03-26-2021, 03:36 PM
If someone causes harm to someone else, they are liable under common law (since there is a victim) and are dealt with accordingly under common law in the courts. It could also be argued that someone about to commit harm to someone else, as a grossly intoxicated person that is a clear and present danger to everyone else, is also a common law issue. It's when the mere existence of a presumption, such as BAC=XX, or zero tolerance statutes are implemented that it ceases to be a common law issue and is instead a commercial contract term. Same reason that roadside sobriety tests are "implied consent". One's consent is implied by agreeing to the DL contract.
Where a lot of people get confused is that there are multiple types of law being administered in court houses. Most people just think "going in front of the judge" to be a blanket action across all reasons to be there, without regard for what type of law they are involved in. Not true. Some are common law (victims) but the rest are admiralty commercial contract violations and are essentially just civil cases that have various penalties attached.
This issue boils down to enforcing common law is acceptable in a free society. Enforcing arbitrary contract terms under color of law generally isn't.
Connect With Us