Is it not unconstitutional to enact laws to "protect us from ourselves?"?

Answer 1

Nope.

As long as the law is one designed for the benefit of the community, it is allowed. The only exception are laws which violation some specific guarantee or limits imposed by the constitution.

Answer 2

Yes, but they do it anyway because they are ``the government'' and they have the guns, badges, kangaroo-courts, and prisons.

It's called USURPATION and ENCROACHMENT--two words that most Americans probably don't know but define the government under which we live.

No one can say we weren't warned. By the Founding Father, no less;

``One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. .''

``If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.''

President Washington TRIED warning US but Americans (ESPECIALLY politicians) pay him no mind anymore which is why the country is so far off track and a mere caricature of what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

Answer 3

I would say yes, however, one needs to actually look at the Constitution to find out what it says. Thus, I will quote Article I of the US Constitution, specifically Section 8, which outlines the powers of Congress, which is supposed to be the only body which can initiate binding legislation upon us.
-------------------
to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
-------------------
Ok, nothing about protecting us there.
-------------------
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
-------------------
Or there
-------------------
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
-------------------
I don't think commerce includes seat belts
-------------------
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
-------------------
Citizenship and bankruptcy. Hmm...Bankruptcy might be included in protecting us from ourselves, but only indirectly.
-------------------
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
-------------------
Coining money...Note it doesn't say printing money, but that's another topic. Nothing about protecting us from ourselves there, either.
-------------------
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
-------------------
Okay, that protects us from counterfeiters, not ourselves.
-------------------
To establish post offices and post roads;
-------------------
No, nothing there. Hey, I-40 must be a HECK of a post road!
-------------------
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
-------------------
Okay, copyright law there...
-------------------
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
-------------------
Create courts lower than the Supreme Court. Nothing there either.
-------------------
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
-------------------
I'm not a pirate, so nothing there either.
-------------------
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
-------------------
Okay, declaring war. I guess if you are a dual citizen this might apply as self-protection :-)
-------------------
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
-------------------
I think our army has been funded longer than two years, but nom nothing there either.
-------------------
To provide and maintain a navy;
-------------------
Yay, the navy. It pays my bills!
-------------------
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
-------------------
Okay, they can make the UCMJ now...
-------------------
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
-------------------
....And the National Guard
-------------------
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
-------------------
..more National Guard
-------------------
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
-------------------
Okay, Congress can make the laws in Washington DC and on military bases....
-------------------
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
-------------------



Now, this is where it gets thorny... If Congress passes a law that tells you that you have to drive 55 or less, does that law fall under any of the above? I say no, but in Swift v. United States in 1905, the Supreme Court ruled that "the clause covered meatpackers; although their activity was geographically 'local,' they had an important effect on the "current of commerce" and thus could be regulated under the Commerce Clause." This was the beginning of the end. In case after case, the Supreme Court has used that case and the following as precedent to increasingly expand the scope of government, even allowing the idea that federal rape laws fall under the interstate commerce clause.

I inform, you decide.

Answer 4

Ever hear of a driver's license?