Article I Section 8 of the federal constitution says, “The Congress shall have Power to . . . provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States.”
(The full sentence 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;”)
Seatbelt laws are state laws. What’s the “constitutional basis” for states not having that power?
All states have a constitution and those constitutions can’t be in contradiction with Federal law. Seat belt laws are at odds with the fundamental right to go about your business without express government intrusion. This is why we have so many codified laws expressing such freedoms.
Where is the need for such government intrusions and on what basis are they regulated?
By that logic, being penalized for not using turn signals is unconstitutional. I just want to go about my business…how dare the government make me flick my wrist?
Magiver, I sincerely hope you aren’t a lawyer or logician because that is really, really bad argumentation.
turn signals are used to properly operate the vehicle. Seat belts serve no such function.
In the event of collision or other major disturbance, restraints keep the driver in a position in which they can maintain control of the vehicle. To safely operate the vehicle.
generally when you disagree with someone you state your reasons.
It’s not the government’s job to mitigate personal behavioral risk. There is no criteria for such an arrangement which means there are no limits to such an arrangement. I gave an example of what happens if it’s not challenged. The Mayor of New York is currently trying to limit the size of fizzy drinks. There are literally no limits to this type of intrusion.
You may not feel it is the government’s “job” to mitigate personal behavioral risk. But that’s an opinion. It’s not a constitutional fact. The United States constitution defers all rights to the States that are not explicitly reserved by the federal government. Seat-belt laws are constitutional because of the fact that the States have the power to regulate such things, because the federal government does not have the power to regulate such things.
Your argument relies entirely on your own opinion of what the government should or shouldn’t do, and not on constitutional understanding.
And again, it is within a state government’s rights to regulate the size of fizzy drinks because there is no constitutional protection regarding the size of fizzy drinks, and the federal government does not have authority in that area as defined in the constitution so these matters are left up to the states.
I highly recommend that you brush up on your understanding of Federalism and US government. You are operating under a lot of bad ideas.
If you look at the US Constitution it’s designed around a foundation of freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly etc… We have, without specific warrant, the right of self determination. We are allowed to engage in activity that carries risk. This has been demonstrated in the freedom to withhold medical treatment that may extend life.
Where in the Constitution is there a “right to go about your business without express government intrusion” established? Please cite the specific clause and/or any relevant Supreme Court findings on this subject which trump the states’ right to regulate automotive safety under the Tenth Amendment.
Seat belt USE laws are not the same as automobile safety laws.
Self determination is implicit and I cited an application where it’s been determined.
Here it is in case form: In Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health,673 the Court, rather than directly addressing the issue, “assume[d]” that a competent person has a constitutionally protected right to refuse life-saving hydration and nutrition.674 More importantly, however, a majority of the Justices separately declared that such a liberty interest exists.675
And where does the Constitution prohibit seatbelt use laws?
Your premise is false. There is no such fundamental right in the Constitution. There are restrictions, but they are not based on being able to avoid government intrusion. Most of them are based on keeping tyranny away, the rest, on justice.
And, no, tyranny and intrusion are not the same thing. Tyranny in this case refers to keeping yourself in power against the express wishes of the people.
You are confusing libertarian ideals with what the Constitution says.
I have this case in my cannon of notes;
See my post 95.
A basic tenet of constitutional law is, simply because it is not mentioned in the constitution, does not render it void on it’s face.
do you agree that you have basic rights not specifically spelled out in the constitution?
Do you agree that we have the right to determine our health care given the court cases involving self determination?
right next to the amendment that mandates risk mitigation.
What about Article I Section 8?
You keep trying to ignore the Tenth Amendment and play like seatbelt laws are a federal issue.
They are not.
The federal government does not mandate the use of seatbelts. Since it has not prohibited regulations regarding seatbelts, it delegates that power to the states - all fifty of which have chosen to engage that authority to regulate it.
In order to claim that seatbelt laws are unconstitutional, you must demonstrate that the US Constitution specifically forbids the states to pass laws regarding highway safety. At the rate you’re going, you’d be laughed out of the Supreme Court in about ten seconds.