Replies

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.

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.

"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."

U.S. Supreme Court EDWARDS v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 (1941)

"the right of free movement is a right of national citizenship stands on firm historical ground. If a state tax on that movement, as in the Crandall case, is invalid, a fortiori a state statute which obstructs or in substance prevents that movement must fall."

"It might thus withhold from large segments of our people that mobility which is basic to any guarantee of freedom of opportunity. The result would be a substantial dilution of the rights of national citizenship, a serious impairment of the principles of equality. Since the state statute here challenged involves such consequences, it runs afoul of the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Now a "right" can be regulated when the exertion of right by one person will infringe on the right of another person.

That is why speed limit and traffic control laws are constitutional.

But no one else's right is impugned, denied, disparaged, or diminished if one citizen wishes to wear a seat belt or not while exerciseing their right to travel and movement in their automobile.

If the citizens wish to pay for the medical benefits of injured citizens not wearing a seat belt, then that is poor public policy and it is not resolved by denying and disparaging rights "retained by the people."