LOL! Yeah, I'm sure you could get regular amendments and ratifications! Let's be realistic here. That just isn't going to happen. Idealism is for the young and the foolish.

Right so because the states did it the constituion was fine with it.

I've read some Santa, and I don't doubt what you are saying, but to say they didn't pay that much attention to the constitution is a pretty ridiculous statement

Draug, I'm neither young or foolish. It was amended about 15 years ago. It is amended on a fairly regular basis (once every 20-30 years)

@Putin - Did not the Warren Court declare them *uncostitutional* in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka as violating the 14th amendment Equal Protection Clause because seperate facilities were "inhernetly unequal"?

Every one of Rick Perry's ideas he floated last night was a Constitutional amendment.

"I've read some Santa, and I don't doubt what you are saying, but to say they didn't pay that much attention to the constitution is a pretty ridiculous statement "

Many of them did not. Some did, Madison most famously. But many others expected the most work to be done with a Bill of Rights (far more than 10) and saw the constitution as small fry

Rick Perry is an idiot.

Putin, I'm not sure what the Burr trial has to do with the constitution. I thought it had more to do with a president trying to push the supreme court around, but I haven't read up on it in awhile.

Um, no it wasn't that last Amendmen t was in 1971. A 1789 amendment was finally ratified and encated in 1992 (alomst 20 years ago), but there hasn't been any actual new amendments since July 1, 1971, more than 40 years ago. And the 1992 was a simple thing of Congressional Salary changes and when they could take effect.

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

referring to the constitution discussed in philly of course

That took 80 years to do. Meanwhile the courts struck down the civil rights act of 1875.

This is the interview in question, for those who haven't seen it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMUZIVYuluc

So... because Rep. Paul doesn't want to make a Federal crime out of not doing something that anybody with half a brain is going to do anyway, he's an idiot?

@Rufus - First, he said he would do away with them as they are "unconstitutional"... The only federal ones are for manufacturers requirements which are covered under the interstate commerce clause so that some states couldn't say they had to be equiped with 5 and others with three and make a nightmare for the manufacturuers. This is actually what the ICC is all about. So that makes him an idiot on point one. Speaking to wearing seatbelts, those are state laws so if he intended to do away with state laws, he is actually intending to violate the constitution and that makes him an idiot on point 2.

Draug, I think you need to watch the interview again. Dr. Paul never discussed the constitutionality of seatbelt laws, just that he opposed them on principle. Here's what was actually said (8:45 in the link I posted):

"Would you be against seatbelt laws?"

"Yeah, sure. I'm in favor of seatbelts, but against seatbelt laws. It's a wise thing to do that, and it's a wise thing not to use drugs, too. I mean, I have kids and grandkids, and I think it's terrible to use these drugs, but I want people to make their own minds up...."

This was a philosophical question, not a legal one as you are making it out to be.

I like how 95% of people who say "Ron Paul is an idiot on x" turn out to completely misunderstand what's actually being said and misrepresent him in an idiotic fashion

This statement right here:

"So by that statement, I should be allowed to strap a shit load of C4 to myself, walk into a daycare full of kids, and blow it the fuck up. There should be no law against it."

Should have said all anyone needed to know about Mr. Draugnar's understanding of Ron Paul's political and philosophical worldview.

In a common law system, which we're supposed to have -- but we don't -- one cannot be charged with crime -- such as driving without a seat belt -- without the existence of a damaged party. Who is damaged by someone not wearing a seat belt? To say that someone COULD be damaged isn't enough, or shouldn't be enough. One can tell there was a major shift in the American Legal System -- i.e., a merger of criminal and equity -- when the vast majority for "crimes" have victim, no damaged party. The State has abrogated the individual's right of claim. Why is that?!?

"Who is damaged by someone not wearing a seat belt?"

Everyone whose insurance costs are raised because someone was a self-indulgent brat who couldn't be bothered to do something that takes 2 seconds.

"I like how 95% of people who say "Ron Paul is an idiot on x" turn out to completely misunderstand what's actually being said and misrepresent him in an idiotic fashion"

I like how 95% of the people who support Ron Paul don't know that he has the economic literacy of a 3rd grader and the social views of Francisco Franco.

"I'm for seatbelts but against seatbelt laws". - Ron Paul

"This was a philosophical question, not a legal one" - Tolstoy of WebDip fame

LOL! Two morons, no waiting! He said he is against seatbelt laws. That is a legal answer if ever there was one.

Really, the Austrian school of economics are the ideas of 3rd graders? Paul makes a lot of sense on most of these issues. To address the main point, you are using a very extreme example to explain why seat belt laws are good for other parties besides the individual. The second amendment protects my right to bear arms. There is the chance of a gun going off accidentally and causing bodily harm to someone else (i.e. Plaxico Burress, though he shot himself, it proves the point). I believe that my example of any person carrying a gun and it going off is more likely than someone driving a 1970 car with a bench and making a sharp turn and crashing into a school bus of children.

I doubt I'd vote for Paul if he became the nominee, but to pretend he or Newt Gingrich are not the two most intelligent men on the stage is absurd. The only one besides the two of them I would say has seemed somewhat intelligent is Huntsman. Romney gives off the aura of an intelligent guy, but I don't believe he has conviction in anything.

@Draug
On the issue of drugs he said he thinks states have the right to regulate that. The seat belt laws are the same way. He doesn't think the states should mandate seat belts be worn, but he thinks they should have the right. He philosophically opposes it, but legally he would not do anything other than keep the laws they are now in regards to seat belts

Yes, a 3rd grader would have a better chance of getting an economic paper published in a reputable economic journal than the Austrians, and a much better chance of making any kind of correct economic prognostication.

Whatever happened to these horror stories of inflation from expanding the monetary base?

Why has no Keynesian-run economy ever experienced depression, yet the US experienced 8 major economic crises on the commodity-currency? Instead we experienced long periods of increased economic activity.

Austrians are clueless, they don't understand the basic idea that the amount of money in the system has to be on par with the amount of economic activity. In order for gold to work it'd have to be massively devalued, otherwise we'd have large-scale (depression-scale) unemployment. Money supply does not adjust like a regular market. Economic activity would adjust to the amount of money in a commodity-based system, which it did before, whereas now we adjust money supply to reflect economic activity.

Austrianism has no credibility at all. None.

"Everyone whose insurance costs are raised because someone was a self-indulgent brat who couldn't be bothered to do something that takes 2 seconds."

@Putin,

Limited liability insurance is a contractual agreement by which an individual goes into a collective for financial protection. Despite what you claim, they are not "damaged" because they have voluntarily entered into the insurance agreement. Further, if what you're saying were true -- which it is not -- why wouldn't that collective be the plaintiff in a traffic case be that very collective that you're claiming is the damaged party?

Who is bringing the criminal complaint against the person ticketed for driving without a seatbelt? Is there a charging instrument?

@MichMan - Then we shouldn't give speeding tickets either. Who is the damaged party by the individual driving 120 MPH down the highway unless they hit someone? That is a stupid argument. Civil law is about damaged parties, not criminal law. Who is the damaged party when the time runs out on the meter on a *public* street? Most moving and non-moving vehicle violations have no damaged party. They are preventative (or in the case of parking meters, questionable in enforcement as the public paid for the street, not the police).

@Draugnar,

So you're saying Constitutionally mandated Criminal Procedure is "stupid"?!? You're wrong, criminal law is about damaged parties as well. I mentioned before a merger between criminal and equity that occurred in the 1930's.

Let's say, for the sake of illustrating this point, that you and meet and play a face-to-face Diplomacy game, you get mad at me because I stabbed and you punch me in the head. We're playing at a coffee shop, and the owner calls the cops. When they arrive, they take our statements, but we have since made our peace, and I tell the cops that I am not interested in "pressing charges".

In the traditional common law jurisdiction, the matter would end right there -- the damaged party is refusing to press charges. However, today, the police could still arrest, charge, and prosecute you for assault regardless of whether or not I pressed charges. It would be State of X, or City of X vs. Draugner. Why is that?!? Is the State or the City damaged by you actions? Was this the same way that things worked in 1900? The State has abrogated the right of claim of the people, and traffic laws are the most common example of where this plays out. Something happened, do you know what it was?

So, what you are saying, MM, is that all vehicle law is constitutionally unenforcable unless someone is harmed. So it's unconstitutional to even require a driver's license or insurance. Not having a license doesn't harm anyone. Not having insurance doesn't harm any one unless you have an accident, therefore that should only be enforcable in the case of an accident. Speed limits? Unconstitutional. Handicap spots? Unless a handicap person is actively at that moment prevented from getting a close in space, unenforcable.

I'm no expert (just a computer geek), but it would seem that your interpretation, if taken by the courts, would result in anybody doing anything they wanted anytime until someone got hurt. Somehow, that seems wrong. Oh wait! It is! The US Constitution limits the Federal Government, not states. States have every right to make whatever laws they deem acceptable provided they don't violate a protection granetd by the US Constitution. The feds may not be able to set a speed limit, but nothing in the Constitution prohibits a state form doing it. Most criminal law is at the state level, not the federal level, so as long as the presumption of innocence applies int he courtroom and the punishment doesn't violate the Constitution, each state is free to enact whatever laws it desires.

You realize that every State has a Constitution as well, and that they mirror the US Constitution, right? Within those State Constitutions, they lay out the procedures that are supposed to be followed by the courts, but traffic courts do not follow them. Why?

I think you misunderstood Paul.

He meant that seat belt laws should be up to the states, not the feds.