Driver's License Checkpoint

[RideTheDirt]

What is the legality of these. They currently have one set up, and I want to print out/Distribute Literature on this. Please help me!

[tonesforjonesbones]

We have been discussing this issue due to that it has been happening so much in my town. You might be in a Constitution Free Zone. google constitution free zone and take a look. tones

[RideTheDirt]

I do...I'm going to print out the bill of rights!

[tonesforjonesbones]

Print out the 4th amendment...on illegal searches and seizures. tones

[LibertyEagle]

Oh heck, here, they are going to have checkpoints where they will forcibly take your damn blood, if you refuse a breathalizer test. :eek: :mad:

This is disgusting!!!!!!! People should be up in arms.

Just like the example of the frog boiling, people have put up with so much for so long, that now they think this isn't that big a deal.

[tonesforjonesbones]

OMG! They are NOT supposed to do that! Incredible. They are only supposed to take your drivers license. This crap is seriously getting out of hand! tones

[Cowlesy]

All your bases are belong to the State.

[phill4paul]

The United States Supreme Court ruled in Sitz versus Michigan 1990 ,in a 5/4 decision, that there is no violation of 4th amendment rights in regards to DUI/License checkpoints.

Apparently there are exceptions to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.;)

[phill4paul]

We get our own BATmobile in N.C.

http://www.dui.com/dui-library/images/dwibatmobile.jpg

That Blood Alcohol Testing mobile.

The Forensic Tests for Alcohol branch of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services has implemented mobile labs for on-scene processing of motorists suspected of drinking and driving in North Carolina.

[LibertyEagle]

We get our own BATmobile in N.C.

http://www.dui.com/dui-library/images/dwibatmobile.jpg

That Blood Alcohol Testing mobile.

The Forensic Tests for Alcohol branch of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services has implemented mobile labs for on-scene processing of motorists suspected of drinking and driving in North Carolina.

Oh not here. I guess the damn police have received their obligatory 10 minutes worth of "training" and will jam that needle in your arm. :mad:

[devil21]

I havent seen anything that stated that Driver's License only checkpoints were ok. DUI checkpoints have been ruled constitutional because of the need for "safety" over the need for the 4th amendment. A driver's license isn't really a "safety" issue unless the person doesn't know how to drive but they wouldn't make it to the checkpoint anyway. Just my .02.

[acptulsa]

For many, many years all people had to do here in the U.S. that we were lucky was to mimic the phrase (often heard in movies about nazis) 'may I zee your papers, pliss?' It was just incredible to me that they would roll over for this crap when it began. How obvious does the parallel need to be?

The boiled frog analogy is appropriate. A few checkpoints during extraordinary events (like a murder or a prison escape) and a lot of propaganda about drunken drivers and next thing you know, there's a hole in the Constitution and no one says boo.

[RideTheDirt]

They were moving it when I got there.
I did speak to a few people though, and a few were on the police side:mad:
I handed them a copy of the bill of rights and read the fourth and 5th ammendments.
I did however find this on google when I searched: legality of drivers license checkpoints

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/11/15/news/inland/escondido/z84c750a95cf3802b8825750300131845.txt
From my City!

[LibertyEagle]

For many, many years all people had to do here in the U.S. that we were lucky was to mimic the phrase (often heard in movies about nazis) 'may I zee your papers, pliss?' It was just incredible to me that they would roll over for this crap when it began. How obvious does the parallel need to be?

The boiled frog analogy is appropriate. A few checkpoints during extraordinary events (like a murder or a prison escape) and a lot of propaganda about drunken drivers and next thing you know, there's a hole in the Constitution and no one says boo.

Yes, amazing isn't it? And we used to wonder how the Germans allowed the Nazism to rise in their country. I guess we know now.

[bojo68]

https://www.checkpointusa.org/roadblock/lawsuit/docs/appeals/plaintiffReply.pdf

[ToyBoat]

Why worry about it if you haven't had a drink?

If you've been drinking - stay off the road.

[phill4paul]

https://www.checkpointusa.org/roadblock/lawsuit/docs/appeals/plaintiffReply.pdf

Any idea when this case will be heard? It is a very interesting read and one I'll be researching for weeks.:)

I swear if I had it to do all over again and could go back 30yrs. I'd have made a go at law school.

[phill4paul]

Why worry about it if you haven't had a drink?

If you've been drinking - stay off the road.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[dannno]

Yes, amazing isn't it? And we used to wonder how the Germans allowed the Nazism to rise in their country. I guess we know now.

I actually know an old couple who lived in Germany during Hitler's uprising and they said it was actually very similar to what's been happening in this country.

[ToyBoat]

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
I guess that's just too simple of a concept...

[phill4paul]

Why worry about it if you haven't had a drink?

If you've been drinking - stay off the road.

Why worry about any of our Constitutional rights if we haven't done anything wrong. Why worry about having our phones tapped, or our computers monitored, or all our weapons registered? While we are at it why not have GPS on all our vehicles?
How about a CCTV in every room of our house. If you haven't done anything wrong whaty do you have to hide?

Are you sure your on the right forums, mien herr?

[speciallyblend]

Why worry about it if you haven't had a drink?

If you've been drinking - stay off the road.

im sure the germans and jews in germany said the same thing if your doing nothing wrong and stay inside and starve and do nothing ,then you can do nothing wrong and everything will be ok:) nice sounding but basically full of BS!!

not on the same level,but opening the pandoras box, these check points are BS and if i have an officer demand my lisc in Colorado. He will not see it unless i have done something wrong period!!!

[dannno]

I guess that's just too simple of a concept...

No, it's irrelevant.

I don't drink and drive, and I'm still against it. Why would I be against it if I don't drink and drive? Could you explain that to me if it's such a simple concept?

[devil21]

No, it's irrelevant.

I don't drink and drive, and I'm still against it. Why would I be against it if I don't drink and drive? Could you explain that to me if it's such a simple concept?

Besides, driver's license checks are not DUI checks. I only mentioned DUI checkpoints to put it into context. Other than that, the discussion isnt about DUI checkpoints. You're barking up the wrong tree ToyBoat.

[ToyBoat]

Why worry about any of our Constitutional rights if we haven't done anything wrong. Why worry about having our phones tapped, or our computers monitored, or all our weapons registered? While we are at it why not have GPS on all our vehicles?
How about a CCTV in every room of our house. If you haven't done anything wrong whaty do you have to hide?

Are you sure your on the right forums, mien herr?
mmm... yes, I read the title.

Precisely my point, why worry about check points if your legal? The other stuff you added is hardly the same.

[LibertyEagle]

Why worry about it if you haven't had a drink?

If you've been drinking - stay off the road.

Because you are giving too much power to a few by removing the checks and balances put in place to constrain the power of government.

Do you remember the 4th Amendment?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

[dannno]

mmm... yes, I read the title.

Precisely my point, why worry about check points if your legal? The other stuff you added is hardly the same.

Fight for everybody you pussy.


http://www.northlandposter.com/img/p652.gif

[phill4paul]

mmm... yes, I read the title.

Precisely my point, why worry about check points if your legal? The other stuff you added is hardly the same.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[ToyBoat]

No, it's irrelevant.

I don't drink and drive, and I'm still against it. Why would I be against it if I don't drink and drive? Could you explain that to me if it's such a simple concept?

Clarify your sentence... your against drinking and driving or checkpoints?

[dannno]

Clarify your sentence... your against drinking and driving or checkpoints?

I DON'T drink and drive, but I am against the check points.

Sort of like how Ron Paul thinks that gay marriage is immoral but thinks they should still be able to marry each other.

Or how he is against drug use but thinks that people should be allowed to use drugs.

Just because you are against something doesn't mean you need a law against it.

Look, the constitution is very clear about this. If somebody is driving recklessly, then there is probably cause to assume they may be intoxicated. Then an officer can pull them over and administer a test. These checkpoints are clearly unconstitutional.

[paulitics]

Why not let them in your house, if you've done nothing wrong? If one doesn't about the dangers of a police state, do you at least care if you are made late to work? Doesn't your time mean anything to you?

[phill4paul]

mmm... yes, I read the title.

Precisely my point, why worry about check points if your legal? The other stuff you added is hardly the same.

"The Right To Travel

As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress).
The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all."
It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
Thanks to Marko Liias for the idea. Thanks to W.H. van Atteveldt for the note about Congressional travel."

[ToyBoat]

Fight for everybody you pussy.

I think we can live without such remarks, I thought this was a discussion.

[Danke]

Yes, we have a right to travel. You don't need a government license to do so, only if you are involved in commerce, which they can regulate.

[ToyBoat]

Because you are giving too much power to a few by removing the checks and balances put in place to constrain the power of government.

Do you remember the 4th Amendment?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Yes, I'm fully aware.

Check points are nothing new, especially during the holidays. They've been successful at removing many from our roads that may have otherwise caused property damage, injury, or death.

I've actually gone through checkpoints just to thank them.

[phill4paul]

I think we can live without such remarks, I thought this was a discussion.

Lets see. Your discussion consists of....


Why worry about it if you haven't had a drink?

If you've been drinking - stay off the road.


I guess that's just too simple of a concept...


mmm... yes, I read the title.

Precisely my point, why worry about check points if your legal? The other stuff you added is hardly the same.


Clarify your sentence... your against drinking and driving or checkpoints?

I see your a man of many words, able to make forceful arguements.:rolleyes:

[ToyBoat]

"The Right To Travel


Yes, but where does common sense come in here? You drink, you drive, you get caught - you're busted.

[phill4paul]

Yes, but where does common sense come in here? You drink, you drive, you get caught - you're busted.

Please name one state where it is illegal to drink and drive.

[ToyBoat]

Lets see. Your discussion consists of....









I see your a man of many words, able to make forceful arguements.:rolleyes:
I've called no one a name.

[LibertyEagle]

Yes, but where does common sense come in here? You drink, you drive, you get caught - you're busted.

The issue is with government unconstitutionally invading people's privacy and property, without due process or probable cause.

[ToyBoat]

Please name one state where it is illegal to drink and drive.
So what you're really saying is it's legal until you're caught right?

[phill4paul]

So what you're really saying is it's legal until you're caught right?

No, I am asking you to name one state where it is illegal to drink and drive.

[LibertyEagle]

Yes, I'm fully aware.

Check points are nothing new, especially during the holidays. They've been successful at removing many from our roads that may have otherwise caused property damage, injury, or death.

I've actually gone through checkpoints just to thank them.

You're free to have the police move in your home with you, but don't for a second think that because you don't value your constitutional rights, that it's ok to not respect mine.

[ToyBoat]

The issue is with government unconstitutionally invading people's privacy and property, without due process or probable cause.
So where do you draw the line? To get a driver license you have your picture taken, your finger prints taken, pass a test - and what about passports?

We're talking about abusing the right to have a license, i.e. drunk driving.

[ToyBoat]

You're free to have the police move in your home with you, but don't for a second think that because you don't value your constitutional rights, that it's ok to not respect mine.

Of course I value my rights, they don't put out checkpoints in order to trap people. The whereabouts is known well in advance. You have a right not to pass through one.
Why are you making more of this than it is? We're talking about DUI checkpoints, not the cops moving in your home.

[ToyBoat]

No, I am asking you to name one state where it is illegal to drink and drive.
If you can be arrested for drinking and driving, it must be against the law right?

[LibertyEagle]

So where do you draw the line? To get a driver license you have your picture taken, your finger prints taken, pass a test - and what about passports?
I've reached my line. In fact, I've gone past it. We have allowed a police state to be enacted in our country and I am more than shocked and dismayed that we allowed this tyranny in our country. What dismays me even more, is that some don't even seem to understand what has happened.


We're talking about abusing the right to have a license, i.e. drunk driving.
If someone demonstrates that they are impaired by weaving all over the road, THEN and only then, should the police engage them. Stopping every driver at a Gestapo checkpoint is an infringement upon our liberty on a variety of different levels.

[phill4paul]

Of course I value my rights, they don't put out checkpoints in order to trap people. The whereabouts is known well in advance. You have a right not to pass through one.
Why are you making more of this than it is? We're talking about DUI checkpoints, not the cops moving in your home.

Because rights are stolen incrementally. The case precedent set for Driver License checkpoints could eventually be applied to any law regarding our persons.

[phill4paul]

If you can be arrested for drinking and driving, it must be against the law right?

Are you truly that dense. Or do you like throwing straw men? I believe it is a coin toss.

[LibertyEagle]

If you can be arrested for drinking and driving, it must be against the law right?

No, you are wrong. Your blood-alcohol level has to be at a certain point to be "against the law". So the mere fact that you drove after having a drink, is not in itself against the law.

[surf]

hey, dingyboy, we went through this the last time you wrote about how wonderful it was that the military was going to be involved in roadblocks, remember?
Of course I value my rights, they don't put out checkpoints in order to trap people. The whereabouts is known well in advance. You have a right not to pass through one.


remember how the article pointed out that no one answered the phone at the sherriffs office to find out where the "checkpoints" were?

And, i think you were thoroughly put through the ringer with your belief that driving is a "privilege." You should move to Cuba... oh wait, i guess you can't because the government won't grant you that privilege. go suck on your mother's nipple if you don't want to have some personal responsibility in your life.

[ToyBoat]

I've reached my line. In fact, I've gone past it. We have allowed a police state to be enacted in our country and I am more than shocked and dismayed that we allowed this tyranny in our country. What dismays me even more, is that some don't even seem to understand what has happened.
These checkpoints are set up during the holidays (for the fifth time), they are not a routine throughout each week. Can you not accept that we're nearing New Years Eve, notorious for drunk driving?



If someone demonstrates that they are impaired by weaving all over the road, THEN and only then, should the police engage them. Stopping every driver at a Gestapo checkpoint is an infringement upon our liberty on a variety of different levels.
It's hardly "gestapo" when they conducted during the holidays, and they are successful at removing such drivers. This isn't "infringement on your liberty" if you abuse a privilege.

[ToyBoat]

hey, dingyboy, we went through this the last time you wrote about how wonderful it was that the military was going to be involved in roadblocks, remember?

remember how the article pointed out that no one answered the phone at the sherriffs office to find out where the "checkpoints" were?

And, i think you were thoroughly put through the ringer with your belief that driving is a "privilige." You should move to Cuba... oh wait, i guess you can't because the government won't grant you that privilige. go suck on your mother's nipple if you don't want to have some personal responsibility in your life.
As soon as you learn how to spell (and grow up) we'll communicate.

[phill4paul]

These checkpoints are set up during the holidays (for the fifth time), they are not a routine throughout each week. Can you not accept that we're nearing New Years Eve, notorious for drunk driving?


It's hardly "gestapo" when they conducted during the holidays, and they are successful at removing such drivers. This isn't "infringement on your liberty" if you abuse a privilege.

I don't know where you live, but in my hometown they are randomly conducted ANY time they deem fit. They seem to find it fits them several times a week. Usually back roads. Never by the Country Club.

[LibertyEagle]

These checkpoints are set up during the holidays (for the fifth time), they are not a routine throughout each week. Can you not accept that we're nearing New Years Eve, notorious for drunk driving?
I wasn't aware that it was alright to abolish the Constitution during the Christmas holidays. Do tell. And for your information, they are talking about having checkpoints ALL the time, where I live.


It's hardly "gestapo" when they conducted during the holidays, and they are successful at removing such drivers. This isn't "infringement on your liberty" if you abuse a privilege.
Sure it is. The 4th amendment was posted at least twice for you to read. Did you read it. What part of that do you not understand? By stopping someone at a Gestapo checkpoint, you are assuming guilt and infringing upon my privacy and liberty, with no probable cause or due process of law.

Have you ever heard the analogy of boiling a frog?

"The boiling frog story states that a frog can be boiled alive if the water is heated slowly enough — it is said that if a frog is placed in boiling water, it will jump out, but if it is placed in cold water that is slowly heated, it will never jump out."

The water is at a low boil right now and is getting ready to blast off. When do you think you might WAKE UP?

[ToyBoat]

Are you truly that dense. Or do you like throwing straw men? I believe it is a coin toss.You didn't answer my question, of course you're free to dodge it with rude comments.

[ToyBoat]

I don't know where you live, but in my hometown they are randomly conducted ANY time they deem fit. They seem to find it fits them several times a week. Usually back roads. Never by the Country Club.

I live in California, I've never heard of checkpoints "randomly" staged without notice. Maybe it's the difference in the state laws. As we know, in some states they don't sell booze at certain times or days, for some it's sold around the clock and others it's 2:00 AM cut off.

As far as "by a country club", yes, I've seen police park near a bar or night club and seem to 'wait' for a driver to exit the premises.

[ToyBoat]

I wasn't aware that it was alright to abolish the Constitution during the Christmas holidays. Do tell. And for your information, they are talking about having checkpoints ALL the time, where I live.


Sure it is. The 4th amendment was posted at least twice for you to read. Did you read it. What part of that do you not understand? By stopping someone at a Gestapo checkpoint, you are assuming guilt and infringing upon my privacy and liberty, with no probable cause or due process of law.

Have you ever heard the analogy of boiling a frog?

"The boiling frog story states that a frog can be boiled alive if the water is heated slowly enough — it is said that if a frog is placed in boiling water, it will jump out, but if it is placed in cold water that is slowly heated, it will never jump out."

The water is at a low boil right now and is getting ready to blast off. When do you think you might WAKE UP?
Just so you know... I am awake - I just hate drunks.

[phill4paul]

You didn't answer my question, of course you're free to dodge it with rude comments.

No you answered my question with a question. Your the one that dodged. Twice.
I'll help you with this one. It is legal in ALL states to drink and drive.;)

[Thomas_Paine]

Yes, I'm fully aware.

Check points are nothing new, especially during the holidays. They've been successful at removing many from our roads that may have otherwise caused property damage, injury, or death.

I've actually gone through checkpoints just to thank them.

"May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen" Samuel Adams

[LibertyEagle]

Just so you know... I am awake - I just hate drunks.

No, I don't think you are, or you wouldn't consider for one second, endorsing government to act unconstitutionally.

I understand that you don't like drunks. There are a lot of things I don't like either. But, using government force is never the answer, because in doing that, you have enabled a much worse problem. Freedom never is going to do away with everything each of us doesn't like. But, it's much better than the alternative.

[phill4paul]

I live in California, I've never heard of checkpoints "randomly" staged without notice. Maybe it's the difference in the state laws. As we know, in some states they don't sell booze at certain times or days, for some it's sold around the clock and others it's 2:00 AM cut off.

As far as "by a country club", yes, I've seen police park near a bar or night club and seem to 'wait' for a driver to exit the premises.

No. By "Country Club" I don't mean the neighborhood bar or night club. There are plenty of checkpoints outside of those. By "Country Club" I mean the private membership club for the local judges, lawyers etc. The same country club that as a young bartender I was told to NEVER cut off a patron. This after a local lawyer about knocked my table bar over. He was drinking with a judge and two other lawyers. They drove home.

So now we have a law that is not only unConstitutional, but also arbitrarily applied.

I understand that you got bug up ya about drunk drivers. I understand. You've been ruthlessly brainwashed by organizations such as M.A.D.D. and the NHTSA into believing they are around every corner. They are the boogie man under your bed. That you should give up Constitutional rights for the betterment of society.

It's sad.

[surf]

privilege. my bad. ok, sorry about the comment about your attitude. but you do remember, i'm sure, how your point about being able to find the checkpoints was invalid. don't you?

just answer this (if you haven't already): do you really believe that driving your car is a privilege? do you ever wonder how people drove around prior to the time when state licensing agencies came into being?

edit: have you considered the role that insurance companies play in this?

[tmg19103]

The crazy thing is that roving DUI patrols of, say, 4 police cars assigned to drive around at the time of bar closing and watching cars for erratic driving are 10 times as effective at catching drunk drivers than DUI checkpoints.

This is what gets me. These unconstitutional DUI checkpoints are a "feel good" waste of taxpayer money to say "look, we are doing something" to appease special interests like MADD.

If they were actually effective I might have a little less disdain for them, but there is no doubt they are an infringment on rights and they don't work. In my township last year they stopped over 10,000 cars at DUI checkpoints and arrested 128 drivers for DUI. What a waste when perfectly constitutional roving patrols looking for drunk drivers would have gotten 1,000 drunks off the streets instead, but nooooo - it much more fun to demonstrate the power of the police state by stopping innocent people.

[bojo68]

but nooooo - it much more fun to demonstrate the power of the police state by stopping innocent people.

DING DING DING!:) We have a winner!:) It's essential that the public think that police/govt. has NO limits, and citizens MUST JUMP every time govt./police say so.

[speciallyblend]

The crazy thing is that roving DUI patrols of, say, 4 police cars assigned to drive around at the time of bar closing and watching cars for erratic driving are 10 times as effective at catching drunk drivers than DUI checkpoints.

This is what gets me. These unconstitutional DUI checkpoints are a "feel good" waste of taxpayer money to say "look, we are doing something" to appease special interests like MADD.

If they were actually effective I might have a little less disdain for them, but there is no doubt they are an infringment on rights and they don't work. In my township last year they stopped over 10,000 cars at DUI checkpoints and arrested 128 drivers for DUI. What a waste when perfectly constitutional roving patrols looking for drunk drivers would have gotten 1,000 drunks off the streets instead, but nooooo - it much more fun to demonstrate the power of the police state by stopping innocent people.

this is so true and i even know cops that would back this up:)

[speciallyblend]

DING DING DING!:) We have a winner!:) It's essential that the public think that police/govt. has NO limits, and citizens MUST JUMP every time govt./police say so.

haha note my icon ,i only jump because they the goverment tells me to jump ,so i just bounce away:)

[ToyBoat]

No, I don't think you are, or you wouldn't consider for one second, endorsing government to act unconstitutionally.

I understand that you don't like drunks. There are a lot of things I don't like either. But, using government force is never the answer, because in doing that, you have enabled a much worse problem. Freedom never is going to do away with everything each of us doesn't like. But, it's much better than the alternative.

Welp, there ya go thinkin...

You have the freedom to drink and drive all you want, hey, take your family along... just know that there is such a thing as personal responsibility, something true Americans take pride in.
The problem is, there are too many dipwits that don't care about personal responsibility and we have laws for them.

[LibertyEagle]

Welp, there ya go thinkin...
Yes, you should try it sometime.


You have the freedom to drink and drive all you want, hey, take your family along... just know that there is such a thing as personal responsibility, something true Americans take pride in.
Indeed. We also take pride in our Constitution. Have you read it?


The problem is, there are too many dipwits that don't care about personal responsibility and we have laws for them.
Indeed and the Constitution is the law of the land. And what you have been advocating, driver's checkpoints, stomps all over the 4th amendment, as you have been shown in this thread, numerous times. Do you even care, or does your hunger for controlling your environment and everyone else's too, overcome any belief in liberty that you once had?

[ToyBoat]

No. By "Country Club" I don't mean the neighborhood bar or night club. There are plenty of checkpoints outside of those. By "Country Club" I mean the private membership club for the local judges, lawyers etc. The same country club that as a young bartender I was told to NEVER cut off a patron. This after a local lawyer about knocked my table bar over. He was drinking with a judge and two other lawyers. They drove home. Money talks. Ted Kennedy got away with murder.. I think he was drinking at the time too.



I understand that you got bug up ya about drunk drivers. I understand. You've been ruthlessly brainwashed by organizations such as M.A.D.D. and the NHTSA into believing they are around every corner. They are the boogie man under your bed. That you should give up Constitutional rights for the betterment of society.

It's sad.
I don't care about MADD or any other organization, so quit with the "brainwashing" assumptions.

BTW - I think the term was "munchkins" not 'boogie man'.

[ToyBoat]

Yes

Indeed.

Indeed
You agree with me I see.


and the Constitution is the law of the land. And what you have been advocating, driver's checkpoints, stomps all over the 4th amendment, as you have been shown in this thread, numerous times. Do you even care, or does your hunger for controlling your environment and everyone else's too, overcome any belief in liberty that you once had?
Like I said, you're free to drink and drive all you want - if that's how you perceive your personal responsibility. You also endanger others with that lack of responsibility and rob them of their freedom. Who's freedom are you more concerned about?

[LibertyEagle]

You agree with me I see.
Hardly. Selective editing on your part.


Like I said, you're free to drink and drive all you want - if that's how you perceive your personal responsibility. You also endanger others with that lack of responsibility and rob them of their freedom. Who's freedom are you more concerned about?
This long ago stopped being about drinking and driving. It is about your apparent distaste for the Constitution and the rule of law and your willingness to put aside any principles you ever had about liberty, to make you feel all safe and cozy.

[powerofreason]

You agree with me I see.

Like I said, you're free to drink and drive all you want - if that's how you perceive your personal responsibility. You also endanger others with that lack of responsibility and rob them of their freedom. Who's freedom are you more concerned about?

If you drink and drive and don't hurt anyone or their property what have you done wrong?

Answer: Nothing

[powerofreason]

Legalize Drunk Driving

by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

[Note: This column was written before the news came out last night that George W. Bush was arrested on a DUI charge 24 years ago. He was stopped in Maine for driving too slowly and briefly veering onto the shoulder of the road]

Clinton has signed a bill passed by Congress that orders the states to adopt new, more onerous drunk-driving standards or face a loss of highway funds. That’s right: the old highway extortion trick. Sure enough, states are already working to pass new, tighter laws against Driving Under the Influence, responding as expected to the feds’ ransom note.

Now the feds declare that a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent and above is criminal and must be severely punished. The National Restaurant Association is exactly right that this is absurdly low. The overwhelming majority of accidents related to drunk driving involve repeat offenders with blood-alcohol levels twice that high. If a standard of 0.1 doesn’t deter them, then a lower one won’t either.

But there’s a more fundamental point. What precisely is being criminalized? Not bad driving. Not destruction of property. Not the taking of human life or reckless endangerment. The crime is having the wrong substance in your blood. Yet it is possible, in fact, to have this substance in your blood, even while driving, and not commit anything like what has been traditionally called a crime.

What have we done by permitting government to criminalize the content of our blood instead of actions themselves? We have given it power to make the application of the law arbitrary, capricious, and contingent on the judgment of cops and cop technicians. Indeed, without the government’s "Breathalyzer," there is no way to tell for sure if we are breaking the law.

Sure, we can do informal calculations in our head, based on our weight and the amount of alcohol we have had over some period of time. But at best these will be estimates. We have to wait for the government to administer a test to tell us whether or not we are criminals. That’s not the way law is supposed to work. Indeed, this is a form of tyranny.

Now, the immediate response goes this way: drunk driving has to be illegal because the probability of causing an accident rises dramatically when you drink. The answer is just as simple: government in a free society should not deal in probabilities. The law should deal in actions and actions alone, and only insofar as they damage person or property. Probabilities are something for insurance companies to assess on a competitive and voluntary basis.

This is why the campaign against "racial profiling" has intuitive plausibility to many people: surely a person shouldn’t be hounded solely because some demographic groups have higher crime rates than others. Government should be preventing and punishing crimes themselves, not probabilities and propensities. Neither, then, should we have driver profiling, which assumes that just because a person has quaffed a few he is automatically a danger.

In fact, driver profiling is worse than racial profiling, because the latter only implies that the police are more watchful, not that they criminalize race itself. Despite the propaganda, what’s being criminalized in the case of drunk driving is not the probability that a person driving will get into an accident but the fact of the blood-alcohol content itself. A drunk driver is humiliated and destroyed even when he hasn’t done any harm.

Of course, enforcement is a serious problem. A sizeable number of people leaving a bar or a restaurant would probably qualify as DUI. But there is no way for the police to know unless they are tipped off by a swerving car or reckless driving in general. But the question becomes: why not ticket the swerving or recklessness and leave the alcohol out of it? Why indeed.

To underscore the fact that it is some level of drinking that is being criminalized, government sets up these outrageous, civil-liberties-violating barricades that stop people to check their blood – even when they have done nothing at all. This is a gross attack on liberty that implies that the government has and should have total control over us, extending even to the testing of intimate biological facts. But somehow we put up with it because we have conceded the first assumption that government ought to punish us for the content of our blood and not just our actions.

There are many factors that cause a person to drive poorly. You may have sore muscles after a weight-lifting session and have slow reactions. You could be sleepy. You could be in a bad mood, or angry after a fight with your spouse. Should the government be allowed to administer anger tests, tiredness tests, or soreness tests? That is the very next step, and don’t be surprised when Congress starts to examine this question.

Already, there’s a move on to prohibit cell phone use while driving. Such an absurdity follows from the idea that government should make judgments about what we are allegedly likely to do.

What’s more, some people drive more safely after a few drinks, precisely because they know their reaction time has been slowed and they must pay more attention to safety. We all know drunks who have an amazing ability to drive perfectly after being liquored up. They should be liberated from the force of the law, and only punished if they actually do something wrong.

We need to put a stop to this whole trend now. Drunk driving should be legalized. And please don’t write me to say: "I am offended by your insensitivity because my mother was killed by a drunk driver." Any person responsible for killing someone else is guilty of manslaughter or murder and should be punished accordingly. But it is perverse to punish a murderer not because of his crime but because of some biological consideration, e.g. he has red hair.

Bank robbers may tend to wear masks, but the crime they commit has nothing to do with the mask. In the same way, drunk drivers cause accidents but so do sober drivers, and many drunk drivers cause no accidents at all. The law should focus on violations of person and property, not scientific oddities like blood content.

There’s a final point against Clinton’s drunk-driving bill. It is a violation of states rights. Not only is there is no warrant in the Constitution for the federal government to legislate blood-alcohol content – the 10th amendment should prevent it from doing so. The question of drunk driving should first be returned to the states, and then each state should liberate drunk drivers from the force of the law.

[ToyBoat]

Hardly. Selective editing on your part.


This long ago stopped being about drinking and driving. It is about your apparent distaste for the Constitution and the rule of law and your willingness to put aside any principles you ever had about liberty, to make you feel all safe and cozy.
No, I've kept this on the topic of drinking and driving, others have turned it into a unconstitutional uproar.
I'll consider that you used the word "apparent" in your statement and say -
DO NOT pass judgment on someone you don't know.

Because I don't have a bazillion posts next to my name doesn't mean I'm "new". I don't waste my time sitting on my ass in front of a computer racking up post, yet I'm actually out doing something about the problems.

[Anti Federalist]

Yes, I'm fully aware.

Check points are nothing new, especially during the holidays. They've been successful at removing many from our roads that may have otherwise caused property damage, injury, or death.

I've actually gone through checkpoints just to thank them.

Ahahhahahah...good one, you had plenty of people here worked up, myself included.

Seriously though, these issues are too important to crack jokes about.

Still, nicely done, better than a rick roll.:D

[tremendoustie]

Like I said, you're free to drink and drive all you want - if that's how you perceive your personal responsibility. You also endanger others with that lack of responsibility and rob them of their freedom. Who's freedom are you more concerned about?

ToyBoat, you're either really slow, or you're intentionally obfuscating here. My money's on the latter. The point is not that you should be able to drive drunk, the point is that they way they are enforcing the law violates our rights under the constitution, against unlawful search and seizure. I'm sure you're smart enough to understand the distinction.

Here, I'll make it clearer by putting it in another context:

Say the government institutes a policy of inspecting all houses twice a month to look for stolen merchandise. They search all houses, no one's exempt. I argue that they should not do so because it's an invasion of privacy, and a violation of the fourth amendment. You say, "Apparently you think you have the right to steal stuff. Sure, if that's what you think responsibility is, and that's how you perceive your freedom, but I don't like thiefs, so I support the cops stopping them."

Or, if you still don't get it:

Later, to catch people who make death threats, the police start recording all phone conversations. I argue that they should not do so because it's an invasion of privacy, and a violation of the fourth amendment. You say, "Apparently you think you have the right to make death threats. Sure, if that's what you think responsibility is, and that's how you perceive your freedom. I think we should be trying to prevent these murders."

I'm sure you're smart enough to see the absurdity of this. All the police apparently need is a good excuse and a purported pure motive, and you'll apparently lay down and let them do anything they like.

[ToyBoat]

Ahahhahahah...good one, you had plenty of people here worked up, myself included.

Seriously though, these issues are too important to crack jokes about.

Still, nicely done, better than a rick roll.:D
I'll find a checkpoint close to me and do it again this year.

:)

[Anti Federalist]

I'll find a checkpoint close to me and do it again this year.

:)

Stop, yer killing me.:D

[devil21]

No, I've kept this on the topic of drinking and driving, others have turned it into a unconstitutional uproar.

Do you truly see a disconnect between the Constitution and enforcing laws, such as drunk driving laws?

I can't believe you would consider them to be separate topics since one begets the other. Without the Constitution, there is no process under which DUI laws are enforced. You're not making any sense.

[Anti Federalist]

ToyBoat, you're either really slow, or you're intentionally obfuscating here. My money's on the latter.

He's jerkin' everybody's chain.

It's a gag.

[tremendoustie]

He's jerkin' everybody's chain.

It's a gag.

Could be that too :p

[Anti Federalist]

Could be that too :p

I'm pretty sure it is.

Based on this:


Toyboat wrote:
I've actually gone through checkpoints just to thank them.

Lulz...even if you were a big enough asshole to want to do such a thing, more than likely you'd get arrested for even trying.

He's yanking chains, for what reason I don't know, maybe just to be comical.

[ToyBoat]

ToyBoat, you're either really slow, or you're intentionally obfuscating here. My money's on the latter. The point is not that you should be able to drive drunk, the point is that they way they are enforcing the law violates our rights under the constitution, against unlawful search and seizure. I'm sure you're smart enough to understand the distinction.

The point is - no one is forcing you to drive through a checkpoint, they're announced ahead of time (in Ca. anyway) and you have options i.e. bus, taxi etc. If you choose to drink and drive, and choose to abuse your driving privileges, you're responsible for what may happen.

Ok look... I've intentionally posted questions in here to engage thought and maybe tone down some hysteria. I understand the concern of what people may perceive as "unconstitutional" DUI checkpoints. I've tried to point out that this is a personal responsibility issue just the same. The feedback of some in here almost seems that they'd pop the cork and go weave through a checkpoint out of spite.
In many ways, losing our perception of personal responsibility is what has screwed us up as a nation.

[penguin]

So where do you draw the line? To get a driver license you have your picture taken, your finger prints taken, pass a test - and what about passports?

We're talking about abusing the right to have a license, i.e. drunk driving.

Was a crime committed? anyone hurt? I know guys who can drink me under the table and still drive better then me with a couple down, so why should a test or anything like that be a crime. Really who was damaged when Bob had a few beers and drove home, me because he can hold his liquor? You suggest the potential to do harm is a reason for punishment so by your participation here you are just as guilty. Do you honestly believe that the potential to do harm is the same as doing harm? Where does it end, thought crimes.

[ToyBoat]

I'm pretty sure it is.

Based on this:



Lulz...even if you were a big enough asshole to want to do such a thing, more than likely you'd get arrested for even trying.

You must have allot of experience being arrested.

I've found that most people that are really anti-cop are the one's with a rap sheet.
:D

[ToyBoat]

Was a crime committed? anyone hurt? I know guys who can drink me under the table and still drive better then me with a couple down, so why should a test or anything like that be a crime. Really who was damaged when Bob had a few beers and drove home, me because he can hold his liquor? You suggest the potential to do harm is a reason for punishment so by your participation here you are just as guilty. Do you honestly believe that the potential to do harm is the same as doing harm? Where does it end, thought crimes.
If I pressed 1, will this post come through in English?

[Anti Federalist]

You must have allot of experience being arrested.

I've found that most people that are really anti-cop are the one's with a rap sheet.
:D

Hell, a good time, for me, isn't any good unless I get arrested at least once.

Pikers...you haven't lived until you've crashed a car at 80 plus, high on LSD and Old Grand Dad.

[ToyBoat]

Hell, a good time, for me, isn't any good unless I get arrested at least once.

Pikers...you haven't lived until you've crashed a car at 80 plus, high on LSD and Old Grand Dad.
Need I say more?

[Anti Federalist]

Need I say more?

Just be sure, that when you do it, don't crash small cars.

Crashing small cars is no fun, everything is all, right up in your face and you have to deal with it.

Try to crash big, old, slow, road boats, like a 1976 Ford LTD.

That big long hood out in front, hell, a crash becomes like a civil war in Africa, way out there and far away, instead right up close and personal.

And if you're really wasted and do it right, there is a "stop motion" effect to the wrinkling steel as it folds up in front of you that is worth the effort.

[amonasro]

Toyboat, you are being ridiculous and you know it. It doesn't matter how immoral drunk driving is, it doesn't matter how effective the roadblocks seem to be, and it certainly doesn't matter what your personal opinions about them are. We're arguing principle. The Constitution is there for a reason and is responsible for allowing you the liberty to be successful and happy by restraining government. Remember that.

[kathy88]

No, it's irrelevant.

I don't drink and drive, and I'm still against it. Why would I be against it if I don't drink and drive? Could you explain that to me if it's such a simple concept?


I don't even drink and I'm against it.

[tmg19103]

Last checkpoint I went through I rolled down my window but exercised my constitutional rights by refusing to speak. The cop said it was "sobriety checkpoint to see if drivers had beeen drinking", so since I was a suspect in a crime (without probable cause) I did the prudent thing and exercised my right not to incriminate myself by speaking (I was not drinking and I don't even drink). As lawyers say - never talk to cops if accused of a crime.

So the cop tells me if I don't talk to him, it provides for suspicion of having been drinking and I will be pulled over and asked to do a field sobriety test. At this point i did speak to him and told I would sue the pants of him and the township if he pulled me out of line without probable cause and he let me go.

I wrote every township commissioner complaining (I know them all) and got a letter from the police cheif saying driving a car is a privilege and not a constitutional right and I must be in "compliance" with police orders.

So, I had a buddy who is a lawyer write the commissioners reminding them that your constitutional rights do not end just because you are driving a car and that I was more than tired of the checkpoint they set-up virtually outside my house once a month and was considering suing because the police cheif said in writing I had to comply rather than exercise my constitutional rights.

It would have been a petty lawsuit I never would have gone through with, but it was enough for them not to have any more checkpoints at the location near my house like the had been for years. They moved it to the other side of the township knowing I would drive through it again and a cop might do something stupid if I exercised my rights.

These things are jack bootin', storm troopin' Nazi tootin' violations of our rights. I'm all for getting drunk drivers off the streets and I say again that roving patrols that are ten times more effective and that involvve stopping pople based on reasonable suspicion due to driving behavior, as opposed to intimidating innocent people with police state goonery, is the way to go.

[Peace&Freedom]

So the cop tells me if I don't talk to him, it provides for suspicion of having been drinking and I will be pulled over and asked to do a field sobriety test. At this point i did speak to him and told I would sue the pants of him and the township if he pulled me out of line without probable cause and he let me go.


This is the key! In NYC, peaceful demonstrators to the '04 GOP convention were arrested without probable cause for holding an 'unlicensed protest,' and kept in a slimy pier for days without charge. Hundreds of lawsuits resulted, that the city lost millions over, now guess what, the cops are instructed not to arrest peaceful protestors. Take Big Brother to court en masse when it steps on your rights---in general, it does still work.

[TonySutton]

Let us discuss the slippery slope, ie boiling a frog


Naturally, once the Supreme Court sanctioned drunk-driving checkpoints, police expanded their use. As long as the car is stopped and the policeman is there, why not check to see whether the driver is wearing a seatbelt – or has his registration with him – or has any open containers of alcohol in the car – or has any guns hidden under the seat or in the glove compartment? And why not take a drug-sniffing dog and walk it around the car to see whether the pooch wags his tail, thereby automatically nullifying the driver’s and passengers’ constitutional rights and entitling police to forcibly search the vehicle?

This quote is taken from here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/bovard/bovard51.html

[paulitics]

They have no right to inconvenience me If I am not breaking any law. I have a life, and expect them to let me live in peace. Plus, its an incredible waste of resources. It also sets a bad precedent, and finally you can never, never reason that there will not be corruption in government. The silly, "I've done nothing wrong so I have nothing to worry about " means you don't understand the most basic principles of human nature, and what it takes to remain free.

[LibertyEagle]

Last checkpoint I went through I rolled down my window but exercised my constitutional rights by refusing to speak. The cop said it was "sobriety checkpoint to see if drivers had beeen drinking", so since I was a suspect in a crime (without probable cause) I did the prudent thing and exercised my right not to incriminate myself by speaking (I was not drinking and I don't even drink). As lawyers say - never talk to cops if accused of a crime.

So the cop tells me if I don't talk to him, it provides for suspicion of having been drinking and I will be pulled over and asked to do a field sobriety test. At this point i did speak to him and told I would sue the pants of him and the township if he pulled me out of line without probable cause and he let me go.

I wrote every township commissioner complaining (I know them all) and got a letter from the police cheif saying driving a car is a privilege and not a constitutional right and I must be in "compliance" with police orders.

So, I had a buddy who is a lawyer write the commissioners reminding them that your constitutional rights do not end just because you are driving a car and that I was more than tired of the checkpoint they set-up virtually outside my house once a month and was considering suing because the police cheif said in writing I had to comply rather than exercise my constitutional rights.

It would have been a petty lawsuit I never would have gone through with, but it was enough for them not to have any more checkpoints at the location near my house like the had been for years. They moved it to the other side of the township knowing I would drive through it again and a cop might do something stupid if I exercised my rights.

These things are jack bootin', storm troopin' Nazi tootin' violations of our rights. I'm all for getting drunk drivers off the streets and I say again that roving patrols that are ten times more effective and that involvve stopping pople based on reasonable suspicion due to driving behavior, as opposed to intimidating innocent people with police state goonery, is the way to go.

WOOT for you!!! Way to go! :D

[powerofreason]

Don't complain about laws! Be patriotic!

http://cghs.dadeschools.net/holocaust/jugen.jpg

[tomveil]

The point is - no one is forcing you to drive through a checkpoint, they're announced ahead of time (in Ca. anyway) and you have options i.e. bus, taxi etc. If you choose to drink and drive, and choose to abuse your driving privileges, you're responsible for what may happen.

Next time you approach one of these checkpoints, you should turn around and go the other way about 500 feet in front of it. See what kind of choice you have there.

[TonySutton]

Would people object to police randomly appearing at banks, convenient stores, liquor stores, etc to conduct pat downs of every customer coming through the door?

I think this would be just as good at deterring and stopping armed robberies as check points are for stopping drunken driving.

Comments?

(of course, I do not think check points are anymore effective at deterring or stopping drunk drivers than focused patrolling.)

[roshie]

Would people object to police randomly appearing at banks, convenient stores, liquor stores, etc to conduct pat downs of every customer coming through the door?

I think this would be just as good at deterring and stopping armed robberies as check points are for stopping drunken driving.

Comments?

(of course, I do not think check points are anymore effective at deterring or stopping drunk drivers than focused patrolling.)

The problem is that people want to see something done. I doubt that the government wants to be watching your every move, it's just some political organization out there, perhaps Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), lobbying the government for these types of programs.

Yeah, it's "for our benefit" but it's also a hassle. The better way of handling this would be just watching people on the street and listening for complaints of possible drunk driving, the old way of doing it. This is much less invasive to your privacy and less of a hassle in your life but face it, due to MADD and other organizations that wants to see "SOMETHING DONE", what you want isn't going to happen.

Remember, the only reason why FDR was elected president was because people wanted SOMETHING DONE about the economy. Free markets were not good enough, "just letting the free market work out the kinks" wasn't good enough for the people.

So to answer your question, the government would do something like that were there enough outrage at bank robberies and such. For example, if all the bank robbery victims banded together and pushed for legislation for bank robbery checkpoints and the government was mostly democrat -- it might happen.

Just my 2 cents.

[tmg19103]

There will always be people for a nanny state. That's not what I am about, and that's not what Ron Paul is about.

[ToyBoat]

Have a safe and happy New Year everyone!

...and don't forget to thank your local law enforcement for keeping your roads safe.

:D

[angelatc]

What is the legality of these. They currently have one set up, and I want to print out/Distribute Literature on this. Please help me!

What state are you in?

[angelatc]

So where do you draw the line? To get a driver license you have your picture taken, your finger prints taken, pass a test - and what about passports?

We're talking about abusing the right to have a license, i.e. drunk driving.

I don't think we should be required to have licenses. That's my line.

[angelatc]

The United States Supreme Court ruled in Sitz versus Michigan 1990 ,in a 5/4 decision, that there is no violation of 4th amendment rights in regards to DUI/License checkpoints.

Apparently there are exceptions to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.;)

I believe that if you actually read the majority opinion, they said that it is an acceptable infringement on individual rights. It ok to infringe on individual rights in the name of the public good. Exactly the opposite of what the founders intended.,

It isn't really a right, I guess. We actually have a Bill of Privileges.

[HOLLYWOOD]

I believe that if you actually read the majority opinion, they said that it is an acceptable infringement on individual rights. It ok to infringe on individual rights in the name of the public good. Exactly the opposite of what the founders intended.,

It isn't really a right, I guess. We actually have a Bill of Privileges.

Well Said!


The politicians appointed to the SCOTUS were suppose to check any moves by legislative, executive, lobbying, wealth, elitists, Zionists, and any other threat to the People and the CONSTITUTION, especially when it comes to government. All 4 branches have moved to control the people.

Now, it's protection of government and control at all levels. Sad that a 100 million ignorant Americans cannot see through this evolution of deceit and manipulation. Slowly but surely, the generations to come will slowly come to accept all and any indoctrination forced upon them.

what has gone from Drunk Drivers off the road, to absolute ZERO TOLERANCE against ANY alcohol in your system. One drink can get you a Driving While impaired, and now we have; DL checks, Insurance checks, Registration checks, criminal checks. Everything this nation has founded against, and we oh so mocked about Germany and the Soviet Union... has become U.S..

[LibertyEagle]

I believe that if you actually read the majority opinion, they said that it is an acceptable infringement on individual rights. It ok to infringe on individual rights in the name of the public good. Exactly the opposite of what the founders intended.,

It isn't really a right, I guess. We actually have a Bill of Privileges.

Exactly. Judges are not supposed to be deciding whether THEY believe something is an acceptable infringement, they are supposed to abide by the Constitution in ALL cases.

[angelatc]

You must have allot of experience being arrested.

I've found that most people that are really anti-cop are the one's with a rap sheet.
:D

Nice. Personal attack.

Get this. I am 45, never even had a speeding ticket, and I am very anti-cop. I think they are bullies with badges and big chips on their soldiers.

[surf]

Happy New Year everyone. Pleae don't drive drunk - we all know this isn't a good idea and we (as a movement) can't afford to lose more members. Forget Toyboat in the New Year and remember your rights - they are not privileges, but rights. Pick your fights selectively and keep your best interests in mind.

Because Toyboat has taken it upon himself to verbalize every stupid counter-argument to freedom, lets just blow him off.

I tend to be a threadkiller, hope it works this time.

[satchelmcqueen]

Oh heck, here, they are going to have checkpoints where they will forcibly take your damn blood, if you refuse a breathalizer test. :eek: :mad:

This is disgusting!!!!!!! People should be up in arms.

Just like the example of the frog boiling, people have put up with so much for so long, that now they think this isn't that big a deal.

they did it to shaq i heard on cnn. also my wife is a paramedic and she thinks that cops taking blood is very dangerous. unless you are trained in the medical field in that area, just that simple task of drawing blood can kill you dead if not done right. it is not a simple routine matter and must be done right.

[powerofreason]

they did it to shaq i heard on cnn. also my wife is a paramedic and she thinks that cops taking blood is very dangerous. unless you are trained in the medical field in that area, just that simple task of drawing blood can kill you dead if not done right. it is not a simple routine matter and must be done right.

Exactly. I'll go to jail before some prick cop takes my blood.

[Swmorgan77]

They don't think they even need a warrant to seach INSIDE of your body now.

This crap has got to stop, and we don't have the time or resources to fight each case in court.

Civil disobedience in mass numbers is the only way. Say no and be professional and ready to go to jail. They can't take everyone in and if they know you're not afraid to go to jail they lose their power over you in the immediate situation. Make sure you get video of it when you can too. Organize a convoy of cars to drive to the checkpoint one after another and everyone refuse.

As long as 99.9% of the idiotic masses voluntarly throw their rights away instead of asserting them in a timely manner like the courts have held is necessary, then we'll all have to put up with this garbage.

[angelatc]

Back to the original topic? I am not sure the Driver's License checkpoints are legal.

Indianapolis tried pulling people over to check for drugs, and they were ruled totally out of line for that. The deal is that the stops are legal only if they're part of a program to increase road safety.

Driver's License checks don't do that.

Here's some legal stuff: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=fl&vol=2D00-755&invol=1

[mediahasyou]

http://www.youtube.com/user/CheckpointUSA?ob=1

[Call Me V]

Ask to search their car. You have just as much right to violate their property as they do yours.

[Brian4Liberty]

Sobriety Checkpoints are the Wrong Way To Catch Drunk Drivers Over the Holidays

American Beverage Institute Says MADD and NHTSA are Wrong to Focus on Checkpoints; Police Should Utilize Roving Patrols This Christmas

(December 17, 2008) – PR Newswire

WASHINGTON – Today the American Beverage Institute (ABI) urged Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to abandon their push for sobriety checkpoints this holiday season. Roadblocks have been proven largely ineffective and will fail to target the real drunk driving problem.

Today, MADD and NHTSA are holding a press conference to kick off their "Drunk Driving. Over the Limit. Under Arrest." campaign which will pour government resources into sobriety checkpoints this holiday season. The ABI advocates in favor of roving patrols which are more effective than checkpoints. “By promoting sobriety checkpoints, MADD and NHTSA are ignoring the root cause of today’s drunk driving problem—hard core alcohol abusers,” said ABI Managing Director Sarah Longwell. Data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) show that the average BAC of a drunk driver in a fatal car crash is 0.18% -- more than twice the legal limit. Additionally, a NHTSA administrator has said that today’s problem is “by far and away” made up of “those who have alcohol use disorders.” Former Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) president Katherine Prescott has made similar statements, saying that the drunk driving problem has been reduced to “a hard core of alcoholics who do not respond to public appeal.” Yet sobriety checkpoints fail to target this dangerous population and instead will inconvenience all driving adults. In addition to being ineffective, sobriety checkpoints target moderate, responsible drinkers and are ineffective (often catching 0 drunk drivers, while costing taxpayers over $10,000). Instead of roadblocks, law enforcement agencies should employ roving patrols, in which police roam the streets and highways looking for erratic drivers.

These roving patrols – also known as saturation patrols – are up to 10 times more successful than checkpoints. Moreover, roving patrols can catch speeders, distracted and aggressive drivers, in addition to drunks. “Because they are highly visible by design and publicized in advance, roadblocks are all too easily avoided by the chronic alcohol abusers who comprise the core of today's drunk driving problem,” Longwell continued. “That leaves adults who enjoyed a beer while watching a bowl game or a glass of wine with Christmas dinner to be harassed at checkpoints.”

http://www.americanbeverageinstitute.com/

[Brian4Liberty]

The Federal Government is giving out money for local police to do checkpoints...

-------------

"You hear it on the news every night," said Longwell, of the American Beverage Institute. "A roadblock stopped 200, 300 people and caught one drunk driver, or none. Police officers will tell you the roving patrols are more useful.

"The reason people like them (roadblocks) and safety officials defend them is they get money from the government to run them," Longwell said. "They get special money to do it."

The federal government doles out small grants specifically designated for checkpoints, according to Michele Meadows, assistant director of administration for the California Office of Traffic Safety. The office is a pass-through agency that distributes federal funding for the small grants and for the "Avoid" program, which includes both checkpoints and saturation patrols."

http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_11332248?source=rss

[Matt Collins]

As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). Except that the 9th Amendment says that the Constitution is not a complete list of rights. In fact it isn't an inclusive list of rights at all. It's just a fractional list of rights that we all have but that the government isn't allowed to infringe on it.

In other words, the (federal) government is only allowed to infringe on those rights if the Constitution says they can. Why is this such a difficult concept for those who have gone to law school :confused:

[Matt Collins]

Yes, we have a right to travel. You don't need a government license to do so, only if you are involved in commerce, which they can regulate.Why if involved in commerce? Where do you get that idea from?:confused:

[Matt Collins]

These checkpoints are set up during the holidays (for the fifth time), they are not a routine throughout each week. Can you not accept that we're nearing New Years Eve, notorious for drunk driving? The Constitution does not get suspended for national holidays, periods of national hysteria, natural disasters, or even war.



This isn't "infringement on your liberty" if you abuse a privilege.Well if you are not abusing the "privilege" then they are slowing / stopping your ability to move about freely.

[Matt Collins]

Check points are nothing new, So? Whether or not something is recent does not determine whether or not it's Constitutional.


I've actually gone through checkpoints just to thank them.That's because you're an [Insult redacted by Mod]...:rolleyes:

[powerofreason]

So? Whether or not something is recent does not determine whether or not it's Constitutional.

That's because you're an [Insult redacted by Mod]...:rolleyes:

Aww I wanted to read the naughty word :(

[RSLudlum]

So? Whether or not something is recent does not determine whether or not it's Constitutional.



...or moral.

[powerofreason]

...or moral.

Too many people on this board confuse the two.

[Matt Collins]

Aww I wanted to read the naughty word :(It wasn't a naughty word. It was "1d10t"

[Matt Collins]

Too many people on this board confuse the two.Exactly. Morality and legality are two separate lines. Sometimes they intersect, sometimes they don't.

[LibertyEagle]

+ Insulting or personally attacking other users is not allowed by any member.

+ If you are to be critical of another users ideas or message please do so in a respectful manner.

+ Any form of antagonizing other members is not allowed by non-established members.

+ No promoting of campaign tactics or other activity that grossly counter the morals or ethics of Dr. Paul.

Source: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=22

[Danke]

Why if involved in commerce? Where do you get that idea from?:confused:

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution.

"Driving" is a commercial activity. That the government can regulate. Private travel is not, and there is no need for a license. Travel is an unalienable right.

States have taking the federal government role in interstate commerce to their intrastate commerce.

[Matt Collins]

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution.

"Driving" is a commercial activity. That the government can regulate. Incorrect. The phrase "to regulate" actually meant "to make regular" at the time it was written. Read the Napolitano books and watch the Badnarik Constitution Class (on Google Video).

Then you'll understand why your argument using the ICC is erroneous.

[Anti Federalist]

+ If you are to be critical of another users ideas or message please do so in a respectful manner.

+ Any form of antagonizing other members is not allowed by non-established members.

Source: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=22

You know, I'm the last to complain, some internet person calls me a douchenozzle and I could care less...

But would those rules include implying I'm a convict for standing up for my rights?

Toyboat wrote - post #86


You must have allot of experience being arrested.

I've found that most people that are really anti-cop are the one's with a rap sheet.

Carry on...:D:D:D

[Danke]

Incorrect. The phrase "to regulate" actually meant "to make regular" at the time it was written. Read the Napolitano books and watch the Badnarik Constitution Class (on Google Video).

Then you'll understand why your argument using the ICC is erroneous.

It's not my argument.

Sounds like a semantics game with "to make regular" and "to regulate."

[Matt Collins]

Sounds like a semantics game with "to make regular" and "to regulate."It's not. The difference is HUGE.

Remember why the Constitution was written... there were currency imbalances, each State had printed their own money, there were import tariffs across State lines, there were trade wars between the States, etc. They wrote the ICC to "make commerce regular" between the States. That's what the phrase meant at the time it was written.

[Danke]

It's not. The difference is HUGE.

Remember why the Constitution was written... there were currency imbalances, each State had printed their own money, there were import tariffs across State lines, there were trade wars between the States, etc. They wrote the ICC to "make commerce regular" between the States. That's what the phrase meant at the time it was written.

You know you are arguing against many practices WRT the Commerce Clause and many Supreme court decisions?

It may not be proper, just as the 18th Amendment wasn't, but those are the facts and how it is used. Michael Badnarik, who you cited, also does not (or did not) have a "drivers" license. He has fought in court over this.

Congress has taken it to the extreme in more modern times, FDR was a big impetus for the over reach into State's affairs. As we can see not only WRT the Commerce Clause, but also with the "General Welfare."

So again, it is not my argument. Just the reality of the situation at hand.

[Matt Collins]

What does "wrt" mean? Don't use obscure acronyms

[tmg19103]

Take the 2nd Amendment and "a well regulated militia....."

Back then, well regulated meant "orderly" - it did not mean regulated by the government. The whole point of the right of all the people to keep and bear arms was to protect the people from the government and its standing armies, so why would the people then want to be "regulated" regarding this inalienable right by the government this right is supposed to protect them from?

No doubt many of the meanings in regards to the original intent of the Constitution have been re-interpreted for political gain and the sheeple have just rolled over.

[Brian4Liberty]

Take the 2nd Amendment and "a well regulated militia....."

Back then, well regulated meant "orderly" - it did not mean regulated by the government. The whole point of the right of all the people to keep and bear arms was to protect the people from the government and its standing armies, so why would the people then want to be "regulated" regarding this inalienable right by the government this right is supposed to protect them from?

No doubt many of the meanings in regards to the original intent of the Constitution have been re-interpreted for political gain and the sheeple have just rolled over.

They also wanted to "well regulate" militias to keep them from starting wars with our neighbors (like France, Spain and England)... the later years of Aaron Burr provides an interesting example...

The "regulate" phrase had absolutely nothing to do with an individual's right to bear arms.

[phill4paul]

What does "wrt" mean? Don't use obscure acronyms

With Regards To. Took me less time to google than to write this.:D

[Matt Collins]

Take the 2nd Amendment and "a well regulated militia....."

Back then, well regulated meant "orderly" - it did not mean regulated by the government. The whole point of the right of all the people to keep and bear arms was to protect the people from the government and its standing armies, so why would the people then want to be "regulated" regarding this inalienable right by the government this right is supposed to protect them from?

No doubt many of the meanings in regards to the original intent of the Constitution have been re-interpreted for political gain and the sheeple have just rolled over.Exactly.



Language evolves over time which is one reason why the document should not be interpreted. The only way to truly determine is what the words meant when they were written down.. this is called original meaning, as opposed to original intent.

The word "regulate" means a lot of different things in the current lexicon than it did in 1778. So, you have to go to study the language of the time to determine what was meant when it was written down.

See this post for how the word "regulate" is warped: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1891497

[Matt Collins]

You know you are arguing against many practices WRT the Commerce Clause and many Supreme court decisions?So? I take my conclusions from the Constitution. They take theirs from [erroneous] precedent.

[Danke]

So? I take my conclusions from the Constitution. They take theirs from [erroneous] precedent.

"So?"

Well, knowing what your up against is important in any battle. If your purpose is only to spread the word and not directly take up the fight with our system/courts, etc., so be it. We need all hands.

[hadenough]

I stopped reading at page 7. I just wanted to say toyboat is a dingbat.

[Scott38]

I have been drinking and driving many times, according to the law, BUT the notion to think we can some how create laws to predict and possibly stop every sort of accident from ever happening is NUTS! When will common sense rule the day and we stop allowing these brilliant people we put in office from making laws to save us before something bad happens.

Living life in a state of being scared sucks!

[tmg19103]

Well, we could ban alcohol.

Wait, we did that and it didn't work.

We could raise the drinking age from 18 to 21.

Wait, that didn't work either.

We could have unconstitutional roablocks.

Nope. Those obviously don't work and they are unconstitutional.

Maybe tracking chips on every bottle of booze?

Nope. Those criminals who drink alcohol will just put it in another container.

Hmmmm.......

Breath ignition devices on cars for first time offenders!

Yup, bunch of states doing that now, and that won't work once the one year of using it is up, regardless of all the ways to get around it when you have to use it.

Silent helicopters and special forces with infra red devices tracking all citizens when they leave bars?

Personal alcohol blood level detector devices with transmitters transpanted in everybody's bodies?

Suspend driver's license for life on 1st offense?

3 DUI strikes and mandatory 30 years?

Death penalty?

We can solve this! AND, it won't be anywhere near as bad as the War on Drugs.

Let's call it...... THE WAR on DRUNKING DRIVING!

Yeah, that's it. That's the ticket. It will get me re-elected - just so long as the cops cut me, Mr. Politician, a break when I get caught drinking and driving ;-)

[Brian4Liberty]

Let's call it...... THE WAR on DRUNKING DRIVING!

Yeah, that's it. That's the ticket. It will get me re-elected - just so long as the cops cut me, Mr. Politician, a break when I get caught drinking and driving ;-)

MADD beat you to it...