If some individual or corporation offered money to state lawmakers in exchange for passing a law utilizing the Police Powers of the government, they would probably be charged with criminal bribery or extortion. Our federal bureaucrats are doing this very thing every day, and they are using a Trust Fund of taxpayers' money to do it.
Fraud and trickery is just as despicable when played by a government for "our own good" as it is when committed by a con-man or bunco artist. In fact, when a con-man clips you for a few thousand, you can charge him with a crime and hopefully get some revenge or restitution. When a government agency tricks you into volunteering to give up one or more of your rights, they have deprived you of the very Liberty for which our nation is supposed to stand. When the courts become a willing participant in such chicanery, they are weakening the very foundations on which this nation was founded. It should not be necessary for the general public to spend their waking hours trying to decide the differences between the rules and the laws.
Our government gets its authority to govern from the people. We, the people, cannot grant a power or authority we do not have. Common law says we may not take the property of another without payment and consent. That would be stealing. Our laws against theft do not exempt anyone. If a Congressman steals, he should go to jail. If a cop intentionally murders his wife, he should go to prison. The only time we can justify violating the Rights of another is in preservation of our own rights. We can kill someone in self-defense or in defense of another. There are no exceptions to valid laws, but when we talk about rules there are exceptions all over the place. Our legislators are responsible for creating the system of regulations and rules which bureaucrats then try to pawn off as actual law. Most of the rules exempt the lawmakers.
Traffic laws are designed to expedite the safe and orderly flow of traffic along the streets and highways. If you came to an intersection with a malfunctioning traffic control light and it was Red (stop) for all directions, what would you do? Would you sit there and wait for a few hours until someone fixed it or would you exercise caution and proceed, in an orderly manner, through the intersection?
When the regulations based on laws no longer serve their intended purpose, they become rules and each of us must accept the responsibility to use prudence and selectively ignore the rules.
There are regulations involving speed, stop signs, signal lights, signs, intersecting vehicles and pedestrians, when the public safety comes into play. Again, prudence is the absolute rule. If you see a huge semi-trailer truck out of control barreling down behind you and you have to violate the speed limit to get out of its way, do you obey the speed limit or justifiably exceed it? You violate that speed regulation, unless you want to find out what it is like to be crushed under the wheels of a large semi-trailer truck.
Some people obey regulations even when they are obviously ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with obeying most rules, but you must be ready to cautiously disregard them when they are foolish, overly restrictive or require you to surrender any of your Rights.
The Congress' so-called national speed limit and the Federal Department of Transportation's (DOT) dictum that every state would have to pass 55 mph maximum speed laws or face penalties in the form of reduced highway funds took place in 1974 and was enforced for over 20 years. DOT took the position that the only purpose of the regulation was to conserve energy. At the time, the nation and the world was besieged with price manipulations by various oil producing nations. This was a perfect time for the DOT to cover-up the inadequate construction methods used on most of the Interstate Highway System. The program had been a "pork barrel" for the local political supporters to dip into. Most were actually awarded to political supporters with contractor licenses. They skimped on quality, overcharged and built inferior roads which did not stand up under constant pounding of high-speed traffic.
As a result of this boondoggle, much of our national highway system still looks like a patchwork quilt with chuck-holes, patches, repairs and washboards all along the way. Even reducing the top speed of the vehicles to 55 mph did not help. The highways continue to deteriorate. If you do not drive on the Interstate, ask a truck driver about the general conditions of the highways.
The Freeway System was designed to permit a reasonably good car to travel safely at 125 mph. Such speeds were not anticipated, but that was the standard. Europe has its own Interstate (or International) Highway System. In most respects it is built much the same as the U.S. system, with one obvious difference: The European Highways have withstood the pounding of high speed traffic and heavy trucks without falling apart or needing constant patches and repair. Cars in much of Europe do not have speed limits on the freeways and the average speed is in excess of 80 mph. Many drive the 120 mph for which the roads were designed. There may be corruption in Europe, but it did not show up in the highway system. In many areas the highway is obviously old, but it is flat and smooth. There are very few patches. In a 3,000 mile survey of the European System including Germany, Italy, France, Luxembourg and The Netherlands, only three major repair areas were under way. We certainly could not say that in the U.S..
The 1974 oil crisis, contrived or not, came at an ideal time for the DOT bureaucrats to cover their backsides. They blackmailed every state lawmaker into surrendering the police powers of their States and adopting 55 mph limits. It was either that or lose millions of dollars in highway funds --- or so they thought.
In fact, not one dollar of the money in the Trust Fund has been permanently withheld from any state. Sometimes there is a DELAY in sending the money to a state which is not considered to be complying with the various federal dictums, but eventually the money is paid. It would be illegal to alter the terms of the Trust without the consent of the beneficiaries of the Trust (the states and the motorists who paid the taxes). Lawmakers should read the Trust Fund terms. It provides for funding to be paid to the states at the end of the year. If the state wants the money in advance the governor or agent must apply for the funds and in doing so, agrees to comply with all the "extra terms" in exchange for getting the money in advance. At the end of the fiscal year, the funds must be paid to the state.
Again, if a state has not been damaged (actually had funds withheld in accordance with the terms of the Trust Fund) all the threats of DOT mean nothing. If a state goes to court "voluntarily" to challenge the implied threats, the courts can rule for what it considers "public good" regarding that particular state. Or, as would most likely happen, the court would deny the petition of the state and say that DOT had not done anything illegal. Such a ruling is then erroneously construed to mean that DOT can "permanently" withhold funds for failing to comply with certain rules; drinking age to 21, speed limits, emissions testing, seat belt regulations.
The problem with such broad interpretations being put on the rules of procedure and law, is that even when a lower court rules properly, that ruling can be appealed until some court finally rules for "public good" on the basis of "Volenti Non Fit Injuria."
When the machinery for the Highway Trust Fund was put into place it was a binding trust agreement between the states and the Federal government. The states would collect a Federal gas tax at the pumps and send the money to the Trust Fund. The Department of Transportation (DOT) administers the fund and appropriates the money back to the states on the basis of need. It is a binding agreement and the Federal bureaucrats have no authority to withhold funds on the basis of rules they make today. Any threats to withhold funds are idle. The Administrators took the position that "if the states do not do as we dictate, then they obviously do not need the funds."
Some state lawmakers protested, but were quickly shot down by the friends of the highway contractors and union leaders whose incomes depend on a constant flow of Highway Trust Fund dollars. Legislative lawyers, well-versed in the subtle differences between Constitutionally valid law and Voluntary rules, discourage the local legislators when they tried to fight back.
The same threats and tactics are being used to force all the states to have a "mandatory" seat belt rule or lose Highway Trust funds. States must check emissions of vehicles or lose Highway Trust funds.
That trick, "withholding highway funds," continued for over 25 years and is still used in varying forms. It slipped by the scrutiny of some 200 State Governors, 200 Attorneys General and all the legislators who held office during that 25 years. It is not always easy to see that the tricks are being used.
Of course, these are all regulations, but you can see some of the problems you can encounter when you try to buck them. All of the rules are not bad. It is not the object of this book to make such a decision. You must do that for yourself -- but only after you have been properly informed. You cannot be considered to have made a voluntary decision unless you have the facts.