Police buckle down on seat belt scofflaws (Illinois)

St. Louis Post-Dispatch vai stltoday.com ^ | May 23, 2005 | Georgina Gustin

[tahiti]

On Monday, the Illinois State Police and Illinois Department of Transportation announced the start of their largest-ever enforcement campaign, which will target unrestrained motorists in more than 3,000 "enforcement zones" set up statewide.

[tahiti]

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, SHALL NOT be construed to DENY OR DISPARAGE others (rights) retained by the people.

Amendment XIV

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

But if you live in the Peoples Republic of Illinois, the constitution does not matter.

Remember, the people of Illinois elected Sen. Dick Durbin.

[Egon]

It's a big push in Minnesota right now, too. I think it's part of a coordinated, nation-wide campaign by the U.S. Department of Transportation, actually.

Sure am glad we can have all these laws to protect me from myself.

[ShadowDancer]

We have the same thing going on here in Michigan right now, too.

[an amused spectator]

Revenuer alert.

[eno_]

The only solution is to do personal takedown on the nazis that get on TV to propagandize these laws.

Run their families out of town, make shure their kids are the target of bullying in school, ruin their lives, by any means neccessary.

Yes, it is unfair, but so is using the Constitution as toilet paper.

[an amused spectator]

Yes, it is unfair, but so is using the Constitution as toilet paper.

I think the Founders treated many a British government revenooer to an "unfair" tarring & feathering... :-)

[Condor51]

With all due respect, the basic flaw in your premise is that driving is not a Constitutional Right, but a privilege and as such it can be regulated and controlled. Following your argument speed limits, and all traffic laws for that matter are unconstitutional.

And no offense, but it seems that all those who refuse to wear seat belts are the first ones to sue everyone under the sun when they're in an auto accident and get injured when they get thrown from the car, hit the windshield or are otherwise injured when a seat belt would have prevented it.

[biblewonk]

I never wear seatbelts in town, but it looks like I do.

[buffyt]

I prefer to wear my seatbelt and force my kids to do same, but I DO NOT LIKE THE GOV. TELLING US WE HAVE TO! Motorcycles are still allowed on the roads without any safety features.

[tubebender]

This is a national campaign going on in every state. California has a high compliance rate (over 90%) but the death rate in the remaining 10% is high.

[Redbob]

"We're from the government, and we're here to help you..."

[MamaTexan]

"What we hope to get is full voluntary compliance," said Matt Vanover of the Department of Transportation.

Got to love bureaucratic double speak~

_______________________________________________

vol·un·tar·y (vln-tr) adj.
1. Done or undertaken of one's own free will: a voluntary decision to leave the job.
2. Acting or done willingly and without constraint or expectation of reward: a voluntary hostage; voluntary community work.
3. Normally controlled by or subject to individual volition: voluntary muscle contractions.
4. Capable of making choices; having the faculty of will.

_______________________________________________

com·pli·ance (km-plns) n.
1. a. The act of complying with a wish, request, or demand; acquiescence.
b. (Medicine) Willingness to follow a prescribed course of treatment.
2. A disposition or tendency to yield to the will of others.

_______________________________________________

Just for giggles & grins, how about the current LEGAL definition of *crime*:

(from nolo.com) crime
A type of behavior that is has been defined by the state, as deserving of punishment which usually includes imprisonment. Crimes and their punishments are defined by Congress and state legislatures.

_______________________________________________

Would someone PLEASE tell me WHEN our Republic gained the authority to tell the people how we can and/or cannot 'behave'?

----------------------------------------------

"No one wants to write out tickets."

Well of COURSE you don't!

(wink, wink...nudge, nudge)

[billbears]

it's part of a coordinated, nation-wide campaign by the U.S. Department of Transportation, actually

Hmmmmm, now which DOT Secretary was it that practically forced the states to implement seat belts. Who was it.....wait a minute, it's on the tip of my tongue. Surely it had to be a Democrat because we know Republicans do no wrong. Hmmmmm.....

Dole’s failure to inform the U. S. Supreme Court of the safety risks of airbags coupled with creating a pro-airbag atmosphere with her public statements and incentives for manufacturers to make airbags, ultimately resulted in Federal mandates for both seatbelts and airbags. Not that that bothers Elizabeth Dole; indeed, statements by Dole and her supporters since her departure from DOT appear to claim credit for the eventual passage of airbag mandates:

"So we changed the climate for automotive safety in America by fighting for the ultimate protection: the use of both seat belts and air bags in cars."

Dole speech to the Kennedy School of Government,6/3/98

"Elizabeth Dole led efforts to make airbags and automatic seatbelts mandatory in new passenger cars."

Bio of Elizabeth Dole on the National Safety Council web site: www.nsc.org, Oct 12, l999

And mandatory airbags to boot!! BTW, this is the person we just had to elect to 'win back the Senate'.

here

[MamaTexan]

With all due respect, the basic flaw in your premise is that driving is not a Constitutional Right, but a privilege

Driving is neither a privilege nor a Constitutional right...

It is my natural, inalienable right to take my private property (car) where I choose and in any manner I choose down any public thoroughfare (road) since roads are public property and I AM a member of the 'public'.

Any attempt to deny or impede this right to travel is ILLEGAL since it is a *deprivation of rights under color of law* US Code Title 18, section 242.

Tickets for speeding, lack of seat belts, etc are nothing more than for generating revenue for the state in the guise of 'public safety'

Without the benefit of a jury trial, tickets are nothing more that *bills of attainer* which are prohibited by the Constitution:

(vote-smart.org)
Bill of Attainer -
A legislative act that declares the guilt of an individual and doles out punishment without a judicial trial. The state legislatures and Congress are forbidden by Article 1, sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution to pass such acts. This is an important ingredient of the separation of powers.

[zoso82t]

It's ridiculous...here in Delaware I am forced by law to wear a seatbelt (not that I wouldn't otherwise), yet a person on a motorcycle doesn't have to wear a helmet.

[Wolfie]

The mistake was ours. We all thought we could get away with just have a little bit of a Nanny State.

[eno_]

With all due respect, the basic flaw in your premise is that driving is not a Constitutional Right, but a privilege and as such it can be regulated and controlled.

Is your right to breath mentioned anywhere in the Constitution? I'd like to regulate that priviledge with my bootheel. Submit, serf!

[joesnuffy]

No seat belts in school buses either.....

So the government fines you for not buckling up you kid....
and call you irresponsible?

But when they have them in their buses they arent?

[joesnuffy]

I thought about marketing a T shirt with a picture of a seat
belt accross it...you know..like those tuxedo t shirts..:)