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.

[FreeReign]

I don't have a problem with people refusing to wear their seat belts, as long as they are willing to sign away their rights to sue me, or my insurance company, for any injuries they receive as a result of an accident where they were not wearing a belt.

Forget the seatbelt laws and forget the signing away the right to sue.

A person who refuses to where a seatbelt and then gets in an accident, has clearly not taken steps to minimize the damages incurred. No monetary award -- period!

[MEG33]

Oh,Fred,I was so excited to see your insightful post,your profound and uplifting view,I lost myself for a moment!

[Luis Gonzalez]

By the way...if you actually take the time to read the article, you may come to the realization that you are blowing this WAAAAYYYY out of proportion.

The State has the right to set standards for the issuance of driver's licenses, and to enact safety laws to be observed by all citizens operating a motor vehicle in the State.

How are laws requiring you to wear a seatbelt more of an "usurpation" than speed limits?

[FLAMING DEATH]

That's a cop out and you know it.

I didn't expect perfection. But I DID expect him to make at least a superficial effort to protect the right to free speech, the right to keep and bear arms, and the right to protection from unreasonable searches and seizures.

These aren't nitpicky things...these are basic fundamentals central to our freedoms, and have been since the country started. And he just keeps going along, offering seemingly no resistance to those who refuse to recognize my Constitutional rights. I cringe to think of what he'll agree to next.

Sorry. Yeah, he may not be as bad as Dean, but he certainly isn't good. If it were any one of these things by itself, then I'd probably vote for him again. But, as it stands now, unless there's some sort of massive reversal on his part, it would be against my principles to vote for him. If he doesn't veto the assault weapons ban, it's a no brainer. He definitely won't be getting my vote.

[inquest]

Hmmmmmmmmmmm ... a " constitutionalist " ?

You say that like this is your first time hearing that word. You sure you've been paying attention to the threads around here?

But, I supposed that the doing away with partial birth abortion doesn't count, for you

Not so much in the big picture. It was largely a symbolic victory. It's not likely to reduce the actual number of abortions - they'll just be "kinder, gentler" abortions.

nor the tax cuts

Temporary, infinitesimal, unmatched by any discipline on the spending side... what more could anyone want?

or much of anything else.

That's because there ain't much of anything else. That's the reality.

[secretagent]

well that's my job..that's what i'm trained to do" he shot back...I told him son, you ain't trained to do anything but harass honest law abiding citizens and try to generate money for the parish (county)...you are just a puppet with a big ego and bad attitude with a 4 yr job..what if the present sheriff loses next election?? you will be begging for a job as a night stocker at wally world.

he didn't like that very much, but he knew he had engaged in a battle of wits and his gun was only half loaded.

I like your style!

[MEG33]

I am sorry to lose a vote for what I think is a good President.

[garv]

I wear my seatbelt, so I don't really give a rat's butt (although the concept that states should be acting as mother hens is disturbing). The issue here is watching "conservatives" defend another $400 million boondoggle simply because it was offered up by "our team".

[politicalwit]

I couldn't agree with you more. I've supported the republican party since '72 and look where the party has taken us. Unfortunately the hard-line party folks think that simply because a candidate or an elected official has the (R) behind their name they can do no harm. It appears the offical mantra of the "new" republican party is going to be "you're either with us or you're against us." The party that wants to be inclusive only wants those voices that tow the party line. Yes, they want your vote but not your voice...and as far as the Constitution is concerned, well you can forget that, it's not part of the party platform.

[nunya bidness]

The State issues Driver's licenses, check the small print, the State has the right to check and make sure you are properly licensed.

Granted. However, I could argue the right to travel predates the contract the state has thrust on us in regards to automobile travel. The question you need to ask yourself is: Is not wearing a seatbelt a violation of law (with the attendent criminal investigation consequences) similar to speeding, etc.? Or is it a violation of administrative "law" due to a contract of a "driver" and the state?

It's a State rights thingy, I thought we were all in favor of State's rights around here?

We've covered this. States don't have rights. They have delegated authority. In this case, the delegated authority has been surpassed.

I hailed the mighty agitator because I know you'll listen to him.

[Dane]

He(Bush) definitely won't be getting my vote

And Hillary and Howard Dean thank you.

[inquest]

The Feds are offering an incentive if the State enacts the laws!

Yes, the feds are generously offering their very own hard-earned cash, aren't they?

Since when has "offering an incentive" become "usurpation"?

Contemplate the above sarcastic reply. You'll figure it out (maybe).

[Amelia]

The more disturbing observation is that mandating seat belt use is only one of an increasing number of cases in which politicians have confused wide-spread personal behavior with a public health problem. Smoking and over-eating are also dangerous to one's personal health but with little or no cost to other parties.

Just to play devil's advocate, I'll point out (in case no one else has) that endangering one's personal health does affect other people to the extent that they have to help pay for your medical care in the form of increased taxes and increased health insurance premiums.

[pete anderson]

Bush is busy doing important things.....

like signing Campaign finance Reform.

like signing the 400 billion dollar Medicare Bill.

like signing the 30. Billion dollar Education Bill.

I wish he would try to micromanage something!

[Yeti]

While I'm not sure, I'm willing to bet that the same checkpoints are in our future in Florida. And if they come here what will you say?

He'll just show 'em the special tatoo on his forehead and they'll wave him on through...

[Luis Gonzalez]

"The issue here is watching "conservatives" defend another $400 million boondoggle simply because it was offered up by "our team".

• Safety belt usage saves society an estimated $50 billion annually in medical care, lost productivity, and other injury-related costs.¹⁵
• Conversely, safety belt nonuse results in significant economic costs to society. The needless deaths and injuries from safety belt nonuse account for an estimated $26 billion in economic costs to society annually.¹⁶ The cost goes beyond the lost lives of unbuckled drivers and passengers: We all pay - in higher taxes and higher health care and insurance costs.

I defend it because it makes fiscal sense to invest $400 million in order to have a shot at reducing part of the billions of dollars accidents cost.

Conservatism is about spending money effectively, it is not about NOT spending money at all.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Yes, the feds are generously offering their very own hard-earned cash, aren't they?"

WE are spending BILLIONS yearly as a result of traffic-related injuries and deaths.

Would you rather spend a few dollars or a few thousand?

[nunya bidness]

He'll just show 'em the special tatoo on his forehead and they'll wave him on through...

I'll give Luis a pass on this one. I'm sure as soon as he thinks it through that he'll realize that the state is no more infallible here than in determining political refugee status.

[Orangedog]

The issue here is watching "conservatives" defend another $400 million boondoggle simply because it was offered up by "our team".

According to more than a couple of people on this thread, no "true" conservative would object to this kind of law. I guess to them, being more conservative on this issue would be kicking in an extra $600,000,000 to bring it up to nice even $1 billion.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"I could argue the right to travel predates the contract the state has thrust on us in regards to automobile travel."

Travel away on foot all you want, but if you are operating a motor vehcle, the State is well, within its rights to regulate your use of that vehicle.

"Is not wearing a seatbelt a violation of law (with the attendent criminal investigation consequences) similar to speeding, etc.? Or is it a violation of administrative "law" due to a contract of a "driver" and the state?"

What difference does it make?

Up until the moment you can prove that the State does not have the constitutional power to regulate transportation, you have to abide by their regulations.

Or you could walk.