Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms

Seatbelt law opposition forum

William J. Holdorf, Director
Chicago, IL 60638
Wholdorf@msn.com

WHOSE "COMPELLING INTEREST?"

According to a June 6, 2002, Fox News story from Associated Press, "Judge finds Amish guilty, rejects arguments against triangles," 20 members of a particular Amish sect in Pennsylvania were hit with 27 fines of $95 each for failing to use a state mandated slow-moving vehicle symbol, an orange triangle, on the back of their horse driven buggies. The judge ruled against the group on the basis "the state has a compelling interest in requiring the orange triangle— namely, keeping the Amish and other travelers safe on the road." The judge relied on state transportation "experts" who testified that the triangles are more visible than the reflective tape and lantern being used on the back of Amish´s buggies.

The Fox news story said most of the traffic accidents involving motor vehicles and horse driven buggies occur during day-light hours. On that basis, one wonders what degree of visibility is needed for drivers of motor driven vehicles to see a horse driven buggy in front of them? However, that aside, what is more important to note is the authority used by the judge to place heavy fines against a religious community that has collided with state regulations, that is, first using state chosen "experts," and then state "compelling interest."

How many times in the past several decades or so have citizens felt the sting of the state combining state chosen experts and "compelling interest" to pass all kinds of new laws that attack individual personal rights as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights? A good example is the passage of state mandatory seat belt and helmet laws.

The so-called "experts" always come from the same government that claims a "compelling interest" as the authority to circumvent the Bill of Rights, yet nowhere in the U.S. Constitution can one find the words "compelling interest," much less as an authority to override inalienable rights! If there is really such an authority as "compelling interest," it would seem to be actually more on the side of citizens whose inalienable rights are so clearly stated in the Bill of Rights. Why should the government´s self-creating claim to a "compelling interest" override the more substantiated "compelling interest" of citizens to safeguard their liberties, the very foundation that gave birth to the United States?

The so-called "expert" is the first step used by those in government to defend a particular political agenda, whether seat belt or helmet laws. Once the carefully government chosen "experts" announce their findings, which always coincide with the already predetermined objective of the government´s political agenda, then the government claims "compelling interest" as the final authority to set aside all opposition as if "compelling interest" of the state preempted the Bill of Rights.

The fact is, in determining whether a law is constitutional, the state cannot even claim the law is rationally-related to a well-meaning goal for the benefit of society. This was clearly brought out in the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut 381 US; 479, 1965, which stated as follows:

"In a long series of cases this court has held that where fundamental personal liberties are involved, they may not be abridged by the states simply on a showing that a regulatory statute has some rational relationship to the effectuation of a proper state purpose."

Also, in the Civil Rights section of the Fourteenth Amendment (Ratified July 9,1868):

"No State shall make or enforce any law which abridge privileges or immunities (Bill of Rights) 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 any person within the jurisdiction the equal protection of the law."

Further, in Harris v. US 331, 145; 1947 is the following:

"The rights of privacy and personal security protected by the Fourth Amendment are of the essence of constitutional liberty and the guaranty of them is as important and as imperative as are the guarantee of other fundamental rights of the individual citizen—the right to trail by jury, to the writ of habeas corpus and due process of law."

Another in Wolf v. CO, 338 US 25, 1949:

"Security of one´s privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police — which is the core of the Fourth Amendment — is basic to a free society. It is therefore implicit in the concept of liberty, and as such, enforceable against the States through the due process clause. Accordingly, were a State affirmatively to sanction such police intrusion into privacy, it would violate the Fourth" Amendment."

The theory that the state has a "compelling interest" in anything or everything it so pleases merely by acclamation with the blessings of the state courts, especially as determined by government chosen "experts," has created a legal path over the last several decades or so to negate individual personal rights. Even worse to realize, justices on our highest state courts have concurred in this effort to devaluate the Bill of Rights in favor of the state´s claim of "compelling interest," while the "compelling interest" of the safeguard of the liberties of citizens are no longer legally relevant by government fiat.

Maybe it is time for someone to challenge the constitutionality of a state´s seat belt law by first challenging the state´s right to claim its "compelling interest" preempts the "compelling interest" of citizens as so stated in the Bill of Rights. The fact is, the state has no Bill of Rights, but citizens do, and we shouldn´t have to take a backseat to any claim by the state that our "compelling interest" is subordinate to the state´s claim, especially since the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled it doesn´t.

Besides the question of the constitutionality of seat belt laws, the state´s claim that its "compelling interest" comes from highway traffic fatalities being a national health issue requiring state interference, is, again, self-generated without any foundation in scientific facts. The fact is, even federal statistics clearly show that nationally there is less than 2 highway fatalities every one hundred millions motor vehicle miles traveled, which is far less often fatal than any disease, and certainly far less than the health hazards of any of the leading causes of death throughout the U.S. Also, that rate has been on a gradual downward move over the last fifty years or so, all during the time there were no seat belt laws. Further, in some states after passage of a seat belt law, highway fatalities increased in spite of a dramatic increase in forced seat belt use.

It is time the "compelling interest" of citizens takes precedence over the self-proclaimed "compelling interest" of the state when individual personal liberties are involved, which was clearly intended by our Founding Fathers in the Bill of Rights. If not, then the Bill of Rights is a sham.

William J. Holdorf

Wholdorf@msn.com

(6-25-02)