NEW FLA LAW EFFECTIVE JUNE 30TH

[Shadow]

Originally Posted by Rich Z

Now, that is an interesting statement right there....

Just how did the government swindle us into accepting that fallacy as a fact?

The roads are built and maintained with public funds taken from the public as taxes and fees. They are considered as PUBLIC roadways. Being's as the only true utility of such PUBLIC roadways is via driving vehicles upon them, then why do we not have the RIGHT to use that for which we have paid for?

Yeah, I'm feeling cranky lately. Getting tired of all the BS the government is trying to shovel down our throats while they stick the iron claw into our pockets to be taking ever increasing chunks of my money and pieces of my butt if I don't move fast enough to avoid the claws. Getting REAL tired of being treated like tax cattle to be used and abused as needed and squeezed harder because they want to spend more and more of the money they don't have with no real controls nor oversight from "the people".

Then get out there and work for CHANGE!!!

Not the O' Change, but real change!! Change where the public officals fear not listening to us, the constituents! Change where they no longer become "career politicians"

And you're right about public funding for the streets and highways; however, the U.S. Constitution, although allowing us to move about freely (ie: without visas and ID cards for the moment), grants any rights not specifically delegatted to the Federal Government, to the individual states.

You and I have the ability to roam from town to town, county to county and state to state. We can walk, ride bicycles, horseback or donkeys. What we are NOT guaranteed by the constitution, is the "right" to drive.

Interstates are actually designated as part of the National Defense Highway System and could in effect, be closed to all vehicular traffic other than military and it's designees in a time of national emergency. Travel on these NDHS roads is not guaranteed, it's "granted."

Sure, taxpayer dollars go to building and maintaining these roads, but those same tax dollars (well, similar ones anyway) go to fund various programs that we (you and I) may not endorse or care about. We don't have that much say about how and where our tax dollars are spent.

It simply is what it is and as stated, driving is a privilidge not a right and comes "with strings."

Don't care for the rules, get involved and change them!

As long as $$$ is involved and the states are held hostage by the feds, there will always be concessions.

[Shadow]

Originally Posted by floridaZ

Exactly. The "driving is a privilege and not a right" praise agitates me to death. People who actually believe that really need to go back to watching veterans so that they don't become terrorists.

We're starting to get way off topic, but WTH?

Please show me where in the constitution (state or federal) it states "driving" is a "right?"

Those idiots that want to watch vets as terr's and the ability to drive are two totally separate subjects

[Rich Z]

Originally Posted by Shadow

We're starting to get way off topic, but WTH?

Please show me where in the constitution (state or federal) it states "driving" is a "right?"

Those idiots that want to watch vets as terr's and the ability to drive are two totally separate subjects

Sorry Gordon, but you've got this all wrong. The Constitution does not GRANT rights to the people, it RESTRICTS the powers of government over the states and the people. This is specifically noted in the tenth Amendment because the founders of that document feared that it was not made sufficiently clear within the actual Constitution itself.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In other words, the government cannot use the claim that if something is not specifically mentioned as being granted to the people, then they do not have that right. What it says is that the government is limited to such powers that are specifically delegated to IT by the Constitution, and everything else is a RIGHT of the states and the people.

Of course, the government has bent the intent of this clause and others to conform to what IT wants, but a literal reading and truthful interpretation of the Constitution and it's Amendments leaves no doubt about what was intended in those rules for which the government was supposed to be bound to.

[Shadow]

Rich Z;88948-Sorry Gordon, but you've got this all wrong. The Constitution does not GRANT rights to the people, it RESTRICTS the powers of government over the states and the people. This is specifically noted in the tenth Amendment because the founders of that document feared that it was not made sufficiently clear within the actual Constitution itself.

Ok, so show me ANYWHERE where you and I as citizens have a "right" to drive?

We can use your example to further the point. Even Florida recognizes that driving is a prioviledge not a right. A drivers license is property of the State of Florida as are your tags.

I realize that the constitution doesn't grant rights. Maybe you misunderstood me or maybe I mistated myself. I'm also aware that the document restricts the powers of the governement

That said, the states still have the "right" to set restrictions on driving, thus speed limits, seatbelt laws, etc.

Again, if we don't care for them, then I suggest we fight them from the beginning and stay on them until such time as the laws are changed or we voter the SOB's that voted for them out of office

Oh, and I still think the seatbelt laws are good....and I hate wearing them!

[Rich Z]

Originally Posted by Shadow

Ok, so show me ANYWHERE where you and I as citizens have a "right" to drive?

We can use your example to further the point. Even Florida recognizes that driving is a prioviledge not a right. A drivers license is property of the State of Florida as are your tags.

I realize that the constitution doesn't grant rights. Maybe you misunderstood me or maybe I mistated myself. I'm also aware that the document restricts the powers of the governement

That said, the states still have the "right" to set restrictions on driving, thus speed limits, seatbelt laws, etc.

Again, if we don't care for them, then I suggest we fight them from the beginning and stay on them until such time as the laws are changed or we voter the SOB's that voted for them out of office

Oh, and I still think the seatbelt laws are good....and I hate wearing them!

That is the point. "Rights" are not granted by the government. They have not been granted the authority by the Constitution to do so. The Constitution that created the government granted them the PRIVILEGES needed to do what the Constitution authorized them to do. The retention of our RIGHTS was spelled out explicitly with the admonition that the government could not usurp those rights by making them privileges granted at their whim and under their control.

So by default we have a right to drive on the thoroughfares that our tax dollars paid for unless there is a Constitutional Amendment that grants the government the authority to change this right into a privilege.

Yeah, I'm sure there is some case history somewhere showing where the government does have this authority under their expanded definition of the COMMERCE CLAUSE in the Constitution, which has been used to extreme to stretch the powers of government to encompass nearly everything under the sun.

As for this being a state law, well this is where it gets sticky. The assumption here is that every state of the union had to agree to obey and protect the US Constitution in order to become a member of the United States of America. And in so doing, they had to be bound by the same restrictions as the federal government concerning what privileges they were granted and what rights were retained by the people. It just wouldn't make sense to have a bunch of states in the "united states" that did not adhere to the basic set of laws that made all the states a "union".

Yeah, I know this is all theoretical, and I would not be willing to spend the rest of my life and hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to PROVE it in court, but I still believe that the government (whether federal or state) cannot take the money from us to build the roads and then say we can't use them without their permission. Which, of course, is exactly what is happening, but it rubs me the wrong way that this has happened. Just as it really rubs me the wrong way to see a sign something like "NO TRESPASSING. FEDERAL PROPERTY". Well just who the hell composes the members of that class "FEDERAL" anyway?

[floridaZ]

Originally Posted by Shadow

Those idiots that want to watch vets as terr's and the ability to drive are two totally separate subjects

The last sentence was meant as a joke. Not as effective without a smiley face?

The way I understand the Constitution is that it is meant to prevent the gov't from doing certain things. Of course, the Constitution failed pretty quickly, and as such we have the world as it is today. I think the only laws we should have are ones that restrict another person's basic human rights... can't pursue happiness if somebody murders you. Problem with my thinking here is where we draw the line. Which brings politicians back into existence.

Which is never a good thing.



To get back to being kind of in line with the original topic, I think seat belt laws are just a way to try to compensate for a lack of common sense. It's like blowing the engine in a car, but you put an air freshener in the car so you can't smell the burnt oil. So though I think wearing a seat belt is the right thing to do, I honestly don't see any good coming in the long term from more laws. The money would be better spent educating people to why. And if that doesn't work... natural selection!

[Rich Z]

The natural progression of these sorts of laws can't help but get worse as more and more things come into the spot light to "save the people from themselves".

What about your eating and drinking habits? If a law would save a few lives, wouldn't it be worth it?

Personal hygiene? Participating in dangerous sports? How about making medical examinations MANDATORY every year? How about making a law whereby a driver can only drive a maximum number of miles or hours per day to reduce the risk of fatigue caused accidents?

I'm sure you can think of your own examples of such potential laws.....

Yeah, I know, the job of a legislature is to CREATE laws. But when are they going to run out of things to make laws against when new ones are created ALL OF THE TIME?

I've been saying for a long time that the day is coming when a person will be handed a manual (updated yearly) that will itemize everything that he or she CAN do. If what you want to do is not listed in the manual, then it is illegal to do.

[Guro305]

Originally Posted by Shadow

I ahve to agree. There's no good reason not to wear them.

How about freedom of goddamn choice?! It's bad enough all the bulls#!t that we have to put up with with a motor vehice for this garbage. Not wearing a seatbelt is YOUR problem, not the problem of others.

I think it's yet another infringement on our freedoms that they are slowly stripping away from us. So what? Are they going to start pulling me over everytime I'm driving my Trans Am because the cops can't "see" my seatbelt? I'm wearing it! Nothing says your seatbelt has to go from shoulder down. Old cars only have lap belts like mine so wtf? It's just another way for the state to create revenue.

Originally Posted by gsdave

Personally, I think its a little ridiculous for the state to ticket you for a seat belt and allow motorcyclists to ride without helmets.

Exactly the point I was making above. It's a crock of complete and utter bulls#!t. Did you also know that motorcycle riders are NOT required to have insurance unlike motor vehicle drivers? Tallahassee can kiss my a$s!!!!

[Shadow]

Originally Posted by Guro305

How about freedom of goddamn choice?! It's bad enough all the bulls#!t that we have to put up with with a motor vehice for this garbage. Not wearing a seatbelt is YOUR problem, not the problem of others.

I think it's yet another infringement on our freedoms that they are slowly stripping away from us. So what? Are they going to start pulling me over everytime I'm driving my Trans Am because the cops can't "see" my seatbelt? I'm wearing it! Nothing says your seatbelt has to go from shoulder down. Old cars only have lap belts like mine so wtf? It's just another way for the state to create revenue.

Exactly the point I was making above. It's a crock of complete and utter bulls#!t. Did you also know that motorcycle riders are NOT required to have insurance unlike motor vehicle drivers? Tallahassee can kiss my a$s!!!!

They can kiss mine too, but unfortunately, we're stuck with themThere's not much good that happens in or around the capitol and from personal observations I feel most state agencies are at best, inept and inneffective.

That said, you'd have to read the rest of the 4 pages of BS to see where "choice" is not an option in the decision.

If we want to compare to motorcyclist, then so be it. Yes, motorcyclists are required to maintain a minimum of personal injury insurance. Last I looked it was 10K. An absolute joke considering the trememdous costs of head injuries and treatment.

When the $$$ runs out and you still need treatment and/or hospitalization, it becomes everyones problem. It's sort of like dominoes. When one falls they all begin to tumble

The statue implies that the seatbelt must be worn "properly" as designed by the manufacturer.
Most older cars had both a lap belt and a shoulder belt, just not together in one unit as we have today.

Before that, cars simply had a seat belt and prior to that, there were no belts.

Guys the guys and gals are gonna have to brush up on thier vehicle history

[JRS_C5]

Originally Posted by floridaZ

Exactly. The "driving is a privilege and not a right" praise agitates me to death. People who actually believe that really need to go back to watching veterans so that they don't become terrorists.

I hate that phrase, driving is a priveledge not a right. Driver licenses were issued way back when large trucks were damaging the street surfaces, they needed a way to tax those trucks some extra money to "repair" the streets. Before that, anyone could drive. Then they figured out if they had licenses for everyone they could get even more money, so they started applying licenses to all drivers. The government is all about money, nothing that they do is in our (the people's) interest, even if they say it's for our own good. Look at EVERY LAW the government has passed saying it's for our interest, and it's just a way for them to make money or to control us from uprising. It's true that people should wear seat belts, but I don't think they could care less about who dies, they are just looking for money.

Instead of putting more cops in bad neighborhoods and stopping crime at it's roots, they rather spend more money making more jail space to house criminals. Why? Cause in jail they can make those people work for free, cleaning roads, making license plates etc. The governments wants more people in jail. Have you heard of FEMA work camps? Get ready for this, those who are now losing thier jobs will be slowly put into these work camps where you bascailly work in exchange for food and housing. Everyday we lose more freedoms, it's begining to look like Hitler's Germany where he began by implementing new laws to fix things, and everyone loved him in the begining cause all of his new health programs and laws, but as people trusted him more he slowly began to squeeze people more and more with his laws, taking thier guns, adding curfews, like putting a frog in a pot and raising the heat slowly till it dies. Looks to me like we're headed in the same direction, cameras everywhere, you can't criticize the government..this isn't America anymore.