No, you cited a single sentence suggesting that the state doesn’t have the power to prohibit someone from committing suicide. How that implies a person’s right to kill innocent people when their car veers out of control because they hit a bump in the road and are now unconscious/in the back seat/embedded in the windshield/lying dead on an embankment 50 feet away you have yet to establish.
Meanwhile, I refer you to this ruling in which the Supreme Court of Iowa found seatbelt laws to be perfectly in accordance with that state’s constitution.
And this ruling in which the Supreme Court of Illinois found seatbelt laws to be perfectly in accordance with that state’s constitution.
And this ruling in which the Supreme Court found seatbelt laws to be perfectly in accordance with the US Constitution.
This. I see a lot of collision reports in my job, and I’ve seen numerous collisions where the person not belted in is killed, and those who were suffered minor injuries. There was not not too long ago, IIRC, where the intoxicated driver didn’t realize the intersection was a T-intersection and blew through the far side at a high rate of speed. The car hit an embankment and overturned. Three people not wearing belts were killed. The fourth was wearing a seat belt and wasn’t seriously injured.
Now that’s a post directed at what I said. To correct you, I didn’t post a cite regarding suicide, I posted a cite regarding the control of medical risk and self determination.
I would have thought you would have gone to the cases involving motorcycle helmets first since that would be the most relevant argument against what I posted. In cases involving helmet use Federal courts have backed state laws under the premise of(for want of a legal term) the better good. It’s a perfectly logical premise already set forth in the thread that it costs society money if people survive a crash without a seat belt. The Supreme court (to my knowledge) has never entertained a challenge to the Federal rulings choosing to dismiss them without comment. This is in direct conflict with the decision they themselves brought forth that, regardless of the extra cost, an individual has the right of self determination.
Ultimate there will be a challenge (similar to seat belts) that will test this decision. They may indeed decide that there is a balance between rights of self determination and social costs. But as it stands now there are none and this brings me to my original point. Absent any legal formula, there is no limit to the scope in which a government can limit personal risk. In a way, such a legal construct would mirror eminent domain laws. There is a legal mechanism for a state that allows the forcible purchase of private property. The Supreme Court managed to FUBAR eminent domain laws but that’s another discussion.
Does this argument make sense to you now? Absent a legal ruling regarding what is “the better good” and how this is balanced against the Supreme Court-established right of self determination exists a legal limbo of “anything goes” in regards to serving society as a whole.
Be that as it may, that’s not an argument about what the Constitution says, but about what you think it ought to say.
Does the Constitution allow for the government to use eminent domain to benefit a corporation? Yes. Does the Constitution allow a municipality to ban large servings of soda? Yes. Do I agree with those decisions? No, but I acknowledge that the legal grounds on which they were made are sound, and if one wanted to see them done away with, the correct approach would be through the ballot box, not the courts.
I’ll go ahead and admit that I’m a seat belt Nazi. If you’re in my car, the car doesn’t move until you’ve fastened the belt. Don’t like it, fuckin’ walk; I refuse to be responsible for your injury or death.
Well that’s just common sense. But there are many things people do that have risk and right now there is no legal formula for state intervention regarding control of those personal choices.
The Constitution allows for great latitude in personal freedoms and I cited a Supreme Court ruling discussing it as it pertains to risk. So no, states don’t have those rights not spelled out in niggling detail in the Constitution. They are presumed rights. In this case, they are in conflict with previously argued cases.
The constitution does not, and cannot spell out every little law. It is the foundation from which all laws are written and argued in dispute.
I kicked out a friend from my car once because he didn’t want to wear his seatbelt because he thinks they “feel weird”. :rolleyes: He’s since changed his mind on the issue. It’s almost like, "No thanks, roller coaster attendant, I don’t LIKE to use the headlock even though there’s loops. "
Once I was in a head-on collision (came around curve and a car was REVERSING towards me at about 25 MPH. So still a head-on.) I hit the airbag pretty hard with the seatbelt on. Cops told me I probably would’ve had massive head, neck and spine injuries without the seatbelt.
If you’re not wearing a seat belt, you’re an idiot and should just stick to skateboards. If you’re in a car, you’re in a belt, period.