LIve Free or Die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Sigh.....

---

Your point if you have one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I think the burden of proof is on you there. Do let us know whether you call the police should, for instance, your car be stolen.

---

The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

I think you guys in the the States should seriously look at how your country is run if multiple outlets are allowed to make laws which are then over ridden by age old statements which sound outdated and unrealistic. That aside it still doesn't explain the asinine logic that not wearing a seat belt is safer than wearing one. Do you seriously believe that Bob or are you just pulling our legs?

---

Did I ever say otherwise, even with my fortune of being alive for not wearing one.

The debate is about being forced to wear one and that only.
If one wants to play the odds, the U.S. was born of one's right to do so.

You are confusing two differnt items.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Your point if you have one?

---

I would have thought that the point was self evident. That the States have the right to enact any speed or seatbelt laws they feel the need to. Since road laws are not enumerated powers granted to the Federal Government, they are reserved to the States. Therefore a State law forcing you to wear a seatbelt is in no way un-Constitutional.

And another point you have wrong, is that there are actually NO Federal seatbelt, drunk driving, or speed limit laws. The feds recommend things, tie money to it, and leave it up to the States to decide. Sure it may be extortion, but there is a choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

I would have thought that the point was self evident. That the States have the right to enact any speed or seatbelt laws they feel the need to. Since road laws are not enumerated powers granted to the Federal Government, they are reserved to the States. Therefore a State law forcing you to wear a seatbelt is in no way un-Constitutional.

And another point you have wrong, is that there are actually NO Federal seatbelt, drunk driving, or speed limit laws. BZZZZZ---"Speed limits in the United States are set by each state or territory."--- Ditto for drunk driving and seat-belt.-- The feds recommend things, tie money to it, and leave it up to the States to decide. Sure it may be extortion, but there is a choice.

---

AHHH, grasshopper, so extortion is legal in your world. Very interesting.

States may not remove basic "rights", I mean you say these are NATURAL, as proven by the defeat of helment laws, which were passed for the same reasons as seat-belt laws.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too, with your sudden cry of States having infinite power to pass laws to protect one from one's self, Constitutional rights be damned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

BZZZZZ---"Speed limits in the United States are set by each state or territory."--- Ditto for drunk driving and seat-belt.

---

That is what I said. You do realize the difference between State and Federal Laws don't you? Speed limits, drunk driving, and seat belt laws are all STATE laws. Your original post which I was referencing stated that these laws were Federal law, which they are not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

AHHH, grasshopper, so extortion is legal in your world. Very interesting.

---

Where did I say it was legal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

States may not remove basic "rights", I mean you say these are NATURAL, as proven by the defeat of helment laws, which were passed for the same reasons as seat-belt laws.

---

It's part of the "social contract". We all agree to give up minor portions of our basic rights to live in a society. It's only when these minor portions begin to increase is there cause for alarm. Seatbelt laws don't rise beyond minor inconvieniences in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too, with your sudden cry of States having infinite power to pass laws to protect one from one's self, Constitutional rights be damned.

---

Where did I say anything that could possibly be seen as a "sudden cry of States having infinite power"? The exact oposite is the case. You are claiming the Federal Government, under the Constitution, has jurisdiction over everything. That is simply not the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

That is what I said. You do realize the difference between State and Federal Laws don't you? Speed limits, drunk driving, and seat belt laws are all STATE laws. Your original post which I was referencing stated that these laws were Federal law, which they are not.--------------------- They are Federally mandated, for which punishment is doled out if disobyed. A Law-- well possibly not in the strictest legal sense-- though as I said earlier, to the Minn. Supreme court false words do not change a fact, so you may call it what you will, but for all practical purposes- it works as a law.



Where did I say it was legal? ------------ I said in your world and you said:
Sure it may be extortion, but there is a choice.


It's part of the "social contract". We all agree to give up minor portions of our basic rights to live in a society. It's only when these minor portions begin to increase is there cause for alarm. Seatbelt laws don't rise beyond minor inconvieniences in my opinion. -----------------Show me this social contract! Is it the same ones the blacks had with whites in the south?



Where did I say anything that could possibly be seen as a "sudden cry of States having infinite power"? The exact oposite is the case. You are claiming the Federal Government, under the Constitution, has jurisdiction over everything. That is simply not the case.

---

The Constitution is the final document [ignoring judges who ignore it] in whether any law is legal under the U.S. system of laws.
Which is why State's laws that the States Const., under the judges there in power are legal, when challengedl are challenged in the Supreme Court ,(i.e. Florida election challenge) which is SUPPOSED to, as the final determinant if need be, use the Constitution and its Amendments in determining its legality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Prove your statement before it make you look like another troling fool.

---

Why would you ask me to prove a statement which was clearly a personal opinion?

It's stuff like that which confirm my view that you genuinely don't understand the difference between fact and opinion, which would explain many of your posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

The Constitution is the final document [ignoring judges who ignore it] in whether any law is legal under the U.S. system of laws.
Which is why State's laws that the States Const., under the judges there in power are legal, when challengedl are challenged in the Supreme Court ,(i.e. Florida election challenge) which is SUPPOSED to, as the final determinant if need be, use the Constitution and its Amendments in determining its legality.

---

This is why I earlier told Rollo you have no concept of Federalism. You clearly demonstrate that here. The US Constitution has enumerated powers which are their sole powers. Anything that is not listed in the US Constitution is a power of the State, or the people. Please read and understand the 10th Amendment. The Supreme Court would do well to read and understand it as well.

Seatbelt laws are not among the enumerated powers granted the Federal Government by the US Constitution, nor are they prohibited by it to the States. Therefore the States may pass such laws as they see fit.

These are not hard concepts to understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

This is why I earlier told Rollo you have no concept of Federalism. You clearly demonstrate that here. The US Constitution has enumerated powers which are their sole powers. Anything that is not listed in the US Constitution is a power of the State, or the people. Please read and understand the 10th Amendment. The Supreme Court would do well to read and understand it as well.

Seatbelt laws are not among the enumerated powers granted the Federal Government by the US Constitution, nor are they prohibited by it to the States. Therefore the States may pass such laws as they see fit.

These are not hard concepts to understand.

---

What are you prattling on about?
What the Constitution says, and what is going on, are two different things, which I maybe wrongly assumed you knew do to your backing of Fed. extortion that exists when the Fed. Government threatens to cut off funding if a state does not follow the Fed. mandate.

You are correct about the Tenth Amendment, no one here has said otherwise, so what is your point as you know the Tenth Amendment, as used, destroys the concept of Federalism?