Should feds ban texting?

Do you like it when Washington — constrained by the Constitution’s limits — decides to impose its will anyway by threatening to withhold money from states? It happened way back in the ’70s with the 55 mph speed limit. It has happened with .08 blood alcohol limits on drunk driving. It has happened with seat belt laws (states that make the lack of a seat belt a primary offense are eligible for certain federal grants).
And now some in Congress want to hold up to 25 percent of a state’s highway funding hostage until that state outlaws texting while driving.
First of all, I realize this is a moot point in Utah, where the Legislature just barely passed a law against texting. That makes this one of only 14 states to do so.
Secondly, I want to be clear about my disgust for people who text and drive. As recent studies have shown, they are worse than drunk drivers.
But Utah’s new law illustrates the point I want to make. We elect local leaders to pass laws that reflect our local preferences. When members of Congress step in and threaten states if they don’t do one thing or another, it’s as if they are saying they know better than all the local yokels in the 50 states.
Frankly, I have known a lot of congressmen and women. They generally aren’t endowed with any special smarts or moral authority.
This congressional heavy handedness may be why only 28 states now have primary seat belt laws, and why some states still resist passing lower DUI thresholds. People don’t like being threatened to do what’s good for them, even if it really is good.
If it doesn’t have to do with interstate commerce, the Constitution won’t let Congress outlaw it. That ought to be the end of the story.