How seat belts made a mockery of the Constitution

page: 5
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
Driving is not a right. It's a privilege in most states and that's why you are required to get a license to drive a vehicle on public roads. By granting you the license the state expects you to follow all of the traffic laws in place, and that means wearing your seatbelt, and obeying the speed limit, etc.


Driving is a right and thats why you dont need a license or insurance to do it on private property.




posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Yeah. Remember when they had that rope across the back of the front seat. You as a kid in the back seat had to hang onto this in case you ran into the ditch. Good luck with that doing 80 on the freeway. Give me the seat belt. I wear it all the time. And you know why? Because I didn't want to get stopped by the police. Taught me well. Loss of freedom, the beginning of the end? I think we need to understand. that as a social animal in a society of social animals we will be directed by our others. At times this is a benefit. At times it is an intrusion, We won't, and shouldn't win every contest in this game. It is important. to pick, the ones resisted, wisely Buckle up and save a life.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by kennylee
 


I should of been more clear that the state determines seatbelt and helmet laws.


You couldn't be more wrong. Like in every vote that a state defeats at first, the second go around the states are threatened with complete cutting of federal grants and funds should they not fall into line with what Washington and there lobbiests want.

In almost all cases, the states are forced to vote for and not against or face losing the money they need to stay out of bankruptcy, you can blame the federal reserve for that and this has not happened on accident.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ronnieray123
 





That they will not allow any of our fellow Michiganders to labeled a criminal fit for punishment for choosing not to wear a seat belt.

If you want to not wear a seatbelt and possibly die...go right ahead nobody is going to stop you. No offense of course...but seatbelts save lives.
edit on 4-8-2012 by Evanzsayz because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 12:24 AM
link   
On another note your here complaining about your rights as a human citiizen that you shouldn't have to wear a seatbelt because of the constitution etc.. Really!?!?! Seatbelts!?!?! As if that is the most of our worries why don't you go right ahead and focus your energy on something more important instead of....seatbelts (are you serious) ?



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   
Another thread where people start arguing with opinions instead of facts.

fact 1) Traveling is a RIGHT
fact 2) In several states the "motor vehicle laws" only apply to COMMERCIAL VEHICLES
fact 3) in states such as texas you DO NOT need a license, registration, insurance or inspection (with a COO)
fact 4) air bags save lives, but they also kill, same applies to seat belts
fact 5) the more decisions the government makes for you the less power/control you have over your own life

Now that being said, i encouraqge each and every one of you to a) have insurance OR proof of financial responsibility, b) make your decision on if you want to deal with the hassle of not having a license (which turns a right into a privilege) and c) to wear your seat belt as the odds are in their favor.

Now all that being said, lets look at a few other things the governement wants to mandate and fine errr i mean tax us for.

1) health care (can i not make the decision to live better and not NEED the deadly drugs they feed sick people to make them sicker)
2) drugs (can I not make the decision to ruin my own life, besides therapy is cheaper than jailing someone)
3) public education (do we not have the right to educate our kids as we see fit and in what fields etc?)
4) raw milk (uhmm why is this banned again?)
5) vaccines (do they really save lives...whos decision should it be?)
6) ready for this one...BITTER ALMONDS and VITAMIN B17 (now go find out why those are illegal)

I hope my point is clear...I have the right to live as well as end my life (suicide is illegal too in several states..just FYI). I think having car manufacturers make cars safer is a good idea, but there is no cookie cutter design to save everyone in every situation. Should we mandate all cars be bulletproof in case terrorists attack? Oh but then we would be fighting for more oil and still would not open up any new refinaries.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 04:14 AM
link   
This thread made my jaw drop open. Hell yes the wearing of a seatbelt should be mandatory. No seatbelt = you're too stupid for words. What next - banning handrails next to cliffs because they're not in the Constitution?



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 04:56 AM
link   
No, the wearing of a seat belt should not be mandatory. Only for kids.
Its a personal safety measure, not a driving requirement, and I should have the right to make my own choices. Me not wearing a seat belt doesn't put anybody at risk, so it shouldn't be anybody's business. I pay taxes, medical insurance, car insurance, so the roads, the damage, the treatment, it's all covered; nobody have to pay nothing for me. So what is the problem here? Thank you for informing me, but that's all anyone should have the right to do about my own safety.

Just like smoking is life threatening, but I have the right to do it if I choose too. Or drinking alcohol, or swimming in the open sea. And many other things that I have the right to do them as an adult. Since when the government should protect me from myself? I make stupid choices, that's my problem. They don't own me and my life. I do.

The point of this thread is not safety, but freedom of choice. Some people never had it, so it's kind of hard to grasp the concept.
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." Is there any point in these words, at all?



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   

i would guess you eliminated, skimmed or simply refused to accept the implication of the very last sentence which reads ...

from your link
but it cannot punish a person for operating a mail truck over its highways without procuring a driver's license from state authorities. 1330
can NOT punish without a license ... did you get that ??


You guess incorrectly. I simply did not concern myself at the time with "State Regulations Affecting the Mails", but as you've brought it up, I've now gone back and looked. Hmmm... interesting... now, did you read the case, or are you "eliminating, skimming, or simply refusing to accept" its context and the actual words of the court? In case of the latter (quoting out of context, afterall, is just sooo easy), 254 U.S. 51 is a case about whether States can interfere with federal postal workers carrying the mail over constitutionally mandated "post roads" -- whether by taxation (i.e. licensing), or other means. As the court puts it:

"Here the question is whether the State can interrupt the acts of the general government itself."

The answer to that question is: NO, or in the greater verbosity of the court:

"It seems to us that the immunity of the instruments of the United States from state control in the performance of their duties extends to a requirements that they desist from performance until they satisfy a state officer upon examination that they are competent for a necessary part of them and pay a fee for permission to go on. Such a requirement does not merely touch the Government servants remotely by a general rule of conduct; it lays hold of them in their specific attempt to obey orders and requires qualifications in addition to those that the Government has pronounced sufficient." (italics added)

Explain to me what this has to do with whether you or I in our private capacity can be taxed by the State for using the same roads??



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by WhiteHat
No, the wearing of a seat belt should not be mandatory. Only for kids.
Its a personal safety measure, not a driving requirement, and I should have the right to make my own choices. Me not wearing a seat belt doesn't put anybody at risk, so it shouldn't be anybody's business. I pay taxes, medical insurance, car insurance, so the roads, the damage, the treatment, it's all covered; nobody have to pay nothing for me. So what is the problem here? Thank you for informing me, but that's all anyone should have the right to do about my own safety.

Just like smoking is life threatening, but I have the right to do it if I choose too. Or drinking alcohol, or swimming in the open sea. And many other things that I have the right to do them as an adult. Since when the government should protect me from myself? I make stupid choices, that's my problem. They don't own me and my life. I do.

The point of this thread is not safety, but freedom of choice. Some people never had it, so it's kind of hard to grasp the concept.
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." Is there any point in these words, at all?



No. If there's a crash and you're involved and you go through your windshield because of some meaningless point of principle, your body then becomes a missile that might hurt other people. That's called being selfish. Seatbelts save lives and the use of them should be mandatory.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by scoobdude
Another thread where people start arguing with opinions instead of facts.

fact 1) Traveling is a RIGHT
fact 2) In several states the "motor vehicle laws" only apply to COMMERCIAL VEHICLES
fact 3) in states such as texas you DO NOT need a license, registration, insurance or inspection (with a COO)
fact 4) air bags save lives, but they also kill, same applies to seat belts
fact 5) the more decisions the government makes for you the less power/control you have over your own life

Now that being said, i encouraqge each and every one of you to a) have insurance OR proof of financial responsibility, b) make your decision on if you want to deal with the hassle of not having a license (which turns a right into a privilege) and c) to wear your seat belt as the odds are in their favor.

I hope my point is clear...I have the right to live as well as end my life (suicide is illegal too in several states..just FYI). I think having car manufacturers make cars safer is a good idea, but there is no cookie cutter design to save everyone in every situation. Should we mandate all cars be bulletproof in case terrorists attack? Oh but then we would be fighting for more oil and still would not open up any new refinaries.


" (3) That an acceptance of a license, in whatever form, will not require the licensee to respect or to comply with any provisions of the statute or with any regulations prescribed by the state . . . that are repugnant to the Constitution of the United States." W. W. CARGILL CO. V. MINNESOTA, 180 U. S. 452 (1901)

Travel Information - Resource Page
freedom-school.com...

General Information
freedom-school.com...



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle
" (3) That an acceptance of a license, in whatever form, will not require the licensee to respect or to comply with any provisions of the statute or with any regulations prescribed by the state . . . that are repugnant to the Constitution of the United States." W. W. CARGILL CO. V. MINNESOTA, 180 U. S. 452 (1901)

Travel Information - Resource Page
freedom-school.com...

General Information
freedom-school.com...


Er, leaving critical details out of your quote is not helping your position. The complete paragraph reads:

"(3) That an acceptance of a license, in whatever form, will not require the licensee to respect or to comply with any provisions of the statute or with any regulations prescribed by the state Railroad and Warehouse Commission that are repugnant to the Constitution of the United States." (italics added)

This makes more sense when one realizes that the referenced case isn't at all about "driving" or the "right to travel", but rather is about operating grain elevators and warehouses along a "right of way railroad". In the final opinion of the court:

"Without expressing any opinion as to the extent to which the Railroad and Warehouse Commission may supervise the business of a person, firm, or corporation receiving a license under the statute, and restricting our decision to the only question necessary to be decided, we adjudge that the statute of Minnesota, so far as it requires a license for conducting such business as that in which the defendant is engaged, is not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States." (emphasis added)

If I were you, I'd start looking for another "school".



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by pendracon
 


Apparently you managed to click the link for the rest of the information. Good for you.

"A license in WHATEVER FORM" ... Now "whatever form" must a license be in to fit your terms?



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Driving laws are not a right, and therefore can be subject to change at any time.

Driving is a priveledge. In order to drive, you need to follow the rules of the road.

You voluntarily accept the rules of driving by getting a drivers' license, and if you don't like the rules, you can choose not to drive.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
If I CHOOSE to not wear a seat belt while I am driving alone in my car

I CHOOSE to go through the windshield that I PAYED for.

I CHOOSE to land on the road that I PAYED for.

I CHOOSE to go to the hospital and use the insurance I PAYED for.

So leave me alone and let me live with my choices.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by pendracon
 


Apparently you managed to click the link for the rest of the information. Good for you.


If you mean the link that Google provided when I searched for 180 U.S. 452, then yes I did. If you mean one your "school" links, then no I certainly did not.



"A license in WHATEVER FORM" ... Now "whatever form" must a license be in to fit your terms?


First of all, its the court's terms and you quoted them first. Now, what does the "form" of the license have to do with the matter?



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaanny
If I CHOOSE to not wear a seat belt while I am driving alone in my car

I CHOOSE to go through the windshield that I PAYED for.

I CHOOSE to land on the road that I PAYED for.

I CHOOSE to go to the hospital and use the insurance I PAYED for.

So leave me alone and let me live with my choices.


And if your choices lead to other people being injured or even killed?



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
The libtards will be here soon to crucify you for your beliefs, but I am behind you 100%! What gives the federal government the right to dictate to us like that? FEAR! and APATHY! Two great enemies of liberty.


the "libtards"? really???...right wing conservatives have taken away more rights than apparently you fail to recognize. tell me how a seatbelt law undermines your rights?
how about this....all conservatives are exempt from clean water laws, safe food laws, building codes, gun and ammo safety requirements, drug purity laws, government imposed laws for appliance safety, for care and truck manufacturing safety laws, for financial fraud etc...



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
I used to think this way when I was about 15 and going through my anarcho-hate the world phase.

But this doesn't have anything to do with the constitution. The Constitution doesn't protect you from all tyrannical laws. You don't have to drive a car, you can always ride a bike or walk.
edit on 2-8-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)


I kind of talked about this in another post about the Government wanting to turn me into a bubble boy for my protection. Everything is about control with the word "for your safety" wrapped around it.

I had a cop pull me over when my one son took off his seatbelt and the cop saw that he did. The cop didn't give me a ticket, but said "do you know how much this ticket would be?" and I said "no" and he said "you don't want to know"... he also said that it is child neglect and can be charge as such....

I see much of this as the Government telling me what I WILL do and if not they will rip my life and my family's life apart....

You say "you don't need to need to drive a car" but we do need to...it is how America is and why they can use it as a tool for control...



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ronnieray123
 


The same tactics the Federal Government uses against the individual states via money, is the same tactics they use against other countries to get what they want, with war being the last resort.

The seat belt laws along with mandatory insurance was a gift to the Big Insurance companies.
Notice the costs of insurance did not go down after seat belt laws and mandatory insurance was implemented?
The Criminal CEO's pocketed the extra profits and passed it around to their cronies in the federal government.





new topics
top topics
 
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join