How seat belts made a mockery of the Constitution

reply to post by jimmyx

licensing was instituted to protect people from other people

you've been lied to.
licensing was specifically formed to grant permission to conduct activities that would otherwise be illegal, period.
where it went from there is the equivalent of a horror story.

if you build a house, a license means you have knowledge on how to build it safely, so it does not collapse on the occupants

really ??, think so do ya ??
then, maybe you should read this ... www.bradenton.com...
and, they are currently on the market/discounted of course ... zillow listing ... www.zillow.com...
and if you read that, one has to ask ... where were the building inspectors when the units went UP ?? neither licensing or inspecting protected any of those home-buyers/owners.

ppl really need to quit buying the carp errr crap, hook, line and sinker.

reply to post by pendracon

or, in legal terminology, "know the laws that apply" to my actions, regardless of how inconvenient those laws may be or unlikely I am to act harmfully, in the first place.

so, what does this have to do with seatbelts or licensing for that matter ??
there is no law forcing me to acquire a driver license for personal use of an automobile.
there is no law forcing me to acquiesce to the same laws applicable to "licensed" drivers (ie: commercial drivers/seatbelts)

in light of the observation that there are no existing laws that apply, how does your statement relate ?? and besides, how does my/your wearing a seatbelt prevent harm to any other person ??

and as others have pointed out, if "safety" is the goal, why are all of the buses beltless ??

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by pendracon

 

after absorbing your link and realizing that it's mostly inapplicable to the topic at hand, the last line reverberated as a point that matters.

So, now I'm taken out of context... actually, it's applicable to the question of what SCOTUS has read into the "postal clause" (i.e. what the link was posted in response to). And, yes, that clause is applicable to whether the government has the authority to regulate private use of "post roads" (though perhaps you prefer, "federal public roads").

the POINT i addressed, which wasn't about mails, was about your posted response to a question posed by another poster which read ...

What gives the federal government the right to dictate to us like that?

Oh, so you did actually see that...

then you affirmed this ridiculous statement with ... caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

Yep, sure did... now how 'bout you go back a read everything again, but this time in context.

the point is and was, NO article of the Constitution ... "gives the federal government the right to dictate to us like that?"
and THAT was the point of our conversation.
agree or disagree ??

Disagree. The Constitution enumerates many powers which the federal government has, allowing it to "dictate" to you regarding some aspects of your life under certain circumstances.

nice try at deflection but i do remeber the topic, do you?
we are discussing the UnConstitutional mandate or unlawful requirements promoted to engage in road usage and the licensing scheme in which citizens are fraudulently forced to participate.

Yea, I remember; the topic is "making me wear a seat belt is destroying my constitutional[ly protected] rights". You still haven't explained how, though, or presented evidence that actually supports your position. As for the rest, I'm not the one who went off topic, at least not "first". Though, forgive me if I've committed an "ATS sin" by injecting some additional considerations into the supposed reasoning on "the topic".

psssst ... we aren't discussing government functionality, we are discussing government demands which are completely unreasonable and UnConstitutional.
(both safety belts & licensing)

Ohhh... uh... wait... you might not be "discussing government functionality", but it is "government functionality" that's given rise to many of the aspects of your life that you obviously take for "granted", such as "public highway" usage. Btw, "public" in this sense does not mean "public domain" ("unowned"), it means public property, over which the government is responsible for managing ("dictating"). Though, perhaps you feel you should be able to trespass upon other government managed property "at will", too? Just saunter into (e.g.) the back of your local post office and nose about, yea?

So, the government is "demanding" that you be licensed and wear a safety belt? Where? In your home? On your own private property?? Wow, dude, that's rough... you should get yourself a lawyer 'cause, that's gotta be, like, a violation of the 4th Amendment or something...

...doh! nevermind...

currently, State and Federal USE of the roads has -0- impact on my use of the same roads (except private ones)
under certain states of emergency, the State/Fed use takes priority but that still doesn't deprive me or anyone of their right to travel upon those roadways at will.

Perhaps not, but how does "eminent domain" sound to you? (Scheiza, off topic again!) That's effectively what you're engaging in when you use "public" roads for your own private benefit. Where in the Constitution does it say the government "shall pave the land" and make it easier for anyone to travel "at will"? You think the highways are there for you? You think that's what got the government out there laying down the asphalt and marking off miles?? Interesting, but nope! Try absorbing the link some more and... oh, I don't know... maybe even delve beyond it some... like, maybe, into the Constitution or, for that matter, what "governing" and "law making" are really all about. I know Bush promised you "wouldn't be left behind" but, sadly, you're going to have to do some actual research of your own if you expect to learn anything.

Now, while the government's use of those roads might not impact you, your use of them has the potential to impact me... and, possibly, the government. Yet, if the government, or anyone other than yourself, is trying to deprive you of the "at will" use of your private roads, or "dictate" to you how you'll use them, then I agree your gripe is valid.

reply to post by pendracon

we haven't been discussing the "postal clause" and that wasn't the poster to which you responded.

Nothing in any Article of the US Constitution permits the government such dictate upon the people, ever. (not the mails, or the roads but the people)

i didn't abbreviate your commentary so i'm not sure how you figure it was taken out of context ... care to be more specific ?
this topic isn't about 'postal roads' or restrictions of them.

see it ?? it is what i responded to the first time
your subsequent deflection is your own, it not a product of my creation.

The Constitution enumerates many powers which the federal government has, allowing it to "dictate" to you regarding some aspects of your life under certain circumstances.

and to this i disagree, the Constitution grants no such power, the people do and the people can take it away. fyi, the US Constitution RESTRICTS the powers of government, not grants it.

yes, certain circumstances can open the door for more of their manipulations directly upon the people, however, that isn't the topic of this thread either.

certainly have, it has always been my right to choose.
it is still my right to choose, however, the existing government claims some authority to punish me and others for said choice which inflicts no harm upon any other person or property ... that is UnConstitutional.
punishment is to result from crime (also according to the Constitution), so where's the crime ??

as for the rest, government i take for "granted" ... hahahahahaha, Obama, is that you ???

ETA: hahahahahaha, still laughing but i just couldn't let this slide by ...

Now, while the government's use of those roads might not impact you, your use of them has the potential to impact me

likewise and if you think your "license" or use of a seatbelt offers me any assurances or guarantees that you won't kill me out there, think again.

Yet, if the government, or anyone other than yourself, is trying to deprive you of the "at will" use of your private roads, or "dictate" to you how you'll use them, then I agree your gripe is valid.

we are not discussing private roads either.
all of the public roads are my "private" roads as i and every other member of the "public" paid for them, built them and maintain them.
private roads are financed and maintained by an independent owner, hence, private property.
(perhaps you should take your own advice and do some learning)

Originally posted by frazzle
I suppose the next quesion would be, how many of these injured/dead people were wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents. I suspect that would be most of them, even the dead ones.

Probably, that's not really the point, though more of those injuries might have been fatalities had they not been wearing their seat belts. Though, I have no evidence of this, just conjecture. I'm not saying that you having to wear a seat belt is necessarily doing you any good -- rather, that there are reasons I don't think you are considering for being "made to" do so. Yet, where's the stats for fatalities before seat belt laws? Raw numbers are not likely to be a meaningful comparison due to disparity in numbers of drivers and other factors (e.g. average vehicle size), but I'd wager the number is proportionately higher.

The true number of medical accidents cannot be qualified because of the fact that many injuries and deaths are not recognised as malpractice or negligence by the patients or their families who are told it was some other cause.

Maybe, though your statement is pure conjecture.

But the CDC did report in 2009 that prescription drug deaths alone outnumbered traffic fatalities in the US.

Yep, drugs are bad.

You feel confident about your doctor and that's good, but do you know anything about the drugs he prescribes for you? More to the point, does HE know the possible side effects and contraindications of the drugs he prescribes for you? Many doctors just take the word of the pharma salesperson who's paid on commission.

If by "know" you mean "have memorized" then probably not... but, really?? Is that what they do? Just rely on the ole salesman? Humph, I thought they referred to a "little" book called the Physician's Desk Reference. Well, I do at least, and I'm pretty sure federal drug labeling laws invalidate the rest of your argument.

I do, however, accept the fact that not everything in my life rests squarely within my own private domain and, therefore, I must remain cognizant of the fact that my actions could but must not negatively impact others -- or, in legal terminology, "know the laws that apply" to my actions, regardless of how inconvenient those laws may be or unlikely I am to act harmfully, in the first place.

Are you saying that you couldn't be trusted to act sensibly or responsibly without government dogging you?

Um, wow... no, actually, I said that I am unlikely to act harmfully, regardless...

I'm sorry, but you only think you know the laws. How many of the 20,000 laws that went into effect just this year alone have you read and studied and understood? Last year's? Or the years before that?

...especially, since I don't actually know all those laws. Though, since most of those laws likely don't affect me directly, I'm probably safe not knowing them. Of course, I don't really need to know which statutes say I can't commit murder, or rob someone, or run them over in my car. Do you?

Here's a little history on licensing drivers. en.wikipedia.org...'s_license

The first paragraph regarding said "history" pretty much says it all:

"The first license to drive a motor vehicle was issued to the inventor of the modern automobile, Karl Benz, in 1888. Because the noise and smell of his Motorwagen resulted in complaints by the citizens of Mannheim, Benz requested and received written permission by the Grand Ducal authorities to operate his car on public roads.[1]"

Wow, just wow... so, let me get this straight... the very precedent of being licensed to operate a motor vehicle on "public roads" was established with the very first "modern automobile". Hmmm... and why was it said license had be "requested and received [by its operator]...from the authorities"?? Yea, because of the "harm" it posed to the other citizenry. Thanks, that's golden!

reply to post by Honor93


Okay.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

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.

And if ....and if.... seriously? If a person is passing under a tree, and if it happens to be windy, and if the tree is old, the tree might fall and hurt that person. So let's cut off all the trees, because this scenario it happens a damn lot more than somebody in a car crash flying through the windshield, becoming a missile and hurting somebody else. Or you watch too many movies.

Why is so hard to accept that our life is our responsibility?
"Seatbelts save lives and the use of them should be mandatory". "Jesus is your saviour, so religion should be mandatory." How about that? And even when you tell them you don't want to be saved, they can't let you be. What is this burning desire to forcefully save others?

I say stop trying to save people who don't want to be saved, and everybody will live much better.

reply to post by pendracon

where's the stats for fatalities before seat belt laws?

see the years after 1984 ... 8 of them show increases even with mandatory belt usage.
www.ask.com...

why was it said license had be "requested and received [by its operator]...from the authorities"??

contrary to your poor comprehension, it says ...

Benz requested and received written permission by the Grand Ducal authorities to operate his car on public roads.[1]"

he had to garner permission to do what was otherwise Illegal. (harm the citizenry)

ETA: regarding the "decrease" in fatalities since seatbelts were mandated ... surprisingly, only 4 of those years indicate a decrease greater than 5% ... and that ain't much.
91, 92, 08, 09

so, why aren't fatalities decreasing by a greater degree if this "safety measure" is so effective ??

ETA once more --> regarding Benz, 1888 and a European licensing scheme ... what does that have to do with the American one ??

to assist with your American history void ...

inventors.about.com...
Yet the invention that would spark a revolution in transportation was a simple two-wheeler. The bicycle.
Its popularity in the 1880s and 1890s spurred interest in the nation's roads.

On October 3, 1893, General Roy Stone, a Civil War hero and good roads advocate, was appointed Special Agent in charge of the new Office of Road Inquiry (ORI) within the Department of Agriculture. With a budget of $10,000, ORI promoted new rural road development to serve the wagons, coaches, and bicycles on America's dirt roads.
-- snip --
With rural interests adding to the battle cry of "Get the farmers out of the mud!" Congress passed the Federal- Aid Road Act of 1916. It created the Federal-Aid Highway Program under which funds were made available on a continuous basis to state highway agencies to assist in road improvements. But before the program could get off the ground, the United States entered World War I.

in case you missed it ~~ that was the Federal-AID Road Act ~~ not the Federal-Build Road Act.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by pendracon

 

or, in legal terminology, "know the laws that apply" to my actions, regardless of how inconvenient those laws may be or unlikely I am to act harmfully, in the first place.

so, what does this have to do with seatbelts or licensing for that matter ??
there is no law forcing me to acquire a driver license for personal use of an automobile.
there is no law forcing me to acquiesce to the same laws applicable to "licensed" drivers (ie: commercial drivers/seatbelts)

in light of the observation that there are no existing laws that apply, how does your statement relate ?? and besides, how does my/your wearing a seatbelt prevent harm to any other person ??

and as others have pointed out, if "safety" is the goal, why are all of the buses beltless ??



It's so simple really...always and forever about the ALMIGHTY DOLLAR!

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by pendracon

 

where's the stats for fatalities before seat belt laws?

see the years after 1984 ... 8 of them show increases even with mandatory belt usage.
www.ask.com...

So, why was that??

why was it said license had be "requested and received [by its operator]...from the authorities"??

contrary to your poor comprehension, it says ...

Benz requested and received written permission by the Grand Ducal authorities to operate his car on public roads.[1]"

he had to garner permission to do what was otherwise Illegal. (harm the citizenry)

By jove, I think you've got it! Well, almost. Yes, "harming the citizenry" is certainly illegal, but I don't see how you determine that's what he received the "written permission" for, when it says specifically that it was permission "to operate his car on public roads"?? So, how exactly is my comprehension of that paragraph "poor"? Your overriding conclusion is the same as mine, though you are misquoting the passage to get there. Was it that I "abridged" which authorities granted the permission (being largely irrelevant), that confused you? Perhaps it was that I injected clarification that it was the "operator" (Benz), who needed it?? Why emphasize that it was "written permission" that was received?? How is that significant?

reply to post by pendracon


That's right, its all conjecture. We pay thousands of people to do nothing but crunch numbers and provide statistics, but they somehow can't get an accurate count of how many people were injured or died in car accidents while wearing seat belts as opposed to those who weren't. You believe that? Holy cow. They can tell you down to the smallest fraction exactly how many people died from smoking, even second hand smoke. So they say, anyway. But police reports are just too complicated for a highly paid number cruncher to crunch. Doctor's handwriting is so much easier to read.

Doctors seldom refer to the PDR when prescribing medications, most of them have preferred drugs for specific complaints and they write scripts for them generously. Sometimes it seems more like a fad than medicine. Everybody and his dog apparently needs anti depressants these days. Got a hangnail? Here's some Prozac to take your mind off it. Refuse it and see how they react. Or maybe certain drug companies are more forthcoming with bonuses and perks for selling their wares. Who knows. But its good to hear that you use the PDR, it’s the only sane thing to do before popping a manufactured chemical substance into your mouth.

BTW, you don’t know what warnings are on the drug label until you take the script to the pharmacy and get it filled. Oooooh, this is some really bad stuff you say, better make another doctor’s appointment to get a different drug and the process starts all over.

But back to the license/seat belt issue. Okay, so we’ve established that you are a sensible and responsible driver. Does that mean you don’t believe anyone else on the road is sensible or responsible and that’s why you need all these laws and requirements and restrictions? To protect you? Why? You're already licensed, insured and seat belted. What could possibly happen to you?

most of those laws likely don't affect me directly, I'm probably safe not knowing them

How do you know these laws don’t affect you directly if you’ve never read them? Oh, I get it, you have more faith in the people who write the laws than you do in your fellow man who has never once lied to you, cheated you or worked to undermine your constitutional rights.

Yep, licensing got its start in Germany. So we took their licensing laws and bombed the snot out of them for thinking of it first. Kind of like their eugenics and medical experimentation programs.

reply to post by pendracon
what does it matter, the belts were supposed to be "saving lives", remember?
so do tell, how many lives did they save those years fatalities increased ?

it was your reference and your quote, why are you asking me what it means?
my comprehension is working just fine, do you need help?

apparently you do ... well ok ... his "operation of said motorwagon" on public roads caused harm to the citizenry in as much as they complained to the Crown.
hence, via the rules of the Crown, Benz was obligated to ask and receive permission.

in America, we're not supposed to have authoritative nannies to grant permission.

to answer your question, it's your inability to understand WHY he had to obtain permission.
he was following the rules of the Crown, that's why.
we don't have a Crown in America.

no, it's your lack of understanding that I am my own AUTHORITY, period.
i really don't expect you to understand but you could at least try.

ETA: before you pick at me for using the word "Crown", yes i know the Crown didn't rule Germany at that time but a dictatorship is a dictatorship -- and by the authority of the regional dictator was it necessary for Benz to gain permission.

i choose to wear a seat belt even in countrys where it is not law, friend of mine had a crash in uk and was lucky to survive with just a smashed shoulder as the driver he hit came thru not only his windscreen but also my friends and unfortunatly died slumped face down in passenger footwell. not really an experience i want to face because someone feels they not gonna crash so screw the safety devices fitted

Originally posted by Honor93
ETA once more --> regarding Benz, 1888 and a European licensing scheme ... what does that have to do with the American one ??

Maybe because, by 1910:

"As automobile-related fatalities soared in North America, public outcry provoked legislators to begin studying the French and German statutes as models.[3]"

to assist with your American history void ...

Okay. I didn't want to turn this personal, you did, so "sorry". Now, according to your quote, the Federal-Aid Road Act regards the maintenance of "rural" (aka "farm") roads. It created "a subsidy" for the States -- whose general purview it is maintain such roads -- to help do so (probably some related "State" compact stuff in there too, but I don't know). I'm not sure, sitting here in my educational void and all, but I think agriculture falls somewhere within the "general welfare" clause. What this has to do with licensing requirements and seat belt usage -- or rather, as you've vehemently stipulated, whether the government can constitutionally regulate you -- I'm also not sure.

in case you missed it ~~ that was the Federal-AID Road Act ~~ not the Federal-Build Road Act.

I must have... what's the "Federal-Build Road Act"??

Actually, nevermind... apparently, I'm too stupid to understand any of your points (and I'm tired)... so I'm gonna stick to my obvious ignorance and just say... "you win", 'kay? Or, do you have more barbs to throw out for making your point?

reply to post by pendracon

"As automobile-related fatalities soared in North America, public outcry provoked legislators to begin studying the French and German statutes as models.[3]"

so ??? what does studying other models have to do with the fact that our government CHOSE to commit fraud in order to effect a change they knew could never reflect the studied "models" as we have no Crown, here.

however, the citizenry is led to believe otherwise and that too is UnConstitutional.
why?? because the government is infringing on the natural right to travel.

i didn't turn this personal ... Germany is not America.
the English Crown does not rule America.
your insistance that some "model" from some foreign country holds any weight in this discussion is laughable.

clearly, you have no clue.

rural roads run right thought cities today, so what's your point?
what does "rural" roads have to do with the Fed government NOT BUILDING them, hence, having no regulation over them regarding personal use ??

you keep going back to "commercial use" and the two are not the same.
postal = commercial ... agriculture = commercial ... which of those involves "personal use"?

the government can constitutionally regulate you

by whose authority ??

your barbs are met with some, so what's the matter, is your deflection shield failing?

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by pendracon

 

That's right, its all conjecture. We pay thousands of people to do nothing but crunch numbers and provide statistics, but they somehow can't get an accurate count of how many people were injured or died in car accidents while wearing seat belts as opposed to those who weren't. You believe that? Holy cow. They can tell you down to the smallest fraction exactly how many people died from smoking, even second hand smoke. So they say, anyway.

I largely agree, though I don't believe statistics are "absolute". What makes you assume I do? I believe terms like "sampling" and "tolerance" factor in there somewhere.

Doctors seldom refer to the PDR when prescribing medications, most of them have preferred drugs for specific complaints and they write scripts for them generously. Sometimes it seems more like a fad than medicine.

Yes, I'm aware of the practice of "kickbacks". Though, I'm not sure why you think that means doctors don't use the PDR or know whether a particular drug is "safe"?

Everybody and his dog apparently needs anti depressants these days.

Hmmm... not me...

Refuse it and see how they react.

Do you make your decisions based on such criteria?? On the subject of pets, actually, I had to take my cat to the emergency clinic this week (apparently, he likes to fight some neighborhood kitties and this time he basically "lost worse than usual"). They wanted me to buy him antibiotics and "pain medicine" ($50 worth, no less). The antibiotics make sense, so "yea", the pain medicine? "No," I didn't feel he "needed" it. So, yea, I got the "bad pet owner" "reaction", and in turn they got the "f*#k you and mind your own business" "reaction". He still received the care he needed, and they still want me back for a "follow up" appointment. No "prozac" was ever involved, but he's better now... (so, "no" appointment).

Or maybe certain drug companies are more forthcoming with bonuses and perks for selling their wares. Who knows. But its good to hear that you use the PDR, it’s the only sane thing to do before popping a manufactured chemical substance into your mouth.

Why do you assume I pop "manufactured chemical substances" into my mouth? Ok, "busted"... I sometimes "pop" Motrin for my carpal tunnel, and Excedrine for the occasional headache (and regular coffee use for my caffeine addiction... does that count?). Are they safe? For me, I generally believe so. Am I "directed" to take them? No.

BTW, you don’t know what warnings are on the drug label until you take the script to the pharmacy and get it filled. Oooooh, this is some really bad stuff you say, better make another doctor’s appointment to get a different drug and the process starts all over.

If I'm that concerned, I'll ask first and, actually, I've never done or said such a thing as you suggest. Why do you assume that I have?

But back to the license/seat belt issue. Okay, so we’ve established that you are a sensible and responsible driver. Does that mean you don’t believe anyone else on the road is sensible or responsible and that’s why you need all these laws and requirements and restrictions? To protect you? Why? You're already licensed, insured and seat belted. What could possibly happen to you?

I didn't realize that we've established my sensible and responsibleness, but "thanks". As for the rest, I'm not sure why you assume I think those things. I've only stated my belief that the government has the authority to regulate use of "public roads" and from where some of that authority comes. Despite multiple diversions and out of context quotes, I've so far not seen any counter-arguments that actually refute that belief. But, as "Honor93" graciously pointed out, it's probably just that I'm too ignorant to notice one.

most of those laws likely don't affect me directly, I'm probably safe not knowing them

How do you know these laws don’t affect you directly if you’ve never read them? Oh, I get it, you have more faith in the people who write the laws than you do in your fellow man who has never once lied to you, cheated you or worked to undermine your constitutional rights.

'Cause John Stossel said so? No, kidding... because based on my poli-sci classes and personal legal study, I "know" that most "presciptive" laws (which are most of them), are directed at government itself, while most "proscriptive" laws are directed at the citizenry. I'm probably fooling myself in this too, yea? Still, I don't know why you assume you know my beliefs... and just because I said I accept a belief, doesn't mean I strictly adhere to it. I accept that "ignorance of the law is no excuse"; that doesn't mean I'm not ignorant of any laws. :@@

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by pendracon

 

"As automobile-related fatalities soared in North America, public outcry provoked legislators to begin studying the French and German statutes as models.[3]"

so ??? what does studying other models have to do with the fact that our government CHOSE to commit fraud in order to effect a change they knew could never reflect the studied "models" as we have no Crown, here.

First of all, you questioned the connection between here and there. Well, that's it. And, where exactly is the evidence that supports your government fraud theory? On some "patriot" web site?? In some "patriot" author's book? Who else recognizes their expert authority? Do the courts? In which cases? What does the type of government have to do with it? Or, are you one of those who also theorize how "Britain still rules America" because of some misquoted wording in the Paris Treaty? Before diverting into Rothschild, the BoE, the Fed, "control the finances", and all that (if you're so inclined, "off topic" though it would be)... that's another matter.

however, the citizenry is led to believe otherwise and that too is UnConstitutional.
why?? because the government is infringing on the natural right to travel.

Why would the government want to "infringe on the natural right to travel"?? Such a right is generally "protected" under the 9th Amendment. (Btw, it's the Bill of Rights, and other amendments, that prohibits government action, the "organic" Constitution, as well as some amendments, prescribes it.)

i didn't turn this personal ... Germany is not America.

Yea, you did... your initial "response" to me was an attack. What does who is which country have to do with it? Are you German?

the English Crown does not rule America.

When did I even suggest such a thing?

your insistance that some "model" from some foreign country holds any weight in this discussion is laughable.

clearly, you have no clue.

Clearly, you have a fondness for taking statements out of context to support your position. That's laughable.

rural roads run right thought cities today, so what's your point?

Really? Are you equating "routes" with "roads"?? Are you saying farm equipment is running around your city streets? My point was what the Acts you pulled out really pertain to; and it's not one's "right to travel". So, what's your point?

what does "rural" roads have to do with the Fed government NOT BUILDING them, hence, having no regulation over them regarding personal use ??

Nothing, there's no connection, that was my point. And, clearly, I said the State is responsible for them -- and, yes, the federal government exerts regulatory pressure over those roads through compacts it makes with the States for them (such as through the Acts you pulled out). If you have a problem with that, then you're taking issue with the wrong "authorities". Though, I'm sure you'd still have issues with your "right" to use those other "roads" which are under the purview of the federal government.

you keep going back to "commercial use" and the two are not the same.
postal = commercial ... agriculture = commercial ... which of those involves "personal use"?

I never said they are the same. I said it's "commercial use" that put the roads there in the first place, and its from there the government's authority rises. Still, you keep misinterpreting this as an affront to your "at will" right to travel -- as though the use of "public resources" is somehow a right. So, who owns the land you don't own, or that your "neighbors" don't own? Who maintains it? Before any of it was "appropriated" by the government for "public use", how do you suppose people prevented trespassing disputes with their neighbors? Neighborly grants of "permission"? Maybe. "Private roads"? Probably, with those eventually merging with "public ones". Perhaps you feel it's those "appropriations" that somehow secure your "right" to continue using the appropriated land "at will"? If the appropriation was uncompensated (a violation of the 5th), I might agree (not quite), though I don't see anyone claiming that's happened.

the government can constitutionally regulate you

by whose authority ??

By yours! You "consent" to it when you engage in the regulated activity.

your barbs are met with some, so what's the matter, is your deflection shield failing?

Exactly, your opening barbs were met with some and, nope, my "deflection shield" is not failing (what is that, anyway??) -- my facts still support my arguments, and I simply tire of your childishness. Where's your supporting facts?

reply to post by pendracon
not ever ... you brought Benz and the European model into this conversation.
i merely responded and attempted to keep you on the path of "topic".

correction, concerning this topic, i have no questions, i am familiar with the law and my rights.
and when they conflict, my rights are absolute.

my supporting posts are earlier in this thread should you care to look.
the source of publication is irrelevant, the brief and its contents are relevant.
[including the fact that such has been upheld in 3 states and counting]

basic contract law invalidates the State promoted "requirement" to obtain a driver license for personal travel.
what's with all the incessant rambling ??

in one word ... revenue and it's worked pretty darn good too.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 - where this conversation began is NOT the BoR.
nice try though.

the "right to travel" isn't even mentioned in the Constitution or the BoR, so where are you going with these questions ??

i seriously doubt you're knowledgeable enough to discuss the "organic" Constitution, however, if you desire such, start a thread about it, this topic isn't it.

YOU brought Germany into this with another failed point about Benz.

when you suggested our model was developed based on theirs.
[whether it was or not is irrelevant]
how it is applied is the problem.
i never indicated that i had a problem with some licensing, just what is promoted as required for personal travel.

enjoy your chuckle, just don't choke on your tongue.

hmmmm, routes or roads huh ?? guess that depends on which state.
what about the SRs that are both ??
(oh that's right, you're not American, are ya?)

it is not the State that is requiring seatbelts, it's the Fed.
it is not the State that is regulating seatbelts (at the factory), it's the Fed.
and on State Roadways, on private property and from a stance on "safety" that hasn't proven true.

even IF they are under the purview of the Fed and not private property, they are free to travel at will.
don't quite understand how you believe differently unless that's how it is across the pond.

I said it's "commercial use" that put the roads there in the first place, and its from there the government's authority rises.

and this is where we disagree.
with the simple question ... which came first, the government or roads ?
the answer is ALWAYS roads for personal travel long before commercialism played any part in the upgrades.

government authority doesn't "arise" out of any such inanimate object or project.
American government authority is granted by the people, nothing else.

By yours! You "consent" to it when you engage in the regulated activity.

close but not quite unless you specify that regulated activity = commerce only.
driving is not the regulated activity ~~ commerce is.

i still don't see what you consider "opening barbs" ... care to be specific or is generalizing the best you can offer?

Originally posted by pendracon

Originally posted by Praetorius
Did SCOTUS *really* read that much power over the highway system into those six words? Wow.

It depends on which case, but ultimately, it seems so.

Here's a bit of trivia, not conclusively supportive, but illustrative... to what does highway/interstate distance signs measure? A: The named town's main branch of the post office. Sounds postal claus-ey to me.

to which i responded ...

well, considering the topic of this thread (which is not the mails), 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 ?

the primary point being, a non-licensed person performing a mail function cannot be punished for commercially operating without a license. (and this would include wearing a seatbelt)

since personal travel does not involve either the mails or commerce, neither license or seatbelt can be required as it is a direct infringement of an unalienable right.

what supporting facts ??
Interstate commerce is regulated by the Fed, not driving.
Interstate commerce is regulated by the Fed, not seatbelts
Interstate commerce is regulated by the Fed, not behavior
Licensing is directed to activities of commerce and to generate revenue, not driving or safety or to measure ability. what more do you need ?

ETA: does this help ? www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...

The forgotten legal maxim is that free people have a right to travel on the roads which are provided by their servants for that purpose, using ordinary transportation of the day. Licensing cannot be required of free people

reply to post by pendracon
because you brought it up AND referenced the BoR to make your point ...

I "know" that most "prescRiptive" laws (which are most of them), are directed at government itself, while most "proscriptive" laws are directed at the citizenry.

i'm curious, which Constitutional Articles or Amendments (BoR) would you consider "proscriptive" if any ??

and when the citizenry encounters a proscriptive law/regulation that is in conflict with the prescribed rules of the governing body, what generally happens ??
feel free to use prohibition as an example.

Originally posted by ronnieray123
Do you really believe the government cares if someone dies in a car crash? The same government that sends people off by the thousands to die in so many foreign countries care so much that they move heaven and earth to force laws on people to save a couple hundred lives at best.

As far as losing "stock" and productivity is concerned, I guess they would care in that way.

As for sending people off to their wars, well IMO, it is to please their gods. The USA and the Nazis in WWII both used the same god of war Horus to represent themselves (the eagle). It's a bit ironic they refer to the war dead as "sacrifices".