This is not a debate about the pros and cons of the value of seat belts. It is about presenting an issue as innocuous, insignificant and an expansion of choice; then over time, converting it into repressive totalitarian mandatory money-making enterprise.
The seat belt hysteria began in the mid 50s. I am not sure who originally presented the idea, but at the time the proposal was limited to requiring auto manufacturers to install seat belts in all cars, for the sole benefit of allowing people who valued the ability to enjoy the increased protection.
That clearly is not what we are enjoying now.
I have become convinced, 50 years later that, if a "law" were passed requiring law enforcement to shoot every 12th driver to reduce traffic congestion, most of them would go right ahead and enforce "the law". I reject in the strongest terms, that mentality.
I am searching for a way to recruit people across the country to review the original debates for a simple idea that evolved from a provision of choice, to a mandatory revenue requirement. I am certain that assurances were made initially that it would never become mandatory. Unfortunately, that "self-destruct" provision in the original law was overlooked. Citizens naively failed to protect themselves from, if not the immediate lies of the proponents, the certain perversion of "good intentions" transformed into onerous requirements by subsequent politicians and othe controlling types.
The State, so far as I know, has no obligation to rescue me from bad choices. It should not. Allowing that idiot idea is the only way for the state to argue that "the public" good is best served by fascist tactics.
(Look up the characteristics of a fascist state; the real thing. This concept is not hyperbole or exaggeration. That is in fact the main argument of any fascist state.)
It would be a pleasant surprise if enough people would be outraged to keep the requirements of having seat belts made available, but permanently to prohibit their mandatory use by any jurisdiction under the guise of protecting me.
People are too stupid to make that choice for themselves?
The one nice thing that will come out of this crackdown is that it will drive more people into National Motorists' Association membership and to become more active in opposing nanny-statism.
Great idea!Start with the insurance underwriters,for they hold the lawmakers in their pockets.Seat belts,helmets,DUI,etc.My insurance company is the only one who to whom my health is even more important than it is to me!
This is a simple constitutional issue that has to be fought state by state because each state enacts their own laws.
For instance, here in Missouri, a "primary" seat belt law was recently rejected by the legislature.
I would like to think the following e-mail message I sent to my state rep was partially responsible for it's defeat:
Hello Rep. Byrd,
Oh, how I hate to have to send you this e-mail message.
In the list of “Legislation Sponsored by Rep. Richard Byrd,” there is a reference to the following bill in which you are listed as the “cosponsor:”
HB 339 -- Seat Belts
Sponsor: St. Onge
This bill allows law enforcement officers to stop a vehicle for a seat belt violation if the violation is clearly visible. The fine for the violation is increased from $10 to $20.
You are a Republican. I thought Republican’s prided themselves in their philosophy of “limited government” and the rule of law. The rule of law means our Constitution’s covenants are supreme and superior to statutes and ordinances.
With that being said, consider the following:
Missouri Constitution, Bill of Rights (not privileges), Article I,
Section 2. That all constitutional government is intended to promote the general welfare of the people; that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry; that all persons are created equal and are entitled to equal rights and opportunity under the law; that to give security to these things is the principal office of government, and that when government does not confer this security, it fails in its chief design.
“Natural rights define the boundary or space within which people are at liberty to do as they please provided their actions do not interfere with the rightful actions of others operating within their own boundaries or spaces.” (Lockean theory of police power)
The definition of “liberty:” The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one’s own choosing. Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control. A right and power to engage in certain actions without control or interference.”
In Lawrence v Texas, Justice Kennedy’s opinion is especially noteworthy because it protects liberty, without a any discussion of whether liberty was “fundamental.”
(At last, Footnote Four is either dead or is dying.)
Only when the exertion of a “liberty” by one individual may or does impose on the “liberty” of another individual, is the state authorized to deny or diminish a “natural right to…liberty” of all other of the citizens with a statute or ordinance.
The “liberty” to wear or not wear a seat belt does not, in any fashion or form, impose, impugn, deny or disparage any other citizen’s natural rights or liberties.
Now for the part I wish I did not have to mention:
Section 4. That Missouri is a free and independent state, subject only to the Constitution of the United States;
U.S. Constitution
Amendment XIV
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"
Amendment IX
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to DENY OR DISPARAGE others (rights) retained by the people."
It is surely a right “retained by the people” as to the decision of a free citizen of the U.S. whether to wear a seat belt or not while operating an automobile, especially during private use.
With all of that being said, then I wish to inform you that you will be “personally liable” for the damages citizens will incur from the enactment and enforcement of this “seat belt” law.
In addition, every police officer who enforces this law will also be held liable, as well, as described below:
U.S. Supreme Court HAFER v. MELO, 502 U.S. 21 (1991)
Federal law, 42 U.S.C. 1983, states:
"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured. . . ."
"We hold that state officials, sued in their individual capacities, are "persons" within the meaning of 1983. The Eleventh Amendment does not bar such suits, nor are state officers absolutely immune from personal liability under 1983 solely by virtue of the "official" nature of their acts.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is Affirmed."
By providing no judicially enforceable limit whatsoever on the police power of states, such a construction would violate the original meaning of Amendment XIV.
So, please withdraw your co sponsorship of this unconstitutional legislation and please inform your fellow legislators of their personal financial risk that they will be risking if the support the enactment and enforcement of a HB 339.