Seat Belts and Individual Freedom

"Did I not say repeatedly that there are legitimate functions of government, and that protection of its citizens from force was one of them?

The function of the government is to provide for defense, and a legal system that puts the retaliatory use of force under objective rules. That is all."

Try reading ALL of Section 8.

That is NOT all that the Government reserved to itself as its duties under the Constitution.

This is all of section 8:

"Section. 8.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Clause 9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

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;

Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Read those powers that the FRAMERS reserved to the Federal Government. They're much more expansive than what you're claiming, and in many ways not nearly as clear cut as some would believe.

As I pointed out in my previous message, the words in the preamble, which you claimed have no standing in law, are repeated in Section 8, giving them full force of Constitutional power.

Those words are vague, and I have absolutely no doubt that the Framers actually meant them to be vague.
 
All right, Rich, what didn't I answer?


As for your example, it doesn't really match. A mandatory seatbelt law is no different than a speed limit - it is possible to violate either. Your example is like a law that demands an automatic seatbelt - which isn't what is being discussed.

The easy answer against is the same reason we don't have automatic seatbelts - some situations might require removing the belt or exceeding the limit. But seatbelt laws still allow that. So I don't get where you're coming from. This is no different than it being illegal to discharge a weapon in city limits - but you won't be charged for it IF it was for legitimate self defense.


FYI - many cars already have governers. I've owned at least one that was artificially capped at 155.
 
As for your example, it doesn't really match. A mandatory seatbelt law is no different than a speed limit - it is possible to violate either. Your example is like a law that demands an automatic seatbelt - which isn't what is being discussed.
Click to expand...
Thanks to Elizabeth Dole's blackmail and double-crossing of automakers, we now have mandatory seatbelt laws AND potentially deadly and extremely costly automatic airbags.
 
Mike-
I think you're quoting the "welfare clause" much out of context.

Article 8, Clause 1 reads:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

General welfare in this, the ONLY time the term is used outside the Preamble, is within context of and limited to taxing authority. It's hardly vague and completely out of context to "policing authority".

As an aside, I will point out that, according to this very clause, federal taxes "shall be uniform throughout the United States". It doesn't take a Constitutional scholar to recognize that the current progressive Income Tax (even if it were legal) exists in direct opposition the the very clear language in this clause.
Rich
 
Fellas, this is a good debate. I've read the entire thread. I think both sides are adequately represented, both in numbers and in articulate thought conveyance, so I'm gonna stay on the sidelines. Just wanted you to know that it's refreshing and very pleasant to read thoughtful ideas without the usual degradation of substance as the posts roll in. :)
 
Handy said:
The easy answer against is the same reason we don't have automatic seatbelts - some situations might require removing the belt or exceeding the limit.
Click to expand...
I see. So, the fact remains that excessive speed kills about 7X as many people as Seatbelt Outlawry and it CLEARY creates a greater direct hazard to other motorists. Now, you fail to offer any real estimates that exceeding that speed (or disconnecting your seat belt while driving) saves significant lives in certain scenarios (thus far not disclosed to us knuckle draggers). Still, you are not in favor of protecting speeders from that folly with a simple mechanical device that would require no law enforcement interaction whatsoever.

But you ARE in favor of educating, licensing, legislating, regulating, fining and enforcing the behavior of Seat Belt Outlaws, which saves far less lives. I'm afraid your "public welfare" argument just went a little further out the window, Handy. If you are not interested in "saving lives" what does motivate this need to control the personal decisions of your neighbors?
Rich
 
I've worked with too many people with traumatic head injuries during the past 30+ years. Brain damage is not cool. Wear your seatbelts folks.

John
 
Well, Rich, this gets a little hard to debate when you repeatedly ignore my points.

Seat belts do not ONLY save the life of the person belted in. I've seen it, I've experienced it, I don't see why there is debate about it. So I view this one as different than a motorcycle helmet law, for instance.


I also never made a "public welfare" argument.

I did make the point that the public roads are regulated because they were designed to be. Despite the fact that you CAN use a private vehicle on them, US roads are a form of mass transit that provides service to municipal buses, emergency vehicles, military movements and shipping. They are not, and have never been, an open race track. Seatbelt laws aren't any different than ANY OTHER regulation regarding the proper use of the public road system.

Regulation does save lives, but that is one of many benefits. Others include increased efficiency, moderated insurance rates and standardization for universal access. Even if a single life was never saved, it would STILL be worth it to have a road system that efficiently supports the workings of our capitalist society.


Additionally, you have introduced to this debate the idea that a physical restriction (eg: smart guns) is equal or preferable to a law the governs use while leaving free will in place. Why you do this, I can't say, but a mandatory seat belt law still leaves room for free will and exceptions.
 
Rich,

The duties and taxes collected by the government provide the basis by which the common welfare is addressed, in other words, they enable the actions that constitute common welfare.

Common welfare is not simply limited to the common welfare of relieving you of your tax money.

It's no mistake that it was put into clause 1 of the section, whereby it affects ALL subsequent clauses in the section.

As I also noted in my apparently ignored first post that the preamble itself has legal weight as an element of purpose and structure for the document as a whole.

In as much as that's the case, it corrupts Marko's entire premise that the phrase is, Constitutionally, meaningless.
 
Seat belts.

Rich, Mike, Mark, - do you wear your seatbelt while operating a motor vehicle equipped with one?

As far as someone acting in a dangerous manner with a firearm on a public range or elsewhere in Iowa

See chapter 724.30 Iowa criminal code

Reckless use of a firearm - A person who intentionally discharges a firearm in a reckless manner commits the following

1. Class C felony if a serious injury occurs
2. Class D felony if a bodily injury which is not a serious injury.
3. An agg misdemeanor if property damage occurs without a serious injury or bodily injury.
4. A simple misdemeanor if no injury to a person or property occurs.

So, if some idiot is waving a gun around or discharges it while I'm downrange when a cease fire has been called, there is something i can do about it in the state of Iowa. At the range i shoot at i know whom ever would be removed from the park at the very least.

12-34hom.
 
Mike-
If I follow you properly, you are saying that Clause 1 not only authorizes FedGov to levy taxes but renders any action they choose to fund with those taxes Constitutional, if they can demonstrate a "General Welfare" tie in.

If that's the argument, I reject it out of hand as circular. The powers of FedGov are clearly enumerated. I read Clause 1 as simply allowing them to raise the money to fund the programs (defense, roads, etc) that fall under those powers; otherwise the powers would be in name only.

Handy-
OK, you're not interested in "public welfare". You just like lots of laws restricting private decisions because it makes us more "efficient".
Rich
 
Rich,

I know you like talking down to me, but I don't "like" lots of laws that my brain still informs me are necessary evils of a functioning society. Please stop trying to paint me as whatever negative stereotype you find convenient to pull out from post to post.


I'm trying to imagine the road systems you guys seem to be invisioning. I'd probably stay home. In fact, most people would probably have to stay home.
 
Wow Im gone for 12 hours and were on page 5? Pheew

Rich I think your, in reality, My 12th grade goverment teacher....Mr. Shackett is that you??
 
12-34hom said:
Rich, Mike, Mark, - do you wear your seatbelt while operating a motor vehicle equipped with one?
Click to expand...
Yes, I do, even though I am not required to by law in New Hampshire. And when riding I wear my motorcycle helmet - also not required by law in New Hampshire - and protective riding gear including a padded Cordura jacket, leather boots, and gloves, which is not required by law in any state of the union to my knowledge.
 
12-34Hom-
Yup, I wear my seat belt. Nope I don't always wear a helmet on my motorcycle. But then, I engage in LOTS-O-DANGEROUS acts including flying my own plane, refusing to leave my ocean home during SOME hurricanes, hunting in rattlesnake heaven and regular trips to the African Bush.

It's what I call living. ;)

Handy-
I'm not trying to talk down to you. But your logic is so amorphous and your direction changes so quickly, that I don't know how else to engage you but with small, simplistic interactions.
Rich
 
Wow, Rich. "Simplistic". Please spare me the explanations next time. I especially enjoyed when you implied that I change direction, when you are busy putting words in my mouth.

I have posted, consistantly, the following:
1. Seat belts save more than the life in them.
2. The roads are regulated for good reason, and that seatbelt regulation isn't much different than quite a few others, like brake lights.
3. There is no such thing as an absolute right in a society. All rights are subject to cetain limits that allow them to co-exist with other rights and the functioning of that society.


Please continue with your shifty, off topic rejoinders. :)
 
Handy-
Changing direction as in repeatedly focusing on a passing comment about privatization of roads when the topic is SeatBelt Criminals.

Seat belts save more than the life in them.
Click to expand...
Those saves are included in the stats I provided from the NTSB. Regardless, you are not nearly as interested in 7X the number of lives that can be saved by controlling speeders. Your Reason: Some people might "need" to break those laws. That's why I need to be simplistic....you're all over the map.

The roads are regulated for good reason, and that seatbelt regulation isn't much different than quite a few others, like brake lights.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Brake lights affect other motorists. Seat belts affect only ME...except, of course, in the British film reenactment you saw, where the driver flailed around killing all and sundry in the vehicle. I'm certain this is a very common occurrence, Handy. There ought to be a law!

There is no such thing as an absolute right.
Click to expand...
Certainly not in your explanation of Government. In fact, in your explanation, rights are something Government grants you when it's feeling generous.

Rich
 
I agree that it is a matter of personal choice. Besides, any time a government is requiring you to perform a specific action within your own property: home, office or vehicle, they are infringing on personal liberties. What's next? Governors on all the cars? Didn't that happen for a while? How about a video camera that makes sure you have both hands on the wheel and are paying full attention to the road?

Before anyone wades in, I realize the legal loophole around the privacy issue. Your personal property/space (car) is traveling on a public roadway, and thats the way in. I guess it doesn't matter that you paid for the damn thing.

As to the whole argument about "it doesn't matter if your personal behavior can potentially harm other people," that has a chance of creating a very dangerous standard. I mean, think about it: if I am sitting alone in my underwear pounding beers and watching t.v. my personal alcohol abuse could cause me to act irresponsibly, by leaving my oven on without the pilot lit or falling asleep on the couch with a cigarette, thus endangering the lives of firemen or my neighbors. What this means is all potentially dangerous behaviors must be criminalized, or perhaps we should all be monitored, even when inside our homes, to make sure we place no one else at risk through our own stupidity. I believe this is actually the basis for the liberal ideology.

To see why a law exists you need not look any farther than who benefits from it. This is the insurance companies increasing profits by limiting serious injuries and losing money in litigation and paying settlements. All they have to do is yank the chain of the monkey they bought, err, helped into office with campaign contributions, and it's done.

Strangely, at least in TX you are not required by law to wear a motorcycle helmet. But you have to wear your seatbelt. And of course, have insurance. Funny how that keeps coming up. Anyway, like so many laws in existence, this makes very little sense to me. Maybe researchers for insurance companies have discovered that if they don't wear helmets, motorcyclists have a better chance of being dead instead of severely injured, and that works better for them. Less medical bills, that's for sure.

If you mandate seat belt use, you should also criminalize any other potentially harmful behavior, such as smoking. I KNOW that will kill you. Not wearing my seat belt may, or it may not. Most likely it will have no bearing either way, as I stand a better chance of being killed by a criminal after the antis take my hand cannon away.

btw--Rich--Sharp, funny stuff. I hope you stick around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top