| Subject: |
|
Re: Like I Said, Let's Stay On Point |
| Name: |
|
Frank Langben |
| Date Posted: |
|
Apr 22, 07 - 9:08 PM |
| Email: |
|
flangben@aol.com |
| Website: |
|
http://flangben.photosite.com |
| Message: |
|
Bruce, I'm not "trying to shift the focus of the thread." In your very first note you made the claim that helmet laws are unconstitutional. I didn't raise the issue; you did. You're thinking that I'm correcting this misstatement as some backdoor method of supporting media attacks on motorcyclists, and I'm not.
You're also putting words in my mouth. I never said that "treatment of motorcyclists is exempt from the equal protection provisions of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution."
Many people mistakenly believe that the 14th Amendment prohibits ANY distinctions between groups of people (such as distinctions between car drivers and motorcyclists) at any time. That's not true.
The Supreme Court, not Wikipedia, has divided laws which make distinctions between categories of people into three categories. The first category are laws which make racial distinctions. Since the United States has a history of racial discrimination, these laws are very "suspicious," and the Supreme Court says that such laws must be "narrowly tailored" to serve a "compelling" government interest. Laws intended to correct past racial discrimination may meet this standard.
The second category are laws which divide certain rights or duties based on gender. We want to make sure women are not discriminated against, but there may be some areas where men and women could legitimately be treated unequally, and so the courts are little bit lighter on those laws, requiring only that the law be "substantially related" to an "important" government interest.
Now, there is a third category -- "everything else." May a state allow a car with two people to ride in the HOV lane, but prohibit a car with one person from doing so? Can a state college charge different tuition to residents and non-residents? Such laws are subject to a much lower type of review, namely that such laws must ONLY show that the law is "reasonably related" to a "legitimate" government interest.
I cited Wikipedia as a quick source you and others might wish to check. You can google, or go to the library, or you can do as I did and take a course on Constitutional Law. You're wasting your time making a claim that isn't true.
Laws which treat motorcyclists differently are in the third category -- "everything else." All that states need to do is show that laws which benefit, or burden, motorcyclists in particular are reasonably related to a legitimate state interest.
Thus laws treating motorcyclists differently -- for example, single motorcyclists can use HOV lanes, we don't need to wear seatbelts, we don't need two headlights on low beam, and in some states we need to wear helmets -- are constitutional, because they are reasonably related to a legitimate state interest. That doesn't mean they're wise or popular. That doesn't mean we can't try to change them. But it does mean they are constitutional.
Treating motorcyclists differently is subject to the 14th Amendment, but it's a very limited protection -- it only means that the state must show the law is reasonably related to a legitimate state interest.
Respectfully, whenever someone throws in a false claim (unconstitutionality) on what is otherwise a legitimate argument (against helmet laws), THEY are muddying the issue and hurting their own -- and perhaps some of my -- causes.
Frank in northern CA |
|
Replies:
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
Home
bravenet.com