WI Poll: Should police in Wisconsin be able to ticket just for seatbelt violations?

WEAU TV 13 ^ | 11/30/2004 | WEAU TV 13

[quietolong]

Should police in Wisconsin be able to ticket just for seatbelt violations?

NO
yes

Click on excerpt link to go to poll

[NeoCaveman]

Voted NO. I am tired of all this statist nonsense.

[michaelbfree]

Same here in Washington State - now it's "Click it or Ticket" to the tune of about $100 or so. It shouldn't be a law, nothing more than another "income stream" for the great state of liberal loons in which I live.

However, I will also say that having been in a few close calls wearing one, it certainly stabilizes and helps the driver controll the car during spins, swerves, slides, etc. I hit a large pool of water at night one time doing about 70 and hydroplaned sideways pretty violently - don't know if I could have controlled it without having the belt on.

[Old Lady]

Whatever. Seatbelts keep you from going through the windshield if you are hit from behind. Good enough reason to wear one.

[tahiti]

"One more unconstitutional Nanny ( we Think we know what’s best for you ) Government law."

What constitutional covenant would you be referring to?

All seat belt laws are STATE laws. (Granted the federales blackmail the states into passing such laws with the threat of withholding highway building funds.)

The closest covenant I could find in the Wisconsin State Constitution that could be used to declare the state seat belt law unconstitutional is:

Equality; inherent rights.

SECTION 1. [As amended Nov. 1982 and April 1986]

All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights; among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; to secure these rights, governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. [1979 J.R. 36, 1981 J.R. 29, vote Nov. 1982; 1983 J.R. 40, 1985 J.R. 21, vote April 1986]

The "inherent right...liberty" would imply each person shall decide whether to wear a seat belt or not.

The constitutional basis for stopping the federales at their blackmail maneuver is Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights SHALL NOT be construed to DENY OR DISPARAGE others (rights) retained by the people.

The people have the retained right to decide to wear a seat belt or not.

[cripplecreek]

I feel like I'm going to fall out of the car if I'm not wearing my seatbelt.

[Dead Corpse]

Ah... so socialism is why we need more Nanny State control over our lives.

Thanks for playing...

[crz]

50 bucks for the first time. Ask me, I know. Ho that trooper ever saw that I did not have it on is anyones guess. He was following traffic in the right hand lane of a 4 lane highway and the cars in front of him were turning. I took him and far as court and paid my fine. They asked me why I took it into court and then decided to pay and I told them that I wanted to make sure this cop was off the highway for that amount of time as he was not a safe driver. That one dang near got me another fine.

[tahiti]

"Seatbelts actually make people better drivers."

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety." Benjamin Franklin - 1759

The closest covenant I could find in the Wisconsin State Constitution that could be used to declare the state seat belt law unconstitutional is:

Equality; inherent rights.

SECTION 1. [As amended Nov. 1982 and April 1986]

All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights; among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; to secure these rights, governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. [1979 J.R. 36, 1981 J.R. 29, vote Nov. 1982; 1983 J.R. 40, 1985 J.R. 21, vote April 1986]

The "inherent right...liberty" would imply each person shall decide whether to wear a seat belt or not.

The constitutional basis for stopping the federales at their blackmail maneuver is Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights SHALL NOT be construed to DENY OR DISPARAGE others (rights) retained by the people.

The people have the retained right to decide to wear a seat belt or not.

[tahiti]

"If the government has got to pay for medical bills incurred because you didn't wear a seat belt , they ought to have the right to tell you to wear one"

Just because the people make a stupid political decision, such as to pay "medical bills" for the citizens, does not mean that the citizens give up their constitutionally protected rights.

The closest covenant I could find in the Wisconsin State Constitution that could be used to declare the state seat belt law unconstitutional is:

Equality; inherent rights.

SECTION 1. [As amended Nov. 1982 and April 1986]

All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights; among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; to secure these rights, governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. [1979 J.R. 36, 1981 J.R. 29, vote Nov. 1982; 1983 J.R. 40, 1985 J.R. 21, vote April 1986]

The "inherent right...liberty" would imply each person shall decide whether to wear a seat belt or not.

The constitutional basis for stopping the federales at their blackmail maneuver is Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights SHALL NOT be construed to DENY OR DISPARAGE others (rights) retained by the people.

The people have the retained right to decide to wear a seat belt or not.

[LauraleeBraswell]

Lets just do away with Breaks while we're at it, the government has no right to tell people to have breaks in their cars! Licenses too! And People have the right to not use signal lights and head lights! Driving on the right side of the road too, we should be able to drive on whatever side in whatever direction we want.

Is it asking too much of you to perhaps not have a few beers before you get on the road.
Is it to great of an imposition for you to wear a seat belt.

All I know is that when you smash your head through the windshield and EMT rushes you to a hospital where you lie in a coma for a year and a half that my dollar.

By the way- Airbags are dangerous to children thats why children aren't supposed to sit in the front seat.

[spunkets]

"Seatbelts keep you from going through the windshield if you are hit from behind."

I see you're a physics wiz.

"Good enough reason to wear one."

It's my decision, not anyone else's.

[cripplecreek]

LOL. Ibe gotten two tickets for it. The first was way back when they first started giving out tickets for it (I was speeding so it was my fault) that one was 50 bucks. The second was just a few years ago. I was helping a neighbor move a couch from my house to his. We pulled out of one driveway and into the next with a cop following us. That one cost me 95 bucks.

[Old Lady]

Nasty poster alert!

[LauraleeBraswell]

Cars weren't invented when the Constitution was written.



Notice how there's no mention of an air force

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

[LauraleeBraswell]

Yes they do

[LauraleeBraswell]

I think it's my decision too when your flying carcass happens to hit me while I'm crossing the street.
And who cleans up the mess?

SEATBELTS SAVE LIVES

[spunkets]

"government has no right to tell people to have breaks in their cars!"

The first cars were equipped with brakes regardless. Why, because they are essential to maintain control of the vehicle. Control of the vehicle, that's the name of the game. Brakes happen to be essential, same with headlights.

Turn signals are part of the rules of the road that facilitate smooth traffic flows.

" Is it to great of an imposition for you to wear a seat belt."

You better believe it.

" All I know is that when you smash your head through the windshield and EMT rushes you to a hospital where you lie in a coma for a year and a half that my dollar."

I don't want your money, nor your EMT. Keep them both. You would be safe betting your life on my never going through the windshield.

" By the way- Airbags are dangerous to children "

They're dangerous to me period, because they go off for whatever triggers were built in. Regardless of what they mean. They go off and then you can't see a thing. Can't see, can't drive. They're also dangerous, because they slam whatever is in front of them into your face.

[spunkets]

"I think it's my decision too

Butt out! Keep your money, EMTs and uniformed highwaymen to yourself.

" your flying carcass happens to hit me while I'm crossing the street."

The universe will vanish before anyone sees me crash. Besides that, would you rather be hit by the car when someone that can't control their vehicle loses it?

" And who cleans up the mess?"

I clean up my own mess, else just use a hose.

[spunkets]

"SEATBELTS SAVE LIVES"

War is Peace. Freedom is slavery.

[tahiti]

"Cars weren't invented when the Constitution was written."

Neither were birth control pills. Griswold v Connecticutt 1965. A "family" has the retained right to control the size of their family through the use of birth control pills and the state cannot prohibit that action.

I think you are a woman. Would you not be rather upset if the state that you lived in passed a law saying you could not use birth control pills and that you had no constitutional right to those pills because birth control pills were not invented when the constitution was written?

I thought this was a "conservative" forum. Doesn't conservative imply to "conserve" something?

How about conserving the covenants of the Constitution.

If memory serves me right, the Air Force was originally the Army Air Corp, especially during WWII.

The Marines are part of the Navy.

Why don't free people have the retained right to choose for themselves whether to wear a seat belt or not?