I have no doubt that he has the knowledge. I only doubt that as a politician it restrains him in his statements… or his actions.
The true tragedy is that our secondary schools no longer require students to learn and understand our founding documents. If our young (now middle aged too) people really knew and understood the founding documents perhaps they’d be less easily led and we’d have better people in our political offices.
^
I can’t speak about the curriculum in other states, but NJ does still include The US Constitution in the US History curriculum.
However, I can’t vouch for how well it is taught now that I have left the profession.
;-))
I say that because, many years ago, when I was a rookie teacher, a senior history teacher in my school did a study to see why some of his students in US History 2 seemed to know so much more about the Constitution than his other students. By checking school records, he discovered that my students from US History 1 were the ones who (to use his words) “were like Constitutional scholars in comparison to the others”.
This man was such an incredible teacher that his comment was the best compliment that a new-ish teacher–like me–could have gotten.
I highly commend you. I’d bet that the subject has been neglected for so long that most teachers aren’t even conversant in it. I can tell you that in general conversation when the subject comes up most middle age and younger people suddenly develop a blank stare and have no idea whatsoever what I’m talking about. I get excited when I run into someone who knows enough to intelligently discuss the subject, even if they disagree with me. I have a friend, a practicing lawyer who teaches law courses to undergrads, with whom I used to discuss the subject at length. I loved every minute of it.
Certainly, you all know that the Constitution is out of date and SHOULD be ignored.
“Certainly, you all know that the Constitution is out of date and SHOULD be ignored.”
That, my friend, is an opinion, and is not “knowledge”.
And, that is why the Founding Fathers included the provision for amending the original document.
If you have ideas for how to change it, I suggest that you communicate them to your elected representatives in D.C.
I’ve only ducked my head in to read the last stretch of comments. In light of this morning’s issue with the entrepreneur thread, I’ll just observe that this discussion is appearing to be settling into a similarly off-topic vein. Sometimes these things wind their way back to the topic, but if it continues on in this direction, I’ll have to close it. Thank you.
@insightful, certainly you know the founders designed the Constitution to be a living document so it could be updated as the needs of our country evolve.
Evolution … it’s not just a body of scientific knowledge.
Oh boy. I think insightful was joking.
Some years ago, once a month or so a family friend would commute with me to Minneapolis to visit her daughter. The only problem was that she was a very heavy person. I cringed but try as she would, the seat belt was simply not long enough for her to wear it. That was before seat belt laws and belt extenders. It didn’t happen that often so I just drove very carefully and I would have really felt terrible if something would have happened because of it. I couldn’t tell her no you can’t ride with me because you are too big.
At least I’m back on seat belts and not “those conservatives” and constitutional law. A very dear friend died this morning who was witness to the holocaust. He would speak at great lengths on the validity of the slippery slope in 1930s and 40s Germany. Seat belt laws are kind of a far cry from yellow stars though, and driving after all is a priviledge not a right.
Driving is a privilege, not a right. If you drive, you should wear the seatbelt or helmet because you are less likely to sustain severe injuries that will cripple you for life. The lawmakers that enacted those statutes did so because they wanted to make an accident victim’s life more tolerable if they live through it. I don’ t buy the inalienable rights stuff. It just does not apply. What about the rights of most people and society in general to avoid dealing with the nearly dead who chose not to buckle up?
o.k…Back to seat belts ;
The original qusetion is asked, '‘why ?’'
I don’t know why, perhaps when the friends of my kids get in my truck they think the rules don’t apply ?
SLAM ON MY BRAKES ! they go tumbling and all I say is…’‘gee, imagine that, no seat belt.’'
I never need to say it again 
, Though sometimes I’ll remind them who they’re riding with ( me and my 14yo learning driver ).
I often use the NASCAR races I watch as a good example to them and they get it. This set of kids and the first as well. But why their friends come with no intention of belting is beyond me.
Back when my oldest son was high school age ( late nineties ) he’s often be the only kid in the group wearing his belt and it never bothered him nor caused him to not waer it. That action even convinced the others to belt up too.
I tell my kids stories of a couple of potential accidents that were NOT a wreck because I was belted in and in complete control of the truck thereby being fully able to use all FOUR extremities to operate the truck and not just hang on for dear life. ( brake-or not…gas-or not…4x4 lever…steering…shifting…)
Accidents that DON’T happen are not statistics, seat belts are one great reason why that is possible. Accidents with no to little injuries are most often the result of being belted in.
You can’t convince me otherwise.
@cdaquila, I love, love, LOVE, LOVE that you’re trying to keep threads on topic. However, compared to other threads, I don’t see that we veered too far off topic. The constitutionality of seatbelt laws is pretty relevant, and one’s perspective on that can depend on whether one is a so-called strict constructionist, like Justice Scalia claims to be until he’s not, or whether you believe the Constitution is a living document.
@Everyone_Else, yes, the paternalistic nature of seatbelt laws is problematic. Paternalism can, and frequently does, get out of hand. Just look at recent efforts to ban large sodas in New York and ban circumcision in San Francisco. Thankfully, people came to their senses and blocked both of those proposals, proving calm, wise, and moderate minds often prevail.
I think this proves the economic argument for seatbelt laws is quite powerful, and until anyone can disprove the economic benefits for society, mandatory seatbelts will remain the law of the land.
On that City Data website to which I referred in a couple of posts, there was a real gem a few months back, on the topic of seatbelt regulations. The person protesting the existence of these laws stated, “This requirement violates my right to move around the vehicle as I drive”, which produced a mental image of somebody who sets the cruise control and then decides to sit in the back seat.
The particular person who felt that he has a right “to move around the vehicle” as he drives has posted some other gems in that forum. Perhaps the best one was posted about 6 hours before the heavily-forecasted Hurricane Sandy hit NJ, and he asked, “When I go to Home Depot & Lowes tonight, which brand of emergency generator should I buy?”
After everyone stopped laughing at him, a few of us pointed out that, in all likelihood…
…all of the stores were likely closed already, so that their employees could go home and secure things at their home base
…there were no generators of any brand still sitting on store shelves, as the path of this Superstorm had been highly publicized for several days
…and the media had already covered the fact that stores were already sold-out of batteries, water, generators and other emergency supplies.
When confronted with that reality, this guy claimed that he had just become aware that a massive hurricane was about to hit NJ. You just can’t make up stuff like this!
@same
Just to keep the topic relevant, my point of view has always been, regardless of why the law was past, my contention is that wearing a set belt is a worthwhile stipulation for proper operation of a motor vehicle. Economics, safety etc are ancillary benefits which may have more impact in the passage if the law, but the fact in my eyes remains…you need to be buckled up to safely operate a car. And, if one fels that safe operation requirements is an affront to one’s personal rights, I guess any thing goes inside a car and a driver is free to do or not do anything.
I’ll wager that none of the younger crowd ever tried to corner in a pickup with a vinyl bech seat …and still hope to maintain any semblence of control of the truck !
one answer for that…
seat belt !
@Bing, you are wise beyond your years. All I can say is, “Busted!”
After quite a few years driving cars that didn’t have seat belts and many more years driving and never thinking about buckling up it has never become a habit to buckle it. More often than not I use the belt when driving in freeway traffic. And of course, when driving someone elses late model car that has a relentless chime on it
But I’m an organ donor so no worry.
@Whitey, you’re right. Use of the state police power to enact health and safety laws is entirely relevant to the discussion. In fact, it is the discussion. Thing was, at the time I posted, I just saw a string of posts about civics education and some stuff about gay marriage. I don’t see any reason to close it right now.
To all who say that its your own right NOT to wear a seatbelt, I say this.
Driving is a Privilege, not a Right. If you want to exercise your privilege to drive you must follow the rules of the road, have a license, have insurance, be sober ect… No one is forcing you to drive. If you don’t like the rules of the road you can walk. You can also try your best to get the laws changed if you don’t agree with them.
There are many laws I do not agree with, but I still obey them and some laws I disagree with to such an extent I will send a letter to people that can change those laws.
Why do we feel we can pick and choose what laws to follow? It doesn’t work like that.
I must say this as well, there are a lot of people on these forums with a lot of different ideas, there are some people I have completely disagreed with on certain issues that I agree with completely on others. That’s the beauty of it, were all different and its interesting to see others point of view even if you don’t agree. Its also interesting to see how someones take on an issue can be influenced by where they live and I have learned a lot by reading these forums, I have changed my mind on some issues due to feedback I have received. Sometimes I feel even stronger about something after debating about it, it depends.
We come from many different backgrounds here and I believe 99.9 percent of the people on here are great people, even if I disagree with them sometimes I still enjoy communicating with everyone and love the fact that we can discuss certain issues here that pertain to motoring.
Waaaay back , before seat belt ‘‘laws’’, my dad was one to prchase and add seat belts to the cars that came without…front and back…due to the ‘‘laws’’ of…physics and vinyl seats.
Probably where I get if from.
In fact, I bought and added in and additional belt to my 79 chevy pickup bench seat. Since there’s room, there’s now belts for four people.
I like to use seatbelts,makes me feel safer beings its required now,I dont skip wearing them after a day on the job and I’m filthy.When I was running a 621 scraper and looking down at that enormous rubber tire directly beneath me,I figured it was better to buckle up,then having 25 tons plus of caterpillar mashing my skull,besides it silly not to wear the things(never minded wearing a hardhat either) I’m going to say 99% of the time you better off in an car crash,buckled in(but I dont like those belts that are anchored on the window frame of the car)-Kevin