And you obviously haven't realized that wearing a tin-foil hat will help screen out those annoying voices you're hearing.
Posted on 06/21/2002 3:29:57 AM PDT by from occupied ga
In colonial America, one of the sparks that lit the flame of liberty was the dreaded "Writs of Assistance," more commonly referred to as the king’s "general warrants." Such general warrants were a declaration issued by the Crown that allowed the king’s soldiers to search for smuggled goods in any suspected house or premises, day or night, without giving notice or warning.
In 1761, James Otis, a Boston, Massachusetts lawyer, who was advocate general of the Boston vice-admiralty court, was asked to defend the general warrants. Mr. Otis refused since he believed such warrants were a violation of a person’s liberty. He based his conviction on the political and social rights that are found in English common law. As a result of his conviction, he resigned his office rather than defend something he believed was wrong, a noble characteristic much needed in today’s legal profession.
Thereafter, he was hired by Boston merchants to challenge the legality of such warrants before the Superior Court of Massachusetts. It is noteworthy that he refused a fee offered him for his services, again, something rarely found in today’s legal profession.
It was reported that Mr. Otis spoke for four hours giving detailed evidence against the legality of the general warrants. However, the court eventually ruled against him, no doubt, more in sympathy with the king at that time. As a result, the citizens of Colonial America were constantly being harassed by the king’s soldiers using such general warrants merely on suspicion the law was being violated.
One of the first acts of the newly created nation after the successful War of Independence, our Founding Fathers, remembering the terror of such general warrants, passed the Fourth Amendment as part of the Bill of Rights added to the newly created Constitution, which reads:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Our Founding Fathers believed there is a certain sanctity to one’s person, the ultimate private property, as well as to one’s possessions, that shall not be violated by the government without probable cause, as directed in the due process clause of the Constitution.
Unfortunately, the majority of today’s politicians no longer believe in such a sacred ideal of liberty exhibited by James Otis and our Founding Fathers. Over the last several decades, it is shocking to realize that legislators have passed laws that clearly attack or undermine our individual personal rights in the Bill of Rights. And just as bad, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld such violations of our rights. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court in April 2001 ruled that it was legal for a police officer in Texas to arrest, handcuff and jail a woman for merely not using a seat belt, a victimless, state created crime that hurt no one. Our Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves!
Texas is one of the states that passed primary enforcement of its seat belt law, which allows the police to stop any motorists merely under suspicion that a seat belt is not being used. Primary enforcement is really not any different than the dreaded king’s general warrants for the motoring public, which our Founding Fathers thought they prevented by the passage of the Fourth Amendment.
It is shocking to realize we have come to such a low level of respect for individual personal rights that the majority of our present day legislators and even Supreme Court justices support the return of the king’s general warrants in the likes of primary seat belt law enforcement. What is to prevent the next step will be our houses; our persons, reminiscent of the Gestapo of Nazis Germany?
It is shocking how far afield we have come as a nation from the cry of Patrick Henry, Give me liberty or give me death," to "Click-it or ticket," the cry of politicians who arrogantly claim the right to violate the Bill of Rights in the name of doing "good." The fact is, taking away liberty in the name of doing good has been the easy road for dictators and tyrants for centuries. The fact is, if politicians who do not respect the Bill of Rights are not voted out of office soon, someday they will be doing so much "good" for us, we will no longer have any more rights to give up. Seat belt laws and, especially, primary enforcement, are clear major steps in that direction.
There certainly is nothing wrong with voluntary seat belt use; however, there is a great deal wrong with all state mandatory seat belt harness laws, and primary enforcement exacerbates that wrong even further.
June 21, 2002
William J. Holdorf [send him mail] writes from Chicago.
Copyright © 2002 by LewRockwell.com
Yes ... Yes ... it's all now clear to me ... I can see it now!
This is right on the level of the burning of the Reichstag ... with Kristallnacht ... with the Race Laws ...
It's a sign of the Apocalypse! We're all doomed! Oh, please save us Lew ...
Wait ... I hear their hobnail boots on my porch now ... it's too late for me ... save yourselves!
/sarcasm ... off
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.or you don't. Once you start making exceptions it will sooner or later go away. Exceptions for something as banal as not wearing seat belts are probably worse than glaring exceptions such as searching for nuclear bombs, because it shows just how little the Bill of Rights means to governments these days, and what trivial grounds are used to violate our rights.
No ... see, right there, you've fallen for the American Fascist Police State propaganda. The theme song for LewRockwell.com isn't "Michael Row the Boat Ashore" ...
.. it's "Kumbaya".
Get with the program, mister!
8')
Probably true, but irrelevant. The article was not about the use of seat belts which is a good idea, but about the primary enforcement of laws for their use
Boonie Rat
MACV SOCOM, PhuBai/Hue '65-'66
But the sensible public have to be protected against those who choose otherwise, hence to enforce the use of seatbelts by issuing citations helps prevent outrageous insurance premiums for others - same as stopping excessive speeders.
I hesitate to include the helment laws, for many times the claims are unfortunately of a terminal nature.
This 'frog' doesn't even realize that the heat is being turned up and the water is starting to boil.
In a free society, each person is responsible for his own actions and the consequences thereof. Only in a socialized world where no one is responsible for themselves and is responsible for everyone else, does this become a problem. Like ours is becoming. I voluntarily wore my seatbelt for years. Now that it is mandatory and a primary offence, I refuse to wear it. Screw 'em.
And you obviously haven't realized that wearing a tin-foil hat will help screen out those annoying voices you're hearing.
You have a truly warped view of the world.
, but you are such an easy target I can't resist. Let me explain some basics to you.
Oh and BTW picking on typos is another sign that you have nothing substantive to say.
Although my testicles are now the approximate size of California raisins and the skin on my chest burned away years ago, I'm FREE! FREE do you hear me!!?!?!
(/sarcasm off)
You have proposed a false dichotomy. Namely that the only alternative is seat belt laws. You could easily extract the extra costs by raising the insurance premiums for those in accidents who weren't wearing seatbelts.
This is the same sort of logic used by advocates of "sensible" gun control laws - "we want to protect the public"
Strange ... after I did that, my testicles have grown to the size of grapefruit (the Texas ones ... not the Florida ones) and the skin on my chest has developed into a texture not unlike that of a alligator's back.
What brand of monitor are you using?
8')
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.