seat belt laws are unconstitutional...?

Question

State mandatory seatbelt harness laws are unconstitutional. They infringe on a person’s individual rights as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, Such laws are an unwarranted intrusion by government into the personal lives of citizens; denies through prior restraint the right to determine a person’s own individual personal safety and health care standards for one’s own body, the ultimate private property, and forcefully, under threat, mandates the personal opinion of those in government.
freedom of religion- some believe to stop god's will in your time of death is a sin.
freedom of expression- live life how you see fit.
William J. Holdorf

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

why do people insist on arguing that it is safer? this is not about safe... its about the little things the government takes that add up after a while.... it's not an airplane... it s a car... a motor cycle rider doesn't have to wear a seat belt... so whats the difference...

this is simple the insurance company doesn't want to pay for the injuries... but seat belts hurt people!

Answer 1

I totally agree, Americans should have the right to splatter themselves all over the interior of their car.

Its called 'natural selection' and it strengthens the species by ridding the 'gene pool' of those too stupid to survive

Answer 2

The constitution only places limits on the federal gov't (although the 14th amendment has been read to apply the bill of rights to the states). The IX amendment was meant to suggest that anything not addressed by the constitution and not within the purview of the federal gov't is to be controlled by the states. Now if the state was going to limit your freedom of speech, the constitution would apply because the 1st amendment (read through the 14th amendment) would prevent the state from acting. But there is no seat belt amendment in the bill of rights, so the state can go ahead and pass a law in that area.
Besides, it's best to buckle up anyways .....if you don't believe me, ask any EMC or paramedic if they buckle up - they do, because they've seen too many heads through windshields.

Answer 3

You are really talking about two different issues here: (1) are seat belt laws constitutional; and (2) are seat belt laws beneficial? The answer to both questions is yes.

With respect to the constitutionality of state seat belt laws, the topic of your post, you need to take a look at the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

There is no right to drive granted by the Constitution. Driving is a privilege regulated by the state, not a right granted under the U.S. Constitution. Seat belt laws are a perfectly legitimate use of state regulatory powers granted under the Constitution.

You do not prove any support for the rest of your arguments and they are easily disposed of.

Setting aside the public burden of spiraling health costs and public policy of preventing unnecessary, there is one major benefit of seat belts that receives little publc attention: seat belts PREVENT accidents.

You've see seatbelts and harnesses in jet fighters and tractors. A seat belt isn't going to protect an F-15 pilot in the case of a crash, so what purpose does it serve? To keep the operator in his/her seat and in control in emergency situations.

What is your first reaction when you come to an unexpected stop? You put your arm out to prevent your soda and other junk from flying forward. In emergency manuevering situations, a seat belt can keep you planted in your seat and in control of the vehicle instead of slide around the passenger compartment. That reason alone is enough to justify seat belt laws.

Seat belt laws are a minor instrusion into a privilege (not a right) granted by the state.

Answer 4

I'm sorry buddy... rights of americans are being violated in ways that are actually significant... maybe you should get your priorities straight. If you really think you're right about this, get a fine, appeal it in court, and keep appealing until you get to the supreme court, and see what they say.

re: freedom of religion: if god wanted to take you, could a seat belt really stop him?

re: freedom of expression: not wearing a seat belt is not an "expression" in the intended meaning of the word

re Amendment IX: there is no law anywhere saying you have a "right" to not wear a seatbelt, such a "right" is nonexistent. Besides, no right "enumerat[ed] in the constitution" is "deny[ing] or disparaging" against such a right. Amendment IX was included to ensure the other rights couldn't be read to reduce freedoms.

Answer 5

Here is the problem with your arguement, the law is not keeping you anywhere, nor is it infringing on your right to drive the way you want. It is simply saying if you do so then you will be fined. Also the law has exceptions to it. There was a case of a man who was 500 lbs. He got a doctor to state that a seat belt would hurt him. I mean where will it stop, next youll say we should not have laws about cell phones in cars, then it is placing kids in car seats, before you know it we are in a lawless world spinning out of control, well at least more then we are now.

Answer 6

I don't see in your lengthy diatribe where you have actually asked a question.Your concern is that you object to a legal requirement to wear a seat belt because you feel it is a violation of your rights. The fact is seat belts on vehicles have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.One would have to be rather stupid not to take advantage of a simple easy to use device that could prevent them from sustaining serious injury or worse based on some misguided interpretation of the Bill of Rights.

Answer 7

I think that it is pure stupidity that our government makes us wear seat belts in a car , but you can ride a motorcycle without a helmet . Sure , I say make minors wear seat-belts , but an adult should be able to make up their own mind whether or not they want to wear one .

Answer 8

Driving is not a right protected under the Constitution even under the theory of right to travel, Driving is a privilege thus can be regulated as such

Answer 9

The ability to leagl operate a motor vehicle is a privilege not a right. No one has the right to drive a car. Governments allow you to do so and they can place whatever regulations they want on that privilege.

Answer 10

Yea, that argument can get you out of ticket in a courtroom if you are the only occupant in the car.