TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
The words "no", "not", and "nor" appear eighteen (18) times in the Bill of Rights. Each of these occurances references a restriction on government.Ben Swenson said:
Safety and the Constitution
- Thread starter Rich Lucibella
- Start date
Declaration of Dependence
Action of the New Intelligentsia of Amerika, July 4, 1999
by Robert Baier
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary of one People to
strengthen the Political Bands through which they have exploited others, and
to assume the Powers of the Earth, the superior and elevated Station which
they perceive as their own and of obvious entitlement, a Disrespect to the
Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel
them to Solidify their Station.
We hold Truths to be irrelevant. That all human obligations to Society are
equal. That among these are Obedience, Taxation, and the Pursuit of a Safer
Society. That to secure these obligations, governments are instituted among
People, deriving their Powers from the Apparatus of the State, that whenever
any act of People becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the right and
duty of Government to protect the People from the People, and to institute
such laws, that may contribute to a more Prophylactic Society. Laying its
foundation on such principles, and organizing its principles in such form,
government shall deem best what are the interests of the People to effect
their safety. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long
established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and
fortunately all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to
suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing
the Forms to which they are accustomed.
And when a long Train of Indulgences and Usurpations, pursuing invariably
individualism, liberty, wanton and reckless expression, the operation of
dangerous conveyances and the wielding of violent instruments, immoral
consortings and associations, boundless and unregulated commerce, frivolous
claims to use, misuse and horde property and income, and to believe in
whatever one pleases, however objectionable, and to conspicuously consume
any substance of choice in any quantity deemed pleasurable, to support these
tendencies evinces a Design to subvert the order and safety of Society, it
is the Right, it is the Duty of Government, to control such acts, and to
provide new Guards for their future Safety and Security.
Such has been the patient Sufferance of this Government; and such is now the
Necessity which constrains them to alter the conduct of its People. The
History of the present People is a History of repeated Idiocies and
Irresponsibilities, all having in direct Object the pursuit of Individual
Whim and Fancy and the subversion of the Order and Safety of the State. To
prevent this, let our views be Forced Upon the World.
http://www.gunnewsdaily.com/soc4.html
Action of the New Intelligentsia of Amerika, July 4, 1999
by Robert Baier
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary of one People to
strengthen the Political Bands through which they have exploited others, and
to assume the Powers of the Earth, the superior and elevated Station which
they perceive as their own and of obvious entitlement, a Disrespect to the
Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel
them to Solidify their Station.
We hold Truths to be irrelevant. That all human obligations to Society are
equal. That among these are Obedience, Taxation, and the Pursuit of a Safer
Society. That to secure these obligations, governments are instituted among
People, deriving their Powers from the Apparatus of the State, that whenever
any act of People becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the right and
duty of Government to protect the People from the People, and to institute
such laws, that may contribute to a more Prophylactic Society. Laying its
foundation on such principles, and organizing its principles in such form,
government shall deem best what are the interests of the People to effect
their safety. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long
established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and
fortunately all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to
suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing
the Forms to which they are accustomed.
And when a long Train of Indulgences and Usurpations, pursuing invariably
individualism, liberty, wanton and reckless expression, the operation of
dangerous conveyances and the wielding of violent instruments, immoral
consortings and associations, boundless and unregulated commerce, frivolous
claims to use, misuse and horde property and income, and to believe in
whatever one pleases, however objectionable, and to conspicuously consume
any substance of choice in any quantity deemed pleasurable, to support these
tendencies evinces a Design to subvert the order and safety of Society, it
is the Right, it is the Duty of Government, to control such acts, and to
provide new Guards for their future Safety and Security.
Such has been the patient Sufferance of this Government; and such is now the
Necessity which constrains them to alter the conduct of its People. The
History of the present People is a History of repeated Idiocies and
Irresponsibilities, all having in direct Object the pursuit of Individual
Whim and Fancy and the subversion of the Order and Safety of the State. To
prevent this, let our views be Forced Upon the World.
http://www.gunnewsdaily.com/soc4.html
Hugh Damright
New member
I would not expect US documents to regard safety ... the US is is not delegated broad powers such as "keeping us safe". But I suspect that if you look over the State Constitutions, you may find that safety and security are mentioned. Here is how my Virginia Bill of Rights begins:
But I think it is one thing to have laws trying to keep us safe from each other (i.e. laws against driving while impaired) and another thing to have laws trying to keep us safe from ourselves (i.e. laws against driving without a seatbelt).
But I think it is one thing to have laws trying to keep us safe from each other (i.e. laws against driving while impaired) and another thing to have laws trying to keep us safe from ourselves (i.e. laws against driving without a seatbelt).
Rich Lucibella
Staff
tyme-
I think you're correct. Except, to the extent citizens are viewed and treated as chattel by .gov, SCOTUS precedent would indicate that our daily activities fall under the Commerce Clause.
Rich
I think you're correct. Except, to the extent citizens are viewed and treated as chattel by .gov, SCOTUS precedent would indicate that our daily activities fall under the Commerce Clause.
Rich
Blinding me with science
Trip
I had to chuckle as those who extrapolated the wearing of a seat belt to their loss of personal freedom, government intrusion or other sinister motives posed by buckling up.
Like Trip said, it's just common sense, no more or less.
Revenues generated by these actions? Certainly just as we are taxed by the government for many of our actions while participating in our daily lives. It would be a beautiful thing if everyone could take care of them selfs we don't live in that world yet, and never will. Some government intrusion is always going to be thrust upon us, wearing a seat belt ain't high on my bitch list.
I've seen the results of none use, not long ago - attended a funeral of a 16 year old girl, [her dads a peace officer & good friend] car she was driving went into a ditch, rolling. The passenger was not belted in. She served as a missile inside the car striking the driver [who was belted in] killing her; then being ejected from the car and being killed.
So, if you're smart enough to buckle up without anyone telling you to - good for you, and it would seem that most here use seat belts, if not, you're chances of being used in another statistical analysis by the government are pretty good.
12-34hom.
Trip
Would it be to big of a surprise that alot of people who drive cars don't.
I had to chuckle as those who extrapolated the wearing of a seat belt to their loss of personal freedom, government intrusion or other sinister motives posed by buckling up.
Like Trip said, it's just common sense, no more or less.
Revenues generated by these actions? Certainly just as we are taxed by the government for many of our actions while participating in our daily lives. It would be a beautiful thing if everyone could take care of them selfs we don't live in that world yet, and never will. Some government intrusion is always going to be thrust upon us, wearing a seat belt ain't high on my bitch list.
I've seen the results of none use, not long ago - attended a funeral of a 16 year old girl, [her dads a peace officer & good friend] car she was driving went into a ditch, rolling. The passenger was not belted in. She served as a missile inside the car striking the driver [who was belted in] killing her; then being ejected from the car and being killed.
So, if you're smart enough to buckle up without anyone telling you to - good for you, and it would seem that most here use seat belts, if not, you're chances of being used in another statistical analysis by the government are pretty good.
12-34hom.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
And your conclusion, if they lack it Charlie?
It simply ain't .gov's job to baby sit. It cannot be done......you just demonstrated it in your own example
But PLEASE, don't relay to me the repeated results of repeated stupidity. I have the Boob-Tube for that....and my own COMMON SENSE. Doncha get it, CH? If you have the right to save "Just one more child" based on your experience; so do we all. The next child to be made "safe" will be yours.....based on MY experience.
My point?
Let it go. The doctrine can only lead to further agreement of babysitting jobs....that's not what you hired on to do.
Rich
XavierBreath
New member
I think you miss the entire point my friend. Nobody, myself included is opposed to seatbelt use. Most, myself included, use seatbelts religiously.
What many are opposed to, however, is the invasion of privacy. The fact that an officer can stop us on our journey and make us submit to thier inspection to insure that we are in compliance with the law is objectionable. It's the being stopped to see if a law is being broken that is objectionable. It's the idea of being guilty until proven innocent that is objectionable.
Why is that so hard to understand? In my state, one's automobile is an extension of one's home. What is next? Policemen peeping in my windows to make sure I don't dry fire at Bill O'Rielly on TV? Stopping me on the sidewalk to inspect my "papers"? It's the invasion of privacy and presumption of guilt that is the issue, not whether or not a seatbelt is worn.
You haven't gotten this concept, and I do not expect you to understand it now. However, I won't let you claim that everyone who opposes the checkpoints is simply against seatbelt usage. The fact is, some just wish to be considered innocent until proven guilty, and allowed to continue on thier journey without being stopped, and without having to prove to the local police department that they are in compliance with the law.
No, of course not. But to excuse the infringment upon my rights, with the ruse of "in the best interest of public safety" and other gubment milarky is out-right ridiculous, in my opinion of course. Yours may differ, that's cool.12-34hom said:
OK, it should be a prerequisite that to participate in freedom related threads, especially ones that use seatbelt regulations as example, one must operate under the assumption that the seatbelt is not the main character...12-34hom said:
twelvedashthirtyfourhom, the algorithm goes as such:
X * government regulation = loss of personal freedom.
X = Seatbelt regulation
X = Gun regulation...etc
X is any variable which when regulated, infringes upon the rights of the individual who's choice it should be to regulate said variable.
12-34hom said:
Understandable, because in the grande scheme of things, a seatbelt law really doesn't bother us much does it? No, not really. But that's where we lose sight of things twelvedashthirtyfourhom - paying too much attention to the big picture.
Here's what I mean, and we won't use government or seatbelts so turn backwards in your books to Chapter 1 everyone:
If your a multi-millionaire, your accountant et al, could be snatching $100 a week from you. Big deal right? Wrong. You may not notice it, but the principle involved is bigger than the measly $100 your losing.
If your a multi-millionaire, your accountant et al, could be snatching $100 a week from you. Big deal right? Wrong. You may not notice it, but the principle involved is bigger than the measly $100 your losing.
The main character is the rights, incrementally being stripped from the individual both by state, and federal regulations. Now, you may not agree with this philosophy, but I bet we could find an "X" in which you could see what we mean. So forget seatbelts...
It's simple mathematics my friend
PS - twelvedashthirtyfourhom: I'll be doing my first bird hunt EVER in north eastern Iowa! Wish me luck!
Trip20, good shooting & luck on your hunt.
Yep, been there done that on the math, but in the grand scheme of it all the "privacy invasion" is making a mountain out of a molehill. I don't see a slippery slope or other "papers please" scenario because the federal & state government mandate seat belt usage.
As i said before, there is always going to be some type of intrusion by government in our lives, at any level you care to choose. Goverment and it's agents are intrusive by nature. At what level do i pick and choose my battles with it rules and regulations? Seat belt usage is on a level i can live with - literally.
12-34hom.
Yep, been there done that on the math, but in the grand scheme of it all the "privacy invasion" is making a mountain out of a molehill. I don't see a slippery slope or other "papers please" scenario because the federal & state government mandate seat belt usage.
As i said before, there is always going to be some type of intrusion by government in our lives, at any level you care to choose. Goverment and it's agents are intrusive by nature. At what level do i pick and choose my battles with it rules and regulations? Seat belt usage is on a level i can live with - literally.
12-34hom.
jburtonpdx
New member
best post in this entire thread
That is the entire thing in a nutshell. We get so caught up in specific words and phrases that we forget the point...
Who cares how many times this word or that word is mentioned. Just leave me alone unless I am hurting somebody. In which case by all means stop me and seek justice. That is fair.
I am starting to think (black helicopter warning here, so put on the tin foil hats) that much of the legislation for "safety" is nothing more then job security for government. Seatbelt laws give troopers something else to do when on the road. Anti gun laws keep crime rates up in the inner cities, requires larger police force, which then gives police chiefs a larger fiefdom..
Stricter zoning laws require more in depth and lengthy inspections, so more inspectors are required.
No student left behind requirements for schools and testing requirements that require more time... Oh wait never mind we dont seem to fund the schools but that is another rant for a different board, sorry about that...
Back on topic - maybe we should suggest to our legislatures that we would prefer to vote for somebody that is going to actually make the government smaller and less expensive...
That is the entire thing in a nutshell. We get so caught up in specific words and phrases that we forget the point...
Who cares how many times this word or that word is mentioned. Just leave me alone unless I am hurting somebody. In which case by all means stop me and seek justice. That is fair.
I am starting to think (black helicopter warning here, so put on the tin foil hats) that much of the legislation for "safety" is nothing more then job security for government. Seatbelt laws give troopers something else to do when on the road. Anti gun laws keep crime rates up in the inner cities, requires larger police force, which then gives police chiefs a larger fiefdom..
Stricter zoning laws require more in depth and lengthy inspections, so more inspectors are required.
No student left behind requirements for schools and testing requirements that require more time... Oh wait never mind we dont seem to fund the schools but that is another rant for a different board, sorry about that...
Back on topic - maybe we should suggest to our legislatures that we would prefer to vote for somebody that is going to actually make the government smaller and less expensive...
I see it differently.
Safety is one of the oldest,,, not a modern concept.
Matter of fact, I'd even dispute the idea of the world's "oldest profession".
I believe the oldest profession title should go to the medicine man - spiritual leader - or whatever term fits the best.
If you look close at how "safety" is being pushed to the masses, it's virtually the same as any other religious idea.
------------------------------------------------------
One often overlooked aspect of the Bill of Rights is the freedom of religion in the 1st, and how the .gov will abstain from establishing a state sponsored religion. By a strange quirk, the concept of "safety" and the way the .gov pushes it,,,that's exactly what it's become.
This:
The .gov is my Shepherd; I shall not want.
It maketh me to lie down in green pastures:
It leadeth me beside the still waters.
It restoreth my soul:
It leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for it's name' sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil: For thou art with me;
Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me.
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies;
Thou annointest my head with oil; My cup runneth over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life,
and I will dwell in the (safety of the bosom of the .gov) forever.
fits all too easily into today's idea that the .gov will provide everything for everyone.
Safety (if viewed in the light of a religion or more accurately a cult) would be naturally incongruous with the Constitution. However, since religion (and God) have been removed from much of today's society,,,,something needs to fill that void. Safety has become a convienient substitute.
Welcome to the Inquisition/Witch burnings 21st century style.
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
Excellent post, Hal.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
The government is the established religion and its subjects are prohibited from non-participation... :barf:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
The government is the established religion and its subjects are prohibited from non-participation... :barf:
Until the early 1900s mens pants did not have back pockets. There was freedom in not having back pockets.
Why?
Didn't need them. Didn't have to walk around carrying proof of identity all the time. A small thing that we now have to carry paper on us all the time? Maybe, maybe not. I don't think I should have to prove my identity to anyone except my banker and that is for personal reasons that I choose.
The real problem being discussed here is that we are not as free as our Founding Fathers intended us to be, and as far as I am concerned there is no legitimate reason that we are not as free as they intended. Our government is supposed to SERVE us; we are not supposed to serve it. That word serve is the key. Our government has largely lost sight of serving us.
We didn't lose all of the freedoms that we have lost in one fell swoop. It was an incremental creeping loss that is continuing. Seatbelt laws are but an example of that creeping loss. We are slowly being smothered, so slowly that it is hardly noticeable. If you don't start resisting at some point then what?
Why?
Didn't need them. Didn't have to walk around carrying proof of identity all the time. A small thing that we now have to carry paper on us all the time? Maybe, maybe not. I don't think I should have to prove my identity to anyone except my banker and that is for personal reasons that I choose.
The real problem being discussed here is that we are not as free as our Founding Fathers intended us to be, and as far as I am concerned there is no legitimate reason that we are not as free as they intended. Our government is supposed to SERVE us; we are not supposed to serve it. That word serve is the key. Our government has largely lost sight of serving us.
We didn't lose all of the freedoms that we have lost in one fell swoop. It was an incremental creeping loss that is continuing. Seatbelt laws are but an example of that creeping loss. We are slowly being smothered, so slowly that it is hardly noticeable. If you don't start resisting at some point then what?
Hugh Damright
New member
I do not see how seat belt or helmet laws go against the intent of our founders. I believe the founders intended to create a US wherein each State was free, and a free State passes seat belt laws or helmet laws if it wants to. What a free State must not do is to pass laws which hamper the people's ability to control that State ... for instance, a free State must not disarm its people, or control the press.
More and more I find people thinking that each State is guaranteed a libertarian form of government rather than a republican form.
More and more I find people thinking that each State is guaranteed a libertarian form of government rather than a republican form.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Try this on for size, Charles:
http://www.onlineshawnee.com/stories/052905/new_20050529072.shtml
No harm there; the cops just stopped every vehicle, peeked in the windows and moved on. Of course, in another jurisdiction thanks to Hiibel, "Papers Please" might just as easily have been added. Like in Utah:
http://www.spirithelps.com/Most Viewed.htm
The Utah Supreme Court put it perfectly:
If you choose to ignore the means to every "good" end, there is simply no end to the number of invasions that can be rationalized.....including continued erosion of the 2nd Amendment. Surely, your own ox is next to be gored in the name of NannyGubmint.....Hugh's post above demonstrates this. He wants to draw the line based on outcomes that he thinks are reasonable; as do you; as do we all. The result? .gov will respond to our concerns and control all outcomes of human behavior. The only real answer to balance safety and freedom is to constrain the State's means, not the end. Let Darwin do the rest.
It's been said here before: why not return to a stop standard of reasonable cause for suspicion of a crime or infraction. Short of that, leave people to their own personal decisions.
Rich
Marko Kloos
Inactive
Funny you should say that. I think Jefferson and most of the Founding Fathers would be considered "unelectably idealistic" these days, since they'd make some Libertarians look like right-wing Statists.
TheeBadOne
Moderator
Seatbelt (and other traffic laws).
There is no "Right to Drive".
Roads are built, maintained, by "The Government". The "Government" exercises laws on those roads. You don't have to drive on those roads if you don't want to.
If you don't want to obey traffic laws, drive on your own property. The only Traffic Laws I'm aware of that can be enforced on your own Property are DWI, and Reckless Endangerment. If you have a suspended DL, you can still drive on YOUR own property. The Government has no problem with that.
TBO
There is no "Right to Drive".
Roads are built, maintained, by "The Government". The "Government" exercises laws on those roads. You don't have to drive on those roads if you don't want to.
If you don't want to obey traffic laws, drive on your own property. The only Traffic Laws I'm aware of that can be enforced on your own Property are DWI, and Reckless Endangerment. If you have a suspended DL, you can still drive on YOUR own property. The Government has no problem with that.
TBO