I'm not out drinking and driving. I just think they should be ruled unconstitutional and strip people of their due process. I hear they snag a lot of people with outstanding warrants and haul them off to jail. What about illegals? Why can't we go ahead and deport them at these check points? I have heard people argue that they are actually just registration check points and how this is legal. We all know this is BS.
The argument ALWAYS overwhelmingly for is, well don't drink and drive and I know too many people who have hurt themselves or others diatribe. You are giving up your freedoms for the falsehood of safety.
Seat belt violations hack me off too and if I am not mistaken originally could not be a reason to stop, but just an add-on. That's another topic though.
Unconstitutional in both the USA and Canada....yes probably. BUT (yeh, there is always a "but" in a discussion )
I've sen too many body-bags and yellow tarps at the side of the road to have much sympathy for impaired drivers.
There a TONS of options, from a bus to a taxi to uber to even picking up a phone an calling a buddy "Hey, I've had a few, could you do me a solid and come get me?"
If I have to live thru a few check-points to make sure my girl and neighbors come home safe, then I can live with that. I dont like funerals or hospitals, and gawd knows I've seen plenty of both in my life.
Kinda sucks that we have to put up with it because of a few irrispnsable people...but its loads better than a grave alternative.
Driving a car on a public road is a privilege, not a Constitutional right.
You have to meet certain laws to be able to legally drive on public roads. Cops checking your registration and drivers licence at check points is perfectly and Constitutionally legal, in my book.
Searching your car, however is a different matter.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness become impossible without transportation for most. The privilege argument is false.
Two sides of the same coin.
Won't go into a long winded debate but, we do not have a right to drive and if we do so, we must meet certain criteria. I'm not all that fond of check points either but, I like having that ability. I also see those check points as an opportunity to take care of other business, ie, DUI/DWI, insurance and license checks and citizenship verification.
Won't go into a long winded debate but, we do not have a right to drive and if we do so, we must meet certain criteria. I'm not all that fond of check points either but, I like having that ability. I also see those check points as an opportunity to take care of other business, ie, DUI/DWI, insurance and license checks and citizenship verification.
MEM while I normally agree with you, I am agreeing with Ben Franklin on this account. Those who would trade liberty for safety, deserve neither.
You forgot the rest of it.
The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it.
The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions.
No recent Supreme Court ruling has in any way challenged the legality of a requirement for driver’s licenses. Driver’s licenses are issued state by state (with varying requirements), not at the federal level or according to federal requirements. And driving without a license is indeed illegal in all 50 states.
The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it.
The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions.
No recent Supreme Court ruling has in any way challenged the legality of a requirement for driver’s licenses. Driver’s licenses are issued state by state (with varying requirements), not at the federal level or according to federal requirements. And driving without a license is indeed illegal in all 50 states.
I didn't forget anything, the supreme court has found interstate travel to be a right, but hasn't prohibited license requirements.
In context of this discussion, the right to travel trumps any argument they could have for dui check points. Do any of you seriously believe the founding fathers would be ok with licenses, insurance, and plate requirements? Did they impose those on horse drawn carriages? Would they be ok that travel could be restricted in effect making one a prisoner at whim?
The mandate for auto insurance is exactly like the mandate for obamacare. Dui checkpoints, seatbelt stops, and other such constitutional infractions are not ok.
I didn't forget anything, the supreme court has found interstate travel to be a right, but hasn't prohibited license requirements.
In context of this discussion, the right to travel trumps any argument they could have for dui check points. Do any of you seriously believe the founding fathers would be ok with licenses, insurance, and plate requirements? Did they impose those on horse drawn carriages? Would they be ok that travel could be restricted in effect making one a prisoner at whim?
The mandate for auto insurance is exactly like the mandate for obamacare. Dui checkpoints, seatbelt stops, and other such constitutional infractions are not ok.
Cool! I get you.
Next time, when you pass through a checkpoint, refuse to give the officer your licence and registration. Get arrested, take it to court. Tell the court your defense is the 1930 Supreme Court Case.
Let them charge you. Then appeal the case to the State Appeals Court, then once they strike you down, take it to the US District Court. Once they strike you down, take it to the US Appeals Court. Once they strike you down. Petition it to the Supreme Court and win there. Let's get these bad laws off the books once in for all.
Next time, when you pass through a checkpoint, refuse to give the officer your licence and registration. Get arrested, take it to court. Tell the court your defense is the 1930 Supreme Court Case.
Let them charge you. Then appeal the case to the State Appeals Court, then once they strike you down, take it to the US District Court. Once they strike you down, take it to the US Appeals Court. Once they strike you down. Petition it to the Supreme Court and win there. Let's get these bad laws off the books once in for all.
After a while, chains bring about a sense of security. I merely see them for what they are. Challenging the feds by oneself gets you no where, changing public opinion, changes laws. Do your chains bring you comfort?
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 01-01-2018).]
Reading back at my prior post, one could easily and rightfully assume that I called you a moron. I did not mean it to come across that way, I and I do not find you moronic.
Reading back at my prior post, one could easily and rightfully assume that I called you a moron. I did not mean it to come across that way, I and I do not find you moronic.
Bowing out...
I don't expect a reply to this. I appreciate the sentiment, but unnecessary. Even if you did mean it that way, you are entitled to the opinion, as we all are. I respect those of integrity, even if they dislike or disapprove. I don't care for the sovereign movement, only God is Sovereign, and all Government is appointed or allowed by Him. So I am bound to their authority. I only wish for them to honor the contract.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 01-01-2018).]
I didn't forget anything, the supreme court has found interstate travel to be a right, but hasn't prohibited license requirements.
In context of this discussion, the right to travel trumps any argument they could have for dui check points. Do any of you seriously believe the founding fathers would be ok with licenses, insurance, and plate requirements? Did they impose those on horse drawn carriages? Would they be ok that travel could be restricted in effect making one a prisoner at whim?
The mandate for auto insurance is exactly like the mandate for obamacare. Dui checkpoints, seatbelt stops, and other such constitutional infractions are not ok.
So, I have to assume you feel the founders foresaw interstate paved highways with huge horsepower machinery traveling? How about the need for a pilot's license or is that asking too much? They most surely didn't make up any rules requiring their day's pilots to be qualified to operate their hot air balloons. I think not. But, there is no doubt, they did see horses, mules, carriages and wagons. Be my guest, go saddle up or walk through all the states you want for all I care. Anyone that thinks the founders thought of everything is definitely not considering reality.
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-01-2018).]
So, I have to assume you feel the founders foresaw interstate paved highways with huge horsepower machinery traveling? How about the need for a pilot's license or is that asking too much? They most surely didn't make up any rules requiring their day's pilots to be qualified to operate their hot air balloons. I think not. But, there is no doubt, they did see horses, mules, carriages and wagons. Be my guest, go saddle up or walk through all the states you want for all I care. Anyone that thinks the founders thought of everything is definitely not considering reality.
People died in horse and buggy accidents. People died on horseback. The founders didn't forsee the internet, radio, tv, modern medicine or health care. What they did forsee was a Government that would one day become a tyrant and people that would be ok with that. They tried everything in their power to give us the tools to prevent it.
People died in horse and buggy accidents. People died on horseback. The founders didn't forsee the internet, radio, tv, modern medicine or health care. What they did forsee was a Government that would one day become a tyrant and people that would be ok with that. They tried everything in their power to give us the tools to prevent it.
And yet, they left things up to interpretation...................................... The pursuit of happiness is not untethered, there are constraints to just about everything. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Be safe out there.
Originally posted by blackrams: And yet, they left things up to interpretation...................................... The pursuit of happiness is not untethered, there are constraints to just about everything. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Be safe out there.
I'm not out drinking and driving. I just think they should be ruled unconstitutional and strip people of their due process. I hear they snag a lot of people with outstanding warrants and haul them off to jail. What about illegals? Why can't we go ahead and deport them at these check points? I have heard people argue that they are actually just registration check points and how this is legal. We all know this is BS.
The argument ALWAYS overwhelmingly for is, well don't drink and drive and I know too many people who have hurt themselves or others diatribe. You are giving up your freedoms for the falsehood of safety.
Seat belt violations hack me off too and if I am not mistaken originally could not be a reason to stop, but just an add-on. That's another topic though.
Like Witchita said... although I tend to dislike them also... you waive your rights with your drivers license. I think it even specifically states on your drivers license that you consent to sobriety tests and registration checks. So you're already agreeing to it when you get your drivers license. Whether you feel your rights are violated, you've already accepted the treatment when you're issued a D/L.
But also, like he said, you aren't waiving your 4th... so they can't just take your car or search it unless they have a reasonable doubt.
My father was 30 years old before the driver's license was required in Illinois. Then it was just a formality and testing of new drivers didn't start till 1953.
People died in horse and buggy accidents. People died on horseback. The founders didn't forsee the internet, radio, tv, modern medicine or health care. What they did forsee was a Government that would one day become a tyrant and people that would be ok with that. They tried everything in their power to give us the tools to prevent it.
I get you Dennis, I understand, and I agree with most points.
I believe in the right to transportation, the right to self-defence, the basic human right to freedom from a master. Be that master Her Majisty the Queen, or an elected Presidnt.
You yanks carrying guns, dont worry me in the slightest. Coming up here and trying to drive 55 when the sign reads 100/ok, thats kind of funny. BTW, 100 DOES NOT mean 100mph...Personally, I don't mind but its been a while since I owned anything that could keep up with that for more than a few KM's
But, when it comes to drunk driving...or now that our wonderful Prime Minister went and made weed legal right across this whole country...stoned driving....
Thats just a "no"...the rule is "8 hours, bottle to throttle"....one beer and you cant touch an airplane for 8 hours. There is a reason for that. I dont see why any vehicle should be treated any differntly.
Yes, I went out earlier this evening and had a couple pints with a friend. I took a taxi home. It cost $6
If ya cant afford 6 bucks, you probably shouldn't be spending $5.75 for a glass of beer in the 1st place.
[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 01-01-2018).]
I get you Dennis, I understand, and I agree with most points.
I believe in the right to transportation, the right to self-defence, the basic human right to freedom from a master. Be that master Her Majisty the Queen, or an elected Presidnt.
You yanks carrying guns, dont worry me in the slightest. Coming up here and trying to drive 55 when the sign reads 100/ok, thats kind of funny. BTW, 100 DOES NOT mean 100mph...Personally, I don't mind but its been a while since I owned anything that could keep up with that for more than a few KM's
But, when it comes to drunk driving...or now that our wonderful Prime Minister went and made weed legal right across this whole country...stoned driving....
Thats just a "no"...the rule is "8 hours, bottle to throttle"....one beer and you cant touch an airplane for 8 hours. There is a reason for that. I dont see why any vehicle should be treated any differntly.
Yes, I went out earlier this evening and had a couple pints with a friend. I took a taxi home. It cost $6
If ya cant afford 6 bucks, you probably shouldn't be spending $5.75 for a glass of beer in the 1st place.
Don't misunderstand, I abhor drunk drivers, and they should be punished to the full extent of the law.
Don't misunderstand, I abhor drunk drivers, and they should be punished to the full extent of the law.
This makes me wonder just how law enforcement is supposed to protect the rest of us, me, my family, my neighbors, you and your loved ones. Do we punish DD to the fullest extent of the law before they wreck, injure/maim or kill someone that's you hold close to you or after that happens? If before, how is that suppose to happen without infringing on my, your and everyone else's rights to be free to go wherever, whenever in the pursuit of our own happiness? Just curious.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of check points. They are a PITA and there's always a chance something could get me a ticket or whatever. I'm not perfect and have left home without my wallet before or some other type of silly but illegal situation. As I said, I'm curious as to how you solve that dilemma?
------------------ Rams
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun.... Open your frigg'n minds, think about all the other tools that can be made into WMDs.
My wife told me to grow up. I told her to get out of my fort!
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of check points. They are a PITA and there's always a chance something could get me a ticket or whatever. I'm not perfect and have left home without my wallet before or some other type of silly but illegal situation. As I said, I'm curious as to how you solve that dilemma?
With more laws, more regulation, tighter control, and with more crushing ever increasing authority.
With more laws, more regulation, tighter control, and with more crushing ever increasing authority.
No doubt. As I said, I'm just curious..................
There are times I would like to go back to the "Old West" but, I doubt that's going to happen any time soon.
------------------ Rams
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun.... Open your frigg'n minds, think about all the other tools that can be made into WMDs.
My wife told me to grow up. I told her to get out of my fort!
Not to worry about DUI stops as the everyone wants to legalize marijuana for recreational use, so not only will you have to worry about drunks on the road, but now impaired under the influence of recreational marijuana. There is no penalty that can be guaranteed to keep drunks or stoners off the road. No license, they will drive without one.. They just picked up a guy who had been arrested five times for driving without a license for the fifth time.
Im with Wichita completely on this. I wish they would set up random checkpoints all around town every day/nite. I would accept my inconvenience to get drunks, illegals and people with warrants out, all arrested. Im sick of the politically correct do gooders letting everyone off the hook because its violates their 'rights'. Its a FACT that driving IS A PRIVILEGE granted by a state after taking a test..NOT a constitutional right. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to show me where in the Constitution it states everyone has the right to drive guaranteed by the Federal Government. I dont care if you have to drive to get to the hospital every day for dialysis treatments. Take a bus, cab, Uber or walk. NO ONE has the right to drive. You DO have the right to take the test.
This makes me wonder just how law enforcement is supposed to protect the rest of us, me, my family, my neighbors, you and your loved ones. Do we punish DD to the fullest extent of the law before they wreck, injure/maim or kill someone that's you hold close to you or after that happens? If before, how is that suppose to happen without infringing on my, your and everyone else's rights to be free to go wherever, whenever in the pursuit of our own happiness? Just curious.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of check points. They are a PITA and there's always a chance something could get me a ticket or whatever. I'm not perfect and have left home without my wallet before or some other type of silly but illegal situation. As I said, I'm curious as to how you solve that dilemma?
Police have no obligation to protect anyone according to the supreme court. They enforce laws. I really don't understand the mind set of giving up rights to feel safe. Even less the eagerness to give up the rights of others. There is no right to feel safe, or even be safe. You do have the right to protect yourself. IE situational awareness when driving, and the right to demand harsh penalties for drunk drivers.
Whatever gain we can get from pre empting a drunk driver, is not worth sending the message that unconstitutional check points will be accepted. We will regret that when they have them for political affiliations, guns, maybe even single diety religions.
Not to worry about DUI stops as the everyone wants to legalize marijuana for recreational use, so not only will you have to worry about drunks on the road, but now impaired under the influence of recreational marijuana. There is no penalty that can be guaranteed to keep drunks or stoners off the road. No license, they will drive without one.. They just picked up a guy who had been arrested five times for driving without a license for the fifth time.
While I know what you mean, that just proves checkpoints work. Its the court system failure. There are thousands of multiple offenders of all the above. Why is that ? Because the courts do NOT do penalties. Drunk drivers should not only get their license taken away, but tags too, and vehicle should be impounded and sold by the state. If its not their car, too bad. If you lend your car to someone without a license, thats on you. They should also get good jail time too...years not days. Shame you would have to pay for your new BMW you lent a drunk without a license anyway huh...even though police took it and sold it at auction. Tell that story to your bank...no sympathy from me. Maybe then you would get a clue not to lend your cars to drunks and criminals.
Im with Wichita completely on this. I wish they would set up random checkpoints all around town every day/nite. I would accept my inconvenience to get drunks, illegals and people with warrants out, all arrested. Im sick of the politically correct do gooders letting everyone off the hook because its violates their 'rights'. Its a FACT that driving IS A PRIVILEGE granted by a state after taking a test..NOT a constitutional right. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to show me where in the Constitution it states everyone has the right to drive guaranteed by the Federal Government. I dont care if you have to drive to get to the hospital every day for dialysis treatments. Take a bus, cab, Uber or walk. NO ONE has the right to drive. You DO have the right to take the test.
See above article i posted, the supreme court has found interstate travel to be a uninalienable right. I would also point you to the ninth amendment. Yes, they have a right to regulate to a degree, no they do not have a right to search without probable cause. You can waive your rights, but you can not waive other peoples.
While I know what you mean, that just proves checkpoints work. Its the court system failure. There are thousands of multiple offenders of all the above. Why is that ? Because the courts do NOT do penalties. Drunk drivers should not only get their license taken away, but tags too, and vehicle should be impounded and sold by the state. If its not their car, too bad. If you lend your car to someone without a license, thats on you. They should also get good jail time too...years not days. Shame you would have to pay for your new BMW you lent a drunk without a license anyway huh...even though police took it and sold it at auction. Tell that story to your bank...no sympathy from me. Maybe then you would get a clue not to lend your cars to drunks and criminals.
Aside from the check point, I agee and if a fatality is caused by the drunk, automatic death penalty.
This makes me wonder just how law enforcement is supposed to protect the rest of us, me, my family, my neighbors, you and your loved ones. Do we punish DD to the fullest extent of the law before they wreck, injure/maim or kill someone that's you hold close to you or after that happens? If before, how is that suppose to happen without infringing on my, your and everyone else's rights to be free to go wherever, whenever in the pursuit of our own happiness? Just curious.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of check points. They are a PITA and there's always a chance something could get me a ticket or whatever. I'm not perfect and have left home without my wallet before or some other type of silly but illegal situation. As I said, I'm curious as to how you solve that dilemma?
You drive all over too, you see it. The Police aren't patrolling as much, they are sitting in the middle of the road playing on their phones. All over, especially in Ohio and Indiana. I've personally seen a car in the middle of the night, no lights drive past a patrol car sitting in the middle of the interstate. I've personally seen a car busy texting and not see that the left lane was closing, only to leave "11's" up to the police car that was sitting there, and then jerk over to cut off the row of traffic... The officer didn't even look up from his phone to see his near miss..
It's my firm belief that if the Police would simply enforce the laws already on the books, that the roads would be safer, and there would be a lot less impared drivers out there.
I've personally never had a drink and went driving. Ever. My wife and I have always been designated drivers for each other, and when I'm away from home it's a taxi, or at the motel only.
I agree with Dennis on almost everything here. Checkpoints shouldn't exist. AND one person, or a small group of people standing up for their rights simply lands them in prison if they are lucky. (See: Bundy Ranch, Montana Freemen.) It's just barely there, but it's still a police state, and ANYTHING outside of the norm will be removed.
Talking about these things online doesn't get you arrested just yet. I think (really) that that day is coming. We are more and more complacent toward the police state. However, standing up and saying anything and you are given the "crazy" label from most of the sheeple, if you are lucky.
)
