to wear seat belts, and that was affirmed on appeal. I have a problem with what purports to be the new law now enacted for the people of the state of Wyoming. As stated in the court’s opinion, it is this: We find sound public policy in light of the fore mentioned statistics to impose on parents a duty to buckle the seat belts of their minor passengers who are dependent on adult care and supervision for their well being and safety. Maj. op. at 1160. And why will this now be the rule of law? As said in McCullough v. Golden Rule Ins. Co., 789 P.2d 855, 865 (Wyo.1990) (Golden, J., dissenting): “This ‘it-is-so-because-we-say-so’ jurisprudence constitutes nothing other than an attempted exercise of brute force; reason, much less persuasion, has no place.” (qu Office, 838 P.2d 158 (Wyo.1992) (<HOLDING>). Once declared unconstitutional, the seat belt
holding that the suspension or revocation of a drivers license is not a sanction which once imposed precludes the application of criminal sanctions holding that threeyear statute of limitations was not an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus holding that a guilty plea to underage drinking could not be withdrawn based on fact defendant was unaware that his drivers license would be suspended because of his conviction as the license suspension was a civil consequence of the conviction holding that possession of a drivers license is irrelevant to the offense of failing to present a license which is completed by failing to present the license when requested to do so by an officer holding unconstitutional a statute which provided for drivers license suspension for persons under 19 after conviction of any alcoholrelated offense