NO time,NONE AT ALL,claim to " know " what another thinks, when you haven't a clue.

Projection is a treatable disease; go get some help.