Safety and the Constitution
- Thread starter Rich Lucibella
- Start date
Hugh Damright
New member
The Constitution guarantees each State a republican form of government. I understand that to mean that Virginians control Virginia by electing our own State Legislature. And if we want to vote for people who will pass helmet laws, or if we want to have a referendum on a helmet law, then we don't care if it's libertarian or not - we are not bound by libertarianism.
It so happens I don't really like seat belt laws or helmet laws, but that doesn't make them evil or unconstitutional.
It so happens I don't really like seat belt laws or helmet laws, but that doesn't make them evil or unconstitutional.
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
TheeBadOne said:
Sure there is. See Amendment IX:
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Hugh-
You come full circle to the argument, "If it's the law it must be moral, Constitutional and obeyed".
We have two issues here:
1) Does government have the right to control personal behavior which affects no one else? If one believes it does then that person must agree with seat belt laws. He would also have to agree with laws that would prevent people from smoking, drinking alcohol, eating unhealthy foods, wearing dark clothes at night, participating in contact sports, driving except when absolutely necessary and on and on .
2) If a law is passed, does that absolve the enforcer from any obligation to make a personal judgment as to enforcing?
There are certain rights that are not conferred by government but by a higher authority. One of them reads as follows:
It's been stated that seatbelt laws do not sit on a slippery slope. It's been demonstrated that those laws are the poster-child for that slippery slope.....that is, if you believe that random, "Papers Please" Roadblocks are a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
If, on the other hand, we're going to argue that you have no Fourth Amendment rights on the highways you have paid for, we could extend that logic to all public places; ultimately, we'd find that the Bill of Rights was only intended to provide limited freedoms within the confines of your own home.
The very logic produces its own absurd result. The Constitution does not grant rights to the people; it specifically grants and enumerates the limited rights of .gov. When .gov points to the BoR and and says, "Your behavior is not in there; therefore, that's not a right.", it turns the real question on its ear. The real question should be, "Where is it stated that .gov has the right to take this or that action against me?" If a clear link cannot be found in the Constitution, it's an infringement, plain and simple.
Rich
You come full circle to the argument, "If it's the law it must be moral, Constitutional and obeyed".
We have two issues here:
1) Does government have the right to control personal behavior which affects no one else? If one believes it does then that person must agree with seat belt laws. He would also have to agree with laws that would prevent people from smoking, drinking alcohol, eating unhealthy foods, wearing dark clothes at night, participating in contact sports, driving except when absolutely necessary and on and on .
2) If a law is passed, does that absolve the enforcer from any obligation to make a personal judgment as to enforcing?
There are certain rights that are not conferred by government but by a higher authority. One of them reads as follows:
It's been stated that seatbelt laws do not sit on a slippery slope. It's been demonstrated that those laws are the poster-child for that slippery slope.....that is, if you believe that random, "Papers Please" Roadblocks are a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
If, on the other hand, we're going to argue that you have no Fourth Amendment rights on the highways you have paid for, we could extend that logic to all public places; ultimately, we'd find that the Bill of Rights was only intended to provide limited freedoms within the confines of your own home.
The very logic produces its own absurd result. The Constitution does not grant rights to the people; it specifically grants and enumerates the limited rights of .gov. When .gov points to the BoR and and says, "Your behavior is not in there; therefore, that's not a right.", it turns the real question on its ear. The real question should be, "Where is it stated that .gov has the right to take this or that action against me?" If a clear link cannot be found in the Constitution, it's an infringement, plain and simple.
Rich
Hugh Damright
New member
The US is (supposed to be) a limited federal government, limited to powers enumerated in the US Constitution. But the States have an entirely different form of government. The States are not limited to delegated powers. The States have broad and general powers such as police powers.
I can easily agree that US/national seat belt laws or helmet laws are an assumption of undelegated powers and therefore a slippery slope. But a State has a right to pass such laws.
Please understand that I am not speaking of a State as something separate from its people. I am saying that Virginians have a collective right to control Virginia, and we are not bound by libertarianism or limited to delegated powers.
I recently read a book called "The Bill of Rights - Original Meaning and Current Understanding" which which says that so many things ... having to bleep "God" ... schools having to recognize homosexual clubs ... abortion in every State ... it is all due to the Supreme Court's incorporation doctrine where they try to apply the BOR to the States ... they end up trying to limit the States in the same way that the federal government was intended to be limited ... and the States become so limited that they cannot maintain a culture or society.
The author believes that the 14th was not intended to apply the BOR to the States and that it is an unconstitutional assumption of power by the federal government. He says that this fundamental error is eroding federalism and that a reversal of the incorporation doctrine is necessary to return the 14th Amendment to its proper function.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Hugh-
I do see your point and, to the extent you've circumsribed it, I agree.
But remember this:
Whether your State would have a Mandatory Seat Belt Law, absent Federal coercion, is the real issue. When the Feds tied passage and enforcement of such laws to funding for highways, your legislators were no longer voting freely. They were voting under the threat of Federal extortion and industry bribery.
Great history of the machinations here:
http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=5192
Rich
I do see your point and, to the extent you've circumsribed it, I agree.
But remember this:
Whether your State would have a Mandatory Seat Belt Law, absent Federal coercion, is the real issue. When the Feds tied passage and enforcement of such laws to funding for highways, your legislators were no longer voting freely. They were voting under the threat of Federal extortion and industry bribery.
Great history of the machinations here:
http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=5192
Rich
TheeBadOne
Moderator
No arguement there.
the 'theories' of Darwin and Freud have been used for several generations now to convince people that they are nothing more than animals. animals are not capable of controlling their animal instincts on their own.
goverment exists soley to protect us from our innate animal insticts, to keep us safe from our's and other's animal tendencies.
without government we would live like apes.
is this dependence on government learned behaviour? before Darwin and Freud humans were seperated from animals by the power of reason. the need for government regulation of the food i consume was unheard of and unnecessary because i trusted in myself and my power of reason.
now a century and a half later, i am nothing more than a filthy animal deep down, so i cannot trust in my own decisions and must look to government to protect me from myself.
goverment exists soley to protect us from our innate animal insticts, to keep us safe from our's and other's animal tendencies.
without government we would live like apes.
is this dependence on government learned behaviour? before Darwin and Freud humans were seperated from animals by the power of reason. the need for government regulation of the food i consume was unheard of and unnecessary because i trusted in myself and my power of reason.
now a century and a half later, i am nothing more than a filthy animal deep down, so i cannot trust in my own decisions and must look to government to protect me from myself.
Marko Kloos
Inactive
That's a bit silly. It's like saying that scientists have been trying to convince people for 300 years now that they are subject to gravity just like rocks and apples.
Humans are biological creatures, just like every other living thing on earth, and have their own biological family, homo sapiens sapiens. That's a description of reality, not a value statement.
As to the whole animal instinct versus reason thing...I challenge you to find a single, solitary line in either Darwin's or Freud's works that state humans are not able to control their emotions and employ reason.
Humans are biological creatures, just like every other living thing on earth, and have their own biological family, homo sapiens sapiens. That's a description of reality, not a value statement.
As to the whole animal instinct versus reason thing...I challenge you to find a single, solitary line in either Darwin's or Freud's works that state humans are not able to control their emotions and employ reason.
Hugh, the problem with this is that it does not admit any check on governmental power. Suppose Texas were not so strict in the powers it granted to government, and was more like the majority of the other states. Suppose it had no explicit recognition of people's right against government abuse of their property. What would you suggest if the people of Texas then elect reps and senators who pass a law allowing police to vandalize property of blacks/hispanics/jews, or property of jews, or allows the government to steal cars from people, or perhaps money? (Did you catch that? The intended irony here is that the government can already steal money from people, if they carry enough of it.)
If there is no way to claim that people have reserved rights apart from those identified explicitly in the constitution, what is left to do in those situations except grab a few guns and head for the hills?
Unless you think violence is necessary in that (hypothetical) situation... in which case perhaps we don't differ so much except on where the line is to be drawn.
For some reason, our society has become more animalistic and violent. Like the Roman Empire, the barbarians are at the gates, except instead of breaking in by force, they breed within us. It doesn't have any simple answer but a combination of factors from cultural changes, the media, schools, and essentially it's a side effect of turning our world into an attempt at mimicing communism.
Our intellectuals are driven by pre-existing beliefs. Our average people are below average. Our teachers are taught to be "change agents", our professors are even more radical and those who aren't are frequently punished for their beliefs even before they get their Phd. (My father was not granted his Phd because in his thesis he argued against Evolution.)
I believe that the whole concept of the good little wage slave in a fedora who goes to work and comes back to his house in the suburbs each day in a house that is exactly the same as the rest, who pays his taxes and votes x political party and sits on the PTA and lives a dull, controlled, identical life consisting of work and then retirement at 50 because 'it's what he's supposed to do' is every bit as repulsive as the Soviet system of communism, and brought into action by men just as powerhungry.
Our country tried to do that, or something like that, and they have largely succeeded. That has brought around unpleasant changes.
Sirs, I have never been on a forum before where I so completely agreed with the political thought and discussion. All I can say is, "why did I wait to come here so long?!"
Our intellectuals are driven by pre-existing beliefs. Our average people are below average. Our teachers are taught to be "change agents", our professors are even more radical and those who aren't are frequently punished for their beliefs even before they get their Phd. (My father was not granted his Phd because in his thesis he argued against Evolution.)
I believe that the whole concept of the good little wage slave in a fedora who goes to work and comes back to his house in the suburbs each day in a house that is exactly the same as the rest, who pays his taxes and votes x political party and sits on the PTA and lives a dull, controlled, identical life consisting of work and then retirement at 50 because 'it's what he's supposed to do' is every bit as repulsive as the Soviet system of communism, and brought into action by men just as powerhungry.
Our country tried to do that, or something like that, and they have largely succeeded. That has brought around unpleasant changes.
Sirs, I have never been on a forum before where I so completely agreed with the political thought and discussion. All I can say is, "why did I wait to come here so long?!"
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
Good to have you here, Heist. 
-Dave
-Dave
"...Civilisation overcomes the dangerous aggressivity of the individual by weakening him, disarming him and setting up an internal authority to watch over him, like a garrison in a conquered town."
Civilization and Its Discontents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_and_Its_Discontents
"It is impossible to overlook the extent to which civilization is built upon a renunciation of instinct. "
"The tendency to aggression is an innate, independent, instinctual disposition in man... it constitutes the powerful obstacle to culture."
"America is a mistake, a giant mistake."
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/s/sigmund_freud.html
"We must, however, acknowledge, as it seems to me, that man with all his noble qualities... still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin."
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/c/charles_darwin.html
Civilization and Its Discontents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_and_Its_Discontents
"It is impossible to overlook the extent to which civilization is built upon a renunciation of instinct. "
"The tendency to aggression is an innate, independent, instinctual disposition in man... it constitutes the powerful obstacle to culture."
"America is a mistake, a giant mistake."
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/s/sigmund_freud.html
"We must, however, acknowledge, as it seems to me, that man with all his noble qualities... still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin."
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/c/charles_darwin.html
Marko Kloos
Inactive
It seems to me that Darwin and Freud are on your side in the discussion...both of them make the claim that civilized behavior is based in reason, not emotion.
Webleywielder
Moderator
Productive Action
What I am reading is is an arguement among a bunch of shepherdpeople about the degree that the wolfpeople are harrassing the flock. What I wish I was reading is how the shepherdpeople are going to organize to get the sheepeople to stampede in the right direction to trample the wolfpeople. How many contributors to this thread attend neighborhood meetings, home owner association meetings, city council meetings, county supervisor meetings, staffed a political party or ballot initiative committee, contacted their elected representatives, formulated a political action plan, served in public office, etcetera ? I have done almost all of these and have successfully contributed to positive change by participating in the system. The system of government we have for governing the United States is the worst on earth, accept for all the other systems. Stop writing and start walking and talking to lead the sheepeople. Getting your immediate neighbors active to improve the neighborhood is the best first step in that walk. Learn first how to function politically on a local level, the mistakes you will make are much less humiliating, and will let you know if you've got what it takes for the big leagues. I am sure some of you are politically active and I applaud you, but many of you are preaching to the choir and not the congregation.
"In a world devoid of semiautomatics, a properly set-up Webley is the ultimate full-size self-defense handgun".
What I am reading is is an arguement among a bunch of shepherdpeople about the degree that the wolfpeople are harrassing the flock. What I wish I was reading is how the shepherdpeople are going to organize to get the sheepeople to stampede in the right direction to trample the wolfpeople. How many contributors to this thread attend neighborhood meetings, home owner association meetings, city council meetings, county supervisor meetings, staffed a political party or ballot initiative committee, contacted their elected representatives, formulated a political action plan, served in public office, etcetera ? I have done almost all of these and have successfully contributed to positive change by participating in the system. The system of government we have for governing the United States is the worst on earth, accept for all the other systems. Stop writing and start walking and talking to lead the sheepeople. Getting your immediate neighbors active to improve the neighborhood is the best first step in that walk. Learn first how to function politically on a local level, the mistakes you will make are much less humiliating, and will let you know if you've got what it takes for the big leagues. I am sure some of you are politically active and I applaud you, but many of you are preaching to the choir and not the congregation.
"In a world devoid of semiautomatics, a properly set-up Webley is the ultimate full-size self-defense handgun".
so is it reason or emotion that leads the federal government to legislate "Seat belt laws, 'papers please' roadblocks, RealID, RFID, drug busts and the like"?
i would have to say, based on the media presentations we are given to justify such legislation (it's for the children), these laws are justified by the emotional responses of those who see the 'problem' presented on the nightly television news broadcast.
reason's got nothin' to do with it
i would have to say, based on the media presentations we are given to justify such legislation (it's for the children), these laws are justified by the emotional responses of those who see the 'problem' presented on the nightly television news broadcast.
reason's got nothin' to do with it
If "safety" is not voiced as a right anywhere in our founding documents, it also becomes difficult to affirm a right to self protection, let alone state protection. It seems to me that neither concept is supported. The founding father's discussion of firearms mainly centers on their use to guard against the tyranny of government, not home invaders.
Alot of things necessary for a society to function are also not specifically verbalized - like environmental protection. So I guess I don't get Rich's point. The Constitution exists to frame the discussion of citizen's rights, not to be a catch-all. Law is used to delineate rights, and the Constitution tells us how to make those laws.
If the citizens of this country decide to make state supplied "safety" a right, then it is. A better point to be made is that no one has actually passed laws of that kind, despite many pretending they already exist.
Alot of things necessary for a society to function are also not specifically verbalized - like environmental protection. So I guess I don't get Rich's point. The Constitution exists to frame the discussion of citizen's rights, not to be a catch-all. Law is used to delineate rights, and the Constitution tells us how to make those laws.
If the citizens of this country decide to make state supplied "safety" a right, then it is. A better point to be made is that no one has actually passed laws of that kind, despite many pretending they already exist.