Are Safety Belt Laws Constitutional? (Official Seat belt Legislation Thread)

[Evariste]

For as long as there have been cars, there have been seat belts. Henry Ford made sure, in between "welfare" visits to Nazi Germany, to outfit all of his automobiles with the Automated Horseless Sleigh Leather Safety and Restraint System, or, as it's now commonly called, the S.E.A.T. belt. (S.E.A.T. being an acronym in German meaning "For the Safety of the People of the Third Reich.") Ever since then, all cars in the United States have been outfitted with the supposedly "life-saving" device. But is that the whole story? Why are these things everywhere? Why do I see a commercial every five minutes telling me to save my own life by putting on a magical leather belt? The answers are more surprising than you could ever imagine.

Practicality, or Something Like It

It's been a secret that's been hidden by the liberal media for years now that seat belts kill more people than they save. The Simpsons even referenced this in an episode some time ago. Studies more than twenty years old have proved without a doubt that there is no correlation between seat belt usage and survival rates of accidents. It's just common sense that wearing a seat belt is dangerous. Consider this example: I'm driving down a highway in my bright green VW New Beetle w/optional flower vase. Suddenly, I see a car a few meters ahead of me veer off into the middle lane, collide with another car, and start a chain reaction pile-up. My adrenaline kicks in. I know that a disaster is imminent. What would you do in this situation? If you were smart, you'd already have your seat-belt off, and your door unlocked, ready to dive out of the car and roll to safety on the median or shoulder of the road. The last thing that I, or anyone else, should want is to be strapped into my car, waiting to somehow absorb the impact, and come out unscathed! It is astounding what years of government propaganda and a left-wing Jimmy Carter funded PBS will do to the brain.

The Constitutionality of Safety Belts

No one will argue that the Constitution is a comparably ancient document as far as government founding super-charters go. But has anyone actually read it? This thing is almost biblical in its age! There's a whole clause about the legal way to beat your intellectually inferior wife! (The Necessary and Slattern Clause.) Still, it can be surprisingly relevant to this modern age. After some digging, I've discovered this tasty plum in the fourteen amendment:

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside, except for women and Indians. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws unless they ask nicely.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to the Shadow Government.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Congress can also remove those government officials who have a disability, for they are judged as unfit to serve as public officials. Also, abortion, gay marriage, and polygamy are legal, suckers.

Section 4.
No man, woman, or negro shall have his horse or carriage limited by any mechanism intended to impede or restrain the comfort of those who ride in it. Furthermore, all equine animals must be fed corn, the fuel of the future, not wheat, to take effect upon ratification, for the good of the environment.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Look at the bold text. That is called a rider. A rider is an additional provision annexed to a bill under the consideration of a legislature, having little connection with the subject matter of the bill. Now, it's very hard to pass an amendment. In the entire history of the United States, only 32 have been passed. The very notion that this passed is a testament to the power of riders, and it only serves to further my point.

As a strict constructionist, it is obvious through section 4 of the fourteenth amendment that the framers were completely against safety belts. But first, a little history:

In the late 19th century, due to rapid technological advancements, horses were getting faster and faster. Equine accidents increased, transportation was caught in a bind, and the entire nation was gripped in a fear of "Satan's Steeds," as a popular period jingle named them. State legislatures everywhere ratified legislation requiring "Carriage Straps," Or "Lincoln Girdles," as they were more commonly called. Though this legislation became common place, many opposed this perceived limit on civil liberties. The populist Williams Jennings Bryan used this to his advantage in his 1867 bid for Congress. The line from his famous speech "We will not be crucified on a cross of leather" won votes, and signified a change in public opinion. It is said that Bryan tried to visit every state legislature during the ratification vote. As legend has it, he flailed his arms wildly and spoke bombastically in an attempt to distract the state congressmen from the ridiculousness of the proposed amendment.

But What Does This All Mean?

I'm glad you asked. I'm a strict constructionist when it comes to legal matters. I believe that the constitution is set in stone and should be the ultimate guide in deciding legality and constitutionality. No one uses horses and buggies anymore. It goes without saying that the most popular form of transportation is the car. It's obvious that the framers intended for use to be free of restraint when we ride in our favorite mode of transport, whether it be car, bus, airplane, or saddled cheetah. I now implore you to petition your congressmen. Ask him why such an injustice is allowed to take place. Ask him why the Constitution is being thrown around like so much tissue paper in today's America. Ask him why he doesn't love the U.S. by making us wear seatbelts. First come seatbelts, then what? Should we expect national I.D. cards soon? Or perhaps a mind control chip is the ultimate destiny for the American people. Now, go, and make sure that this travesty does not go on unchecked! Henry Ford was a Nazi anyway.

[John Wayne]

Interesting rant/essay. But really! Would you willingly jump out of your car, that is going 50+ mph (as are you!), onto the highway (that probably has more cars comming up behind you, which are swearving to avoid your recklessnes and idiocy)? That is asking for death! It is stupid to assume that by throwing yourself out of the car, you are going to save your neck. More likely, you are going to get run over! At least with seatbelts, you have a chance at survival.

[Last Roman]

But doesn't the constitution also say something about the allowing of laws being created if it is for public safety? (I think so, please correct me if I'm wrong)

[Sétanta]

Ok then...

[Erik]

For as long as there have been cars, there have been seat belts. Henry Ford made sure, in between "welfare" visits to Nazi Germany, to outfit all of his automobiles with the Automated Horseless Sleigh Leather Safety and Restraint System, or, as it's now commonly called, the S.E.A.T. belt. (S.E.A.T. being an acronym in German meaning "For the Safety of the People of the Third Reich.")

I didn't know Henry Ford could travel trough time?

Just a little history lesson:

Seat belts were first invented by George Cayley in the 1800s. Seat belts were introduced in aircraft for the first time in 1913 and became common in the 1930s. The automotive seat belt was introduced into the United States by Kenneth Ligon and his brother, Bob Ligon, whose patented quick release seat belt, the AutoCrat Safety Belt, was the first seat belt installed as original equipment in the US by Ford in its 1956 model year. The first seatbelt to be included as standard was on the 1959 Volvo. However, they were not required by law in the US on passenger vehicles until the 1968 model year.

[Red Harvest]

Wow, there are so many errors there that I'm having trouble figuring out where to begin:

Seat belts were not installed as original equipment by Ford until 1956, and were not made mandatory in manufacture until 1968. That's why my friends with older Mustangs were installing them...

The idea that seat belts kill more than they save is complete horse hockey. I've known quite a few folks killed by failure to wear seat belts, and I've personally been saved by them and walked away from accidents where the non-seat belt wearers did not. I don't know anyone who has been killed by one.

For fun we'll take the "strict constructionist" argument to the extreme: it clearly refers to horse and buggy/wagon. It does not refer to other means of conveyance. So on a strict basis, it does not apply (unless we need to feed the horses under the hood corn...which we have not been doing until recently in the form of ethanol.) Furthermore ignoring that, one would have to prove that seat belts are "intended to impede or restrain the comfort of those who ride in it." Clearly seat belts are not *intended* to do either, they are designed to prevent the discomfort of an impact with the structure of the vehicle or surroundings. Personally, I'm more comfortable wearing them than not.

I could go further with this, but it seems unnecessary.

[Erik]

The idea that seat belts kill more than they save is complete horse hockey. I've known quite a few folks killed by failure to wear seat belts, and I've personally been saved by them and walked away from accidents where the non-seat belt wearers did not. I don't know anyone who has been killed by one.

The theory is that people drive faster and take bigger risks because they wear seatbelts.
And this could counter the possitive effect of wearing seatbelts, as well as making roads more dangerous for pedestrians and other vehicles.

It also made more people buy cars because cars were no longer considered vehicles of death only suitable for adrenaline junkies.
And more cars=more trafic casualties, even if cars are safer.

It we had no seatbelts trafic on highways would probably slow down to a survivable 50 km/h, because many people would be too scared to drive any faster.

[Red Harvest]

The theory is that people drive faster and take bigger risks because they wear seatbelts.
And this could counter the possitive effect of wearing seatbelts, as well as making roads more dangerous for pedestrians and other vehicles.

Except that the miles driven are much greater, which completely busts the argument. In 1953 U.S. fatalities were FOUR times as high per mile driven as in 2003.

It we had no seatbelts trafic on highways would probably slow down to a survivable 50 km/h, because many people would be too scared to drive any faster.

No, that didn't happen prior to seat belts. In fact the limits and highway speeds were higher then than after seatbelts for a number of years because of other regs (reduced speed limits to conserve fuel in the 70's.) People don't plan to crash, so the correlation falls apart.

And the statistics are still skewed by those who don't wear their seat belts and are killed as a result...I could list a number I've known personally.

[David Deas]

Evariste obviously got a seatbelt ticket he's PO'ed about.

[Gwendylyn]

Where's the studies that seatbelt use has absolutely no correlation with degree of injury after an accident? I've truly never heard this before.

[Kino]

Deleted by user.

[the Black Prince]

well, as for seatbelts kill argument, research conducted in the UK, and the experience of british emergency services proved conclusively that seatbelts both save lives and help to prevent further injuries, which is why the wearing of seat belts is mandatory here, and has been since before i was born i think.

as for the ludicrous idea of jumping out of a moving car at highspeed on a highway into the path of more cars travelling at highspeed...
thats the probably the closest i've seen to someone commiting suicide in an attempt to prevent themselves getting hurt...

[Zenith Darksea]

Yes, this concept of leaping from your car to an untimely death in the lane next to you is a funny one. How exactly would that save your life? And besides, you wouldn't have the time to leap from your car, because most accidents occur as a result of carelessness (i.e. they're unexpected).

However, I can't see at all the argument that seatbelts restrict your liberty. Ok, I suppose that they restrict your liberty to die, but laws tend to lean that way anyway. Seatbelts are proven to save lives, and for the cost of what? I mean, how much effort does it take to clip in a seatbelt? And once you are clipped in, how is it really going to remove your liberty? It's not as if you were going to get up out of your seat while driving anyway, is it?

Not only that, but it protects the liberty of other people in the car not to see their friend or family member be catapulted through the windscreen (or windshield, if you're a liberty-lovin' all-American patriot) to a particularly gruesome death.

[Seleukos]

Constitutional or not, you dont need to argue with a law that will save your life. And anyone that has been in a car accident knows.

[Evariste]

Constitutional or not, you dont need to argue with a law that will save your life. And anyone that has been in a car accident knows.

But do I need a law to tell me to save my own life? I can do that myself! Believe me, no one knows how to save one's own life better than me. I don't need the government to tell me to brush my teeth and look both ways. That's why I have a mommy!

[John Wayne]

But do I need a law to tell me to save my own life?

Coming from a person that jumping out of a speeding car is safe then yes, the law needs to tell you what to do since you seem incapable to do so on your own.

[Sidmen]

lol, this is such a fake piece of crap...

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,(See Note 15) and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

almost had me going there, untill I read after the bolded part

[Last Roman]

is this another one of Evariste's joke threads? I'm kinda getting tired of them if it is.

[Farnan]

The real 14th Amendment

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Courtesy of the National Archives.

[orange slice]

very nice arguement, but woulden't seat belts really safe more lives than it kills? say your going 50mph and i car buts ahead of you and you slam on your breaks sending you flying up in car seat and hitting your head on something, but with a seat belt it will help maintain that force thus keeping you safe.