You do know that the only federal seat belt law is a law requiring vehicles to be outfitted with them. All laws reagrding the wearing of seat belts and motrcyucles helmets *are* state laws. So once again, Ron Paul's statement was stupid by the fact that the feds don't require people to wear seatbelts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation_in_the_United_States

A federal law requiring all cars to have seatbelts (and thus increase the cost to produce the car) is unconstitutional.

1. im drunk so im sorry if my reading skills are even worse than normal, but i think i got what you were saying but i just disagree that seatbelts kill a significant number of people other than the person not wearing them
2. I find the situation you posted unlikely, an who the hell is living at the bottom of a steep embankment, what are we, living in West Virginia?

@kanosha - That falls under the interstate commerce clause so it is *not* constitutional. Carfs are manufactured within the states and sold across state lines or imported from outside. All of which is interstate commerce and clearly within the constitutional rights of the fedceral government. Epic fail, dude.

* not *unconstitutional* I meant.

kanosha: agreed. Unfortunately, as you are no doubt aware, it's pretty difficult to amend.

That being said, to my knowledge most of the 'unconstitutional' acts by the federal government are achieved by providing tax breaks to those who comply and/or tax penalties to those who don't (again, correct if wrong I am by no means an expert or even well informed on this). States are free, by and large, to reject these federal mandates *if they are willing to pay the price* , yes?

Fair? Perhaps not. Unconstitutional? I don't really see it that way.

@Santa - Your driunk so you aren't thinking about the kids in the back of the schoiolbus that the driver who just fell on the floor is about to dsend over the cliff.

It's not about how many. If even one innocent person loses their life, then the state (not the feds, but the individual states) have a right to protect that life by enacting a law.

Good Lord my typing sucks tonight. And I'm not drunk like Santa.

haha interesting convo but I too have been drinking, so lest you think I'm growing soft I'll just remind you all that I would gladly torch a schoolbus full of children, and then stumble off to bed.

People shouldn't be allowed to eat bananas because the O'Doyles car slipped on a banana and sent the whole family over a cliff.

LOL! Note to self: Never have serious discussions with YJ and Santa on Friday nights... :-)

You can't use the interstate commerce clause to cover anything you want to be a federal law. The commerce clause was written so states wouldn't make laws making it prohibitive from buying something made in another state. The commerce clause actually states that it regulates commerce among the states, in other words it was written to settle state vs. state dispute. epic rebuttal, dude. :)

And if you bring up the necessary and proper clause, I'm going to bed.

Actually, that would be the "people aren't allowed to litter and leave banana peels on the road" law. And we have those... :-P

Mr. O'Doyle was not wearing a seatbely Draugnar may have a point

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GxJX3yn1DY&feature=related

YJ, I don't think the tax break/penalty is necessarily true. There's no basis for the dept of education for example and there isn't really a tax break/penalty associated, unless you want to bring in unfunded mandates by the dept of education.

Good rebuttal, but the courts have upheld that it applies to any interstate commerce. So the only way a state could get away with sunbbing their nose would be to say "This car was manufactured and sold in this state" but the manufacturers aren't gonna go making multiple versions of the cars just so some could be "cheaper" especially as it would be more expensive to set up the assmebly lines to *not* put in the seatelts and run two sets of lines and keep track of which cars could go to what states. They already have to do that for California emission laws. Adding in lines for each facility in each state just for the cars that are sold in that state would be cost prohibitive.

Again, I'm not saying the dept of education is bad or wrong or should be eliminated, just that there is no basis for it in the constitution and thus the 10th amendment comes into effect and it should be left to the states.

Amazing the cult status given to a poorly written document written in the slave age, a document the founders didnt pay nearly that much attention to.

Kanosha... tbh if your claim is that public schools are unconstitutional, i say fuck the constitution. Night folks :)

YJ, public schools aren't unconstitutional because they are managed by the states

Every oppression hides behind constitionalism.

Putin, I would love to see some facts to support your claim that the founders didn't pay that much attention to the constitution

Jim crow was constitutional but seatbelts arent. What kind of guideline for legal reasoning is this?

It's not cult status, it is the sole basis for the laws that govern this country. I would say that gives it some pretty lofty status. I think the constitution should be amended on a regular basis to change with the changing times.

Kan- Read the debates. They paid alot of attention to it, but debates were cut shirt by political considerations, personal considerations, and because it was fucking hot.

I believe Jim Crow laws were state laws

Alien and sedition acts. Seditious libel prosecutions. The trial of aaron burr. The national bank. Etc