(January 13, 2005)  Seatbelt laws represent unabated tyranny. Unabated tyranny is never constitutional. Therefore, the South Carolina Senators that support seatbelt laws are neither conservative nor liberal, they are tyrants. As tyrants, they are in direct conflict with their oath of office. They have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitutions of South Carolina and the United States, yet seatbelt laws, both secondary and primary enforcement laws, infringe on a person's rights as guaranteed in the Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments, and the civil rights section of the Fourteenth Amendment. Twenty-one South Carolina Senators currently support a primary enforcement seatbelt bill. These tyrants should resign their office immediately, or if necessary, be removed with force. As a countermeasure to the tyrants, the South Carolina Senators who are defending the Constitution need to immediately sponsor a bill to eliminate the secondary enforcement seatbelt law. There should be no seatbelt law in South Carolina. If any seatbelt bill passes, Governor Sanford should and must veto it. It isn't about the devices commonly referred to as seatbelts. It's about whether lawmakers are to be restrained by the Constitution when making law. They are to be, but yet are not. This represents the greatest threat to public safety; far greater then any threat created by not wearing the device.

Senator W. Greg Ryberg (District 24, Aiken) has taken it upon himself to write letters to various South Carolina newspapers touting his righteous justification regarding why a primary enforcement seatbelt law is needed in South Carolina. His rhetoric is filled with many misleading statistics and distortions that sadly represent the mindset of far too many congressman and senators, not only in South Carolina, but also in every other state, and in that cesspool of tyranny and totalitarianism known as Washington, DC. Ryberg's positions and his perception of what role a South Carolina Senator should play in our lives are clearly demonstrated in his letter to the editor that was published in the January 12, 2005 edition of Charleston's Post & Courier.

Ryberg wrote, "Unfortunately, preliminary Department of Public Safety data tell us that 613 of our fellow South Carolinians are not here to celebrate a new year with us. They died during 2004 in traffic accidents while they were not wearing their seat belts. Statistically sound, national models indicate that 45 percent to 50 percent, or up to 306 South Carolinians, would have survived with a seat belt on. The statistically sound, nation models which Ryberg referenced are produced either directly or indirectly by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). NHTSA readily admits that data users frequently misinterpret or purposely misrepresent NHTSA traffic-related statistics while they are pursuing the enactment of a law. What Ryberg failed to also mention in his letter is of the 31,904 passenger vehicle occupants killed in traffic crashes nationwide in 2003, 13,885 or 44 percent were in fact wearing their seatbelts. [Reference: National Center for Statistics and Analysis: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/RNotes/2004/809819.pdf]

While the use of a seat belt has saved many people in certain kinds of traffic accidents, there is ample proof that in other kinds, some people have been more seriously injured and even killed only because of seat belt use. In the latter case, such injuries and deaths are not given the same degree of publicity, if any, as given when people are saved by seat belt use. Such bias in compiling traffic accident data exaggerates the so-called benefit of seat belt laws which misleads the public into thinking seat belt use automatically means safety; non-use automatically means death in all kinds of accidents, which is false.

If a seatbelt has the potential to cause injury or death, even just one death, should politicians be allowed to force people to wear seatbelts? Even with the odds substantially in favor of the seat belt reducing injury and delaying death, does Senator Ryberg have the authority to promote a bill that has the potential to kill somebody, even if it saves one hundred other people? What if the law saves 300 people while killing only one person? If those are the odds, should our elected officials ignore the rights and value to society of one person in an effort to save others? If so, who wants to be the one? What if the odds are even greater? What if they're 1 out of 1000? Then is the life of the one worth sacrificing? That's what Ryberg and other pro-seatbelt folks are actually saying to the public, although they never actually speak the words. Instead we read statements from people like Ryberg who say, "If we let officers do their job, we will save lives in South Carolina." That's not a complete truth. The truth is we will save some lives, but we may cost you yours.

In spite of the fact that forcing the use of a device that can be injurious and even lethal in certain situations, there is a possibility that primary enforcement could become law in South Carolina. If so, then Ryberg and every other elected official that votes in favor of primary enforcement should be held financially responsible for such injuries or deaths. That will never happen though because if a person is killed while using a seatbelt, people like Ryberg will claim the accident was so severe that not even a seatbelt could have saved the vehicle occupants. While that might be true in some cases, the severity of an accident is never mentioned in compiling a list of persons killed while not using a seatbelt, which only adds to the bias in compiling traffic accident data in favor of seatbelt laws.

As previously mentioned, this isn't about the seatbelt. It's about whether there should be a law that requires the use of a device that in some instances, although rare, can cause more harm than had the person not been wearing the device. It's about whether lawmakers have the moral calling and authority to potentially sentence a small percentage of people to a life of permanent, painful disability or even death, while attempting to prolong the lives of others. It's about whether or not such laws that protect people from themselves are repugnant to the Constitution. If they are, and I do believe that all consensual laws are repugnant to the Constitution and Almighty God, then what we are dealing with here is nearly half the South Carolina Senate attempting to perpetrate an unconstitutional act into law. And an unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation; as inoperative as though it had never been passed. Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442

Unless the South Carolina Congress can unequivocally guarantee that no driver or passengers will sustain any injury or death as a direct result of wearing a seatbelt because its the law; unless these lawmakers each are willing to be personally financially liable for damages and losses associated with wearing a seatbelt, then they have no business passing any seatbelt law; neither secondary or primary enforcement. If they see it otherwise, then I can only hope they become the one.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider donating $1 or more to the MUCKRAKER REPORT.
Your donations keep the Muckraker Report subscription free!

Comments