Sobriety Checkpoints

Edit, to remove snarky Palin reference.Sorry

Awww man...I love snarky Palin references, sorry I missed this one.

This

I think it is a fair balance for the safety of the community...

is the slippery slope whereof we speak. Heck, let's just take all the cars off the roads. Far more Americans are killed every year in NON drunk-driving accidents than will ever be killed by terrorism.

I don't need Daddy Government to keep me safe, nor do I want it to.

You may be entitled to own a car, but you don't have the right to drive one...a driver's license is a privilege extended by the state (Daddy Government) - and they have the authority to revoke that privilege if its abused.

This

I think it is a fair balance for the safety of the community...

is the slippery slope whereof we speak. Heck, let's just take all the cars off the roads. Far more Americans are killed every year in NON drunk-driving accidents than will ever be killed by terrorism.

I don't need Daddy Government to keep me safe, nor do I want it to.

I've dated a Libertarian before. Really.

Daddy Govt? That is straight out of Fox News talking points. What do you want, no clean air? Pollute away big companies No clean water? Dump your chems into the river - no problem No speed limits? No stoplights (who do you think installs the stoplights and maintains them). No laws at all? No workplace standards? (yeah, your leg got cut off, bummer dude).Sexual harassment is ok I assume in your book of no "Daddy gov't."

I mean, get real....do you want total anarchy?

I don't need Daddy Government to keep me safe, nor do I want it to.

The world without police, tsa, and military would be a much better place to live.

I couldn't tell if this was sarcasm or not....

TSA could go, definitely. And about 90 percent of our military (I don't mind defense, but what we have now is really offense - heck, that'd save 700 billion bucks per year!). I think we do need police. If someone breaks into your house and is threatening your family with a gun it is kind of nice to be able to pick up the phone and dial 911......Or if your biz is being robbed, nice to be able to call the cops.

Etc, etc, etc....So I want one of the three that Justin mentioned. Really, we probably could do without the military entirely. Who the heck is going to invade the US?? We're armed to the teeth.

Nimbus..
"I've dated a Libertarian before. Really."
"Daddy Govt? That is straight out of Fox News talking points"

Just to clarify, do you consider Fox News a Conservative or Libertarian channel?

"And about 90 percent of our military (I don't mind defense, but what we have now is really offense - heck, that'd save 700 billion bucks per year!)"

"Really, we probably could do without the military entirely. Who the heck is going to invade the US?? We're armed to the teeth."

"Who the heck is going to invade the US??"....Well Muslim terrorists recently and the Japanese years ago.

Do you not see the logical fallacy in your argument? Because we are "Armed to the teeth", we are in most aspects safe and free from foreign threats.. Cut 90 percent of our military and we no longer carry the big stick. Canadianize our Military and see how Iran treats us. On a side note, let me discuss my let France, Canada, etc. have to finance a defense that could actually put up a fight if they were attacked and stop relying on the good old USA to defend them in case the need the help and still finance "free healthcare". We are basically paying for their healthcare by saving them the defense budget, but that is a discussion for another night, several bourbons into the evening.

Nimbus, although I pretty much categorically disagree with every political stance you take, I have to respect you. Most people running for an office will filter their-selves to appeal to the masses. Be it a Conservative or Liberal, I have no respect for people who hide their true beliefs in an effort to garner votes.. I think you are pretty much wrong on everything, but really respect the fact you stand up for what you think is right regardless of the potential votes it may cost you.

You may be entitled to own a car, but you don't have the right to drive one...a driver's license is a privilege extended by the state (Daddy Government) - and they have the authority to revoke that privilege if its abused.

Thats a common argument I hear but its not true. The courts one more than one occasion have shown it is indeed a right. Examples follow

Case # 1 - "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22
("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)

Case # 2 - "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.

Case # 3 - "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.

Case # 4 - "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the
territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.

But you have no right to drive drunk and kill me or my kids or my friends or my loved ones!

Hey lets not get all "fox newsy" here and start making off the wall comments. So far this has stayed pretty civil. I think we all can agree that no one here is advocating the right to drive drunk.

I don't think that is getting fox "news" 'y ...(had to put news in quotation marks).

We're talking about a balancing of rights. And ways to stop drinking and driving from causing horrific accidents and deaths. Simple. It truly is a balancing act. That wasn't an off-the-wall comment.

You don't have a right to drive drunk, and yes, I have a right to live. So yes, I have a right to find out if you're drunk. Hard to put it much simpler than that. Thus checkpoints.

I thought it was "off the wall" because you referencing a "point" that nobody other yourself made. I thought it was Fox "news" like because they have a tendency to create their own arguments in order to further their own agenda.

Read closely the U.S. Constitution gives us the right to "arm bears". Daniel Carroll, the Maryland delegate to the Constitutional Convention, was running a very high fever when he wrote that.

I'll grant you that Ed, but does that give bears the right to poop in the woods?

If not, is the Pope REALLY Catholic?

I wish we could all go back to how things were over 200 years ago, before any changes in the precious Constitution, they were so perfect.

Slavery was fine and women couldn't vote, they had everything figured out. At least the founding fathers knew they weren't going to be right about everything.

I think you illustrate the need to question and scrutinize and not be lead lamb like to into blind acceptance of the status quo. The constitution allows for amendments,but it has been argued that it does not allow for exemptions to the amendments.

Read closely the U.S. Constitution gives us the right to "arm bears". Daniel Carroll, the Maryland delegate to the Constitutional Convention, was running a very high fever when he wrote that.

I'll grant you that Ed, but does that give bears the right to poop in the woods?

If not, is the Pope REALLY Catholic?

The pope does wear a funny hat

I wish we could all go back to how things were over 200 years ago, before any changes in the precious Constitution, they were so perfect.

Slavery was fine and women couldn't vote, they had everything figured out. At least the founding fathers knew they weren't going to be right about everything.

I think you illustrate the need to question and scrutinize and not be lead lamb like to into blind acceptance of the status quo. The constitution allows for amendments,but it has been argued that it does not allow for exemptions to the amendments.

The difference is that you see stopping and car and asking a question as unreasonable search and seizure and I don't.
But you seem fine with being really searched when getting on a plane or going into a govt. building or even a ball game. I was wanded and patted down at a Pacers game last year.

I think electrocuting someone to death as cruel and unusual punishment, others don't.

You may be entitled to own a car, but you don't have the right to drive one...a driver's license is a privilege extended by the state (Daddy Government) - and they have the authority to revoke that privilege if its abused.

Thats a common argument I hear but its not true. The courts one more than one occasion have shown it is indeed a right. Examples follow

Case # 1 - "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22
("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)

Case # 2 - "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.

Case # 3 - "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.

Case # 4 - "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the
territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.

The freedom to travel among the states IS deemed one the "fundamental rights" interpreted by the USSC under the Constitution...but having a drivers license is not (currently) included within that right...if it was, then driving exams might be regarded as unconstitutional (just like the "tests" to qualify for voting were a generation ago), and you could simply drive a car once you turned 16 (just as you can simply register to vote - another fundamental right - once you turn 18). Nor does the same right to travel accord me the right to possess a pilot's license and fly an airplane...one has to undergo both written and actual flight exams before being granted the privilege of operating an aircraft by the FAA. Automobiles and aircraft are inherently dangerous instruments, and the state has the authority to ensure that people who opreate those vehicles are qualified to do so in a safe manner - which is why licenses are issued. One does NOT have the right to demand the state issue them a drivers license.

I don't need Daddy Government to keep me safe, nor do I want it to.

The world without police, tsa, and military would be a much better place to live.

I couldn't tell if this was sarcasm or not....

TSA could go, definitely. And about 90 percent of our military (I don't mind defense, but what we have now is really offense - heck, that'd save 700 billion bucks per year!). I think we do need police. If someone breaks into your house and is threatening your family with a gun it is kind of nice to be able to pick up the phone and dial 911......Or if your biz is being robbed, nice to be able to call the cops.

Etc, etc, etc....So I want one of the three that Justin mentioned. Really, we probably could do without the military entirely. Who the heck is going to invade the US?? We're armed to the teeth.

I suspect that if someone breaks into your house (or robs your business) and threatens you and your family with death or serious bodily harm, they are probably NOT going to permit you a "timeout" to call 911 and summon the police. The right to bear arms also implies the right NOT to bear them...but I prefer having the option to do either.

The difference is that you see stopping and car and asking a question as unreasonable search and seizure and I don't.

Thanks for taking your assumptions and putting them out there as if I said something that I hadnt. Please show me where I wrote that I thought "stopping and car and asking a question as unreasonable search and seizure". You as well as Nimbus show a what I call a "Foxnewsy" attitude as far as creating your own arguments to further your agenda. Its obvious you missed my point,I assume thats my fault for not making it clear.

But you seem fine with being really searched when getting on a plane or going into a govt. building or even a ball game. I was wanded and patted down at a Pacers game last year.
I think electrocuting someone to death as cruel and unusual punishment, others don't.

There is a major difference here. The examples you gave are all private property with the exception of a government building. They have every right to refuse admission without my consent to search. I also disagree with the search at a government building if you choose to go there on a voluntary basis.

Ill make the point one last time(hopefully) I think these checkpoints and the exceptions to the amendment that made them possible, warrant attention. Ill say it again,its a slippery slope. Thats it.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety B. Franklin.

So were going to decide how many exceptions to the forth amendment can be made based on "odds" of people getting hurt? I have been to several neighborhoods where the "odds" of getting shanked or shot are pretty good,compared to other areas. I dont think my desire to feel safe in those areas should be a reason for warrant less searches. My point here is that playing around with our rights is a slippery slope.

I guess I did miss your point.
What is the problem with checkpoints? They stop your car and ask you a question. What right are you giving up? If they think you are drunk and find out you are, they might search and impound your car. I was under the impression that warrantless searches were the problem you had with checkpoints, due to all the mention of rights and the 4th amendment.

Edited to included John's full quote