The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Miss Mia on December 31, 2008, 06:03:54 PM
-
naaman fletcher (66 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Wed Dec-31-08 04:55 PM
Original message (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4745758)
The DUI exception to the constitution
I hope to convince you in the next hour, some of you, that the greatest single threat to our freedoms, the freedoms set forth in the Bill of Rights, is not from Iraq or Iran. I don’t think it’s from North Korea. I don’t think it’s from the extremists of the Muslim world. The threat, as it has always been throughout history, is internal: It is from within. But I do not think it is from the American Communist party or extremists on the right. I hope to convince a few of you that the greatest single threat to our freedoms today comes from a group consisting largely of American housewives. They call themselves the Mothers Against Drunk Driving. MADD.
http://www.duiblog.com/2005/05/09/the-dui-exception-to-... (http://www.duiblog.com/2005/05/09/the-dui-exception-to-the-constitution/)
Basically the OP goes on to assert that driving is a right and not a privilege.
-
(http://www.topnews.in/health/files/mole.jpg)
-
There is no law preventing the DUmmie from getting drunk and driving on his own property. Driving is a privilege when you want to use the roads created and maintained for public use.
-
There is no law preventing the DUmmie from getting drunk and driving on his own property. Driving is a privilege when you want to use the roads created and maintained for public use.
The law of expected outcomes prevents most people from driving drunk-on their own property, but that is a law that can't be enforced by man.
-
There is no law preventing the DUmmie from getting drunk and driving on his own property. Driving is a privilege when you want to use the roads created and maintained for public use.
Did you read the Article or just giving the PC response ? I thought the author did a good job of breaking down the argument of the associated problems with the tests from a legal standpoint and a scientific one. Keep in mind if courts can make "DUI exceptions" it isn't going to be long until other "exceptions" are created. Also the laws are written so Driving basically has nothing to do with it anymore" so your argument is not only silly but moot.
I am not defending/advocating DUI I just think a politically correct approach to laws are a very dangerous road to travel.
-
The law of expected outcomes prevents most people from driving drunk-on their own property, but that is a law that can't be enforced by man.
However, that law can and is enforced by Darwin.
-
Did you read the Article or just giving the PC response ? I thought the author did a good job of breaking down the argument of the associated problems with the tests from a legal standpoint and a scientific one. Keep in mind if courts can make "DUI exceptions" it isn't going to be long until other "exceptions" are created. Also the laws are written so Driving basically has nothing to do with it anymore" so your argument is not only silly but moot.
I am not defending/advocating DUI I just think a politically correct approach to laws are a very dangerous road to travel.
That was a long read, and the author does have some valid points, quite a few actually. I still can not understand how DUI checkpoints ever made it past the USSC. Another thing that tends to get overlooked when when MADD and other advocates overlook when pushing for stricter laws, is the fact that most people who have been involved in a deadly crash while DUI, were usually driving with a history of speeding, and or reckless driving. That is more a contributing factor than the alcohol in many cases
I personally think the field sobriety test is a more effective way of telling how drunk a person is than the breathilizer test.
-
That was a long read, and the author does have some valid points, quite a few actually. I still can not understand how DUI checkpoints ever made it past the USSC. Another thing that tends to get overlooked when when MADD and other advocates overlook when pushing for stricter laws, is the fact that most people who have been involved in a deadly crash while DUI, were usually driving with a history of speeding, and or reckless driving. That is more a contributing factor than the alcohol in many cases
I personally think the field sobriety test is a more effective way of telling how drunk a person is than the breathilizer test.
Little bit of Irony about MADD. One of the founders of some local chapter was busted for DUI a few yrs back for the 2nd time.
-
That was a long read, and the author does have some valid points, quite a few actually. I still can not understand how DUI checkpoints ever made it past the USSC. Another thing that tends to get overlooked when when MADD and other advocates overlook when pushing for stricter laws, is the fact that most people who have been involved in a deadly crash while DUI, were usually driving with a history of speeding, and or reckless driving. That is more a contributing factor than the alcohol in many cases
I personally think the field sobriety test is a more effective way of telling how drunk a person is than the breathilizer test.
I don't agree with DUI checkpoints, I think it's a waste of time and doesn't really curb drunk driving. But just being pulled over and asked to undergo a field sobriety test or breathalyzer doesn't constitute a breech of the 4th amendment. Also I don't think that having your driver's license suspended b/c you refuse to do a breathalyzer is unConstitutional.
-
I don't agree with DUI checkpoints, I think it's a waste of time and doesn't really curb drunk driving. But just being pulled over and asked to undergo a field sobriety test or breathalyzer doesn't constitute a breech of the 4th amendment. Also I don't think that having your driver's license suspended b/c you refuse to do a breathalyzer is unConstitutional.
You could look at the field sobriety test done at a checkpoint as a form of self incrimination. The breathalyzer seems like an illegal search when done at a checkpoint, based on an assumption of guilt because they can smeel alcohol. I don't know about other states, but Illinois has a 90 day summary suspension just for the DUI arrest. It happens even before the cases are brought to court. That is in effect punishing a person without ever being convicted of any crime.
-
You could look at the field sobriety test done at a checkpoint as a form of self incrimination. The breathalyzer seems like an illegal search when done at a checkpoint, based on an assumption of guilt because they can smeel alcohol. I don't know about other states, but Illinois has a 90 day summary suspension just for the DUI arrest. It happens even before the cases are brought to court. That is in effect punishing a person without ever being convicted of any crime.
I'm really not on the DUI laws and what all happens (I've never been in that situation nor has anyone close to me). I think in Texas if you decline to do a field sobriety test, they do suspend automatically your license, which I have to say, now thinking about it is wrong if you haven't been convicted of anything. But if you fail a breathalyzer/blood test I think it's fine. Now, if you're pulled over and refuse the breathalyzer they have judges on stand-by to sign warrants for the police to draw blood.
-
I'm really not on the DUI laws and what all happens (I've never been in that situation nor has anyone close to me). I think in Texas if you decline to do a field sobriety test, they do suspend automatically your license, which I have to say, now thinking about it is wrong if you haven't been convicted of anything. But if you fail a breathalyzer/blood test I think it's fine. Now, if you're pulled over and refuse the breathalyzer they have judges on stand-by to sign warrants for the police to draw blood.
I know about our laws since a guy at work had gotten one and his wife had to bring him to work, and he constantly complained about MADD and the DUI laws. He got the summary suspension but then his case was thrown out on a technicality of some sort.
-
I know about our laws since a guy at work had gotten one and his wife had to bring him to work, and he constantly complained about MADD and the DUI laws. He got the summary suspension but then his case was thrown out on a technicality of some sort.
I thought, but I could easily be wrong, that the temp suspension still allowed you to drive to work. Was that true in his case?
-
You can get a work permit, but it takes time and ofter the term of suspension can be up before all the paper work goes through.
-
You can get a work permit, but it takes time and ofter the term of suspension can be up before all the paper work goes through.
Ahh, I see. Thanks for the explanation.
With that new knowledge, for myself, I have to say that the suspension before even a trial is wrong. But I would think that if they wanted to add an breathalyzer to the ignition so that the person could still drive, just not drunk until trial that would be okay. What do you think?
-
Ahh, I see. Thanks for the explanation.
With that new knowledge, for myself, I have to say that the suspension before even a trial is wrong. But I would think that if they wanted to add an breathalyzer to the ignition so that the person could still drive, just not drunk until trial that would be okay. What do you think?
As of midnight, anyone convicted of DUI will have to have one of the interlock breathalizers installed on their car.
Users must pay for the fist-sized devices, which cost around $80 to install on dashboards and $80 a month to rent; there's also a $30 monthly state fee.
-
As of midnight, anyone convicted of DUI will have to have one of the interlock breathalizers installed on their car.
Users must pay for the fist-sized devices, which cost around $80 to install on dashboards and $80 a month to rent; there's also a $30 monthly state fee.
But what about the people before their convicted? Can they still get one of these and keep their license until they go to court?
-
You can get a work permit, but it takes time and ofter the term of suspension can be up before all the paper work goes through.
Actually, and this is speaking only for Texas, the license is confiscated on the spot for either refusal to provide a breath specimen or providing a breath specimen with a BAC of over .08. The license doesn't actually become "suspended" until 45 after days that. During that time the suspect's attorney can request an administrative License Revocation (ALR) hearing before a judge for the State Office of Administrative Hearings. If the suspension is upheld, there is still sufficient time for the attorney to procure for his client an Occupational License to allow him to travel to/from his/her place of employment.
In May of 2002 I had the wonderful privilege of arriving on-scene of a 6-vehicle wreck involving a drunk driving the wrong way on Airport Freeway. I began checking cars and had to get to the 4th before I found anyone alive.....and that lady was all kinds of screwed up (it took the FD over 20 minutes to cut her out). Then the suspect's vehicle, from which I was unable to get the driver out due to damage, went up like a Roman Candle due to ruptured fuel lines. At this point I look back and see the fire truck entering the freeway......about a mile away......having to drive 30 mph on the shoulder. So, I got to listen to this lady's screams as she burned to death.
Then, a year or two later, we got to work an accident in our city whereby an officer from a neighboring agency was run over by a drunk on a traffic stop and killed instantly. I got to accompany the suspect, who was out on bond from a DWI arrest from a few weeks prior, to the hospital. Fortunately, in fatality cases, Texas doesn't allow refusal to provide a blood specimen. Of course the suspect attempted to refuse, but that didn't go far. He had the option of having the nurse get it with a blood-draw kit, or me getting it with a nightstick and Dixie-cup....either way, we were getting it.
Constitutional issues aside, you'll have to pardon me for not having much sympathy for these clowns.
-
But what about the people before their convicted? Can they still get one of these and keep their license until they go to court?
I didn't see anything about having one before a conviction. Chicago Tribune. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-il-duilegislation-ig,0,3463292.story)
-
You could look at the field sobriety test done at a checkpoint as a form of self incrimination. The breathalyzer seems like an illegal search when done at a checkpoint, based on an assumption of guilt because they can smeel alcohol. I don't know about other states, but Illinois has a 90 day summary suspension just for the DUI arrest. It happens even before the cases are brought to court. That is in effect punishing a person without ever being convicted of any crime.
Two words: Implied Consent. If you don't want to allow checkpoints and the like, don't drive.
-
Two words: Implied Consent. If you don't want to allow checkpoints and the like, don't drive.
The other option is to avoid drinking and driving. Then again, most of the checkpoints are set up to where they can't be avoided when you see them. Here they set them up on the main highways through town,
-
Two words: Implied Consent. If you don't want to allow checkpoints and the like, don't drive.
Bingo. By you accepting a state-issued drivers license, you accept all the terms and conditions they require therein.
-
Actually, and this is speaking only for Texas, the license is confiscated on the spot for either refusal to provide a breath specimen or providing a breath specimen with a BAC of over .08. The license doesn't actually become "suspended" until 45 after days that. During that time the suspect's attorney can request an administrative License Revocation (ALR) hearing before a judge for the State Office of Administrative Hearings. If the suspension is upheld, there is still sufficient time for the attorney to procure for his client an Occupational License to allow him to travel to/from his/her place of employment.
In May of 2002 I had the wonderful privilege of arriving on-scene of a 6-vehicle wreck involving a drunk driving the wrong way on Airport Freeway. I began checking cars and had to get to the 4th before I found anyone alive.....and that lady was all kinds of screwed up (it took the FD over 20 minutes to cut her out). Then the suspect's vehicle, from which I was unable to get the driver out due to damage, went up like a Roman Candle due to ruptured fuel lines. At this point I look back and see the fire truck entering the freeway......about a mile away......having to drive 30 mph on the shoulder. So, I got to listen to this lady's screams as she burned to death.
Then, a year or two later, we got to work an accident in our city whereby an officer from a neighboring agency was run over by a drunk on a traffic stop and killed instantly. I got to accompany the suspect, who was out on bond from a DWI arrest from a few weeks prior, to the hospital. Fortunately, in fatality cases, Texas doesn't allow refusal to provide a blood specimen. Of course the suspect attempted to refuse, but that didn't go far. He had the option of having the nurse get it with a blood-draw kit, or me getting it with a nightstick and Dixie-cup....either way, we were getting it.
Constitutional issues aside, you'll have to pardon me for not having much sympathy for these clowns.
I agree. I was a casualty adjuster for a large auto insurance carrier. The lives forever destroyed by drunks on the road haunt you forever.
My favorite of course is the moron parents who booze it up at parties/cookouts/weddings with their kids in tow, then drive home. Parents always seem to live in those accidents. Bastards.
-
That was a long read, and the author does have some valid points, quite a few actually. I still can not understand how DUI checkpoints ever made it past the USSC. Another thing that tends to get overlooked when when MADD and other advocates overlook when pushing for stricter laws, is the fact that most people who have been involved in a deadly crash while DUI, were usually driving with a history of speeding, and or reckless driving. That is more a contributing factor than the alcohol in many cases
I personally think the field sobriety test is a more effective way of telling how drunk a person is than the breathilizer test.
DUIs with accidents that came across my desk involve soccer moms, dads having a few pops after work, fill-in-the-blank idiots leaving sporting events, weddings, parties, bars, blah blah blah.
Professional drunks know how to avoid checkpoints. :-)
-
Basically the OP goes on to assert that driving is a right and not a privilege.
That is it in a nutshell.
The author does have the right to not drive however, especially if he drank a few glasses of merlot at his friend's house and think that doesn't compromise his ability to drive.
It was only two glasses of wine..... dude, I am an e-x-c-e-l-l-e-n-t driver......
-
That is it in a nutshell.
The author does have the right to not drive however, especially if he drank a few glasses of merlot at his friend's house and think that doesn't compromise his ability to drive.
It was only two glasses of wine..... dude, I am an e-x-c-e-l-l-e-n-t driver......
As you read the article it is plain to see that the Author is not defending drunk driving. Rather he is questioning the the loss of constitutional protections just on the assumption of driving under the influence ,actually having had a drink within the last couple hours.
-
The DUI and license laws vary from state to state. I can speak to the law of Florida. My license has be suspended/revoked for 10 years due to 3 DUIs over a 26 year period. I am not complaining and believe that I deserve the punishment for my stupidity and arrogance. Once the ticket has been issued your license is taken. You may use the ticket the office gave you as a license for 10 days. You can appeal to the DMV but if they deny you after 10 days you can drive. You go to court or plead. If you are found not guilty you get you license back. If found or plead guilty you lose your license form 6 months to forever depending on how many DUIs you have. If it is your second DUI you can apply for a hardship license after 1 year. If it is your third DUI you can apply for a hardship license after 2 years. Either why you have to have a interlock device (breathalyzer) on your car for at least 1 year and up to 2 years.
For the record, I have not driven for 2 and 1/4 years. I have applied for my hardship license but the process takes from 6 weeks to 4 months.
-
As you read the article it is plain to see that the Author is not defending drunk driving. Rather he is questioning the the loss of constitutional protections just on the assumption of driving under the influence ,actually having had a drink within the last couple hours.
I did read it, and the premise of his argument is flawed. DUI is a traffic offense that is a felony. SCOTUS has upheld roadblocks as a reasonable expectation of law enforcement to regulate traffic safety.
Two glasses of wine for some is fine, for others it seriously impedes their judgement and reaction time. Drunks don't usually admit or reconize they are too impaired to drive. I am not a doctor, but I will guess it may have something to do with the alcohol.
Driving is not a right. The really over the top "breath on me" of the implied rogue cops is comical.
CA has roadblocks to look for illegal aliens. That has nothing to do with traffic safety, and I would have to agree that dances on the side of an unconstitutional search.
-
I did read it, and the premise of his argument is flawed. DUI is a traffic offense that is a felony. SCOTUS has upheld roadblocks as a reasonable expectation of law enforcement to regulate traffic safety.
Two glasses of wine for some is fine, for others it seriously impedes their judgement and reaction time. Drunks don't usually admit or reconize they are too impaired to drive. I am not a doctor, but I will guess it may have something to do with the alcohol.
Driving is not a right. The really over the top "breath on me" of the implied rogue cops is comical.
CA has roadblocks to look for illegal aliens. That has nothing to do with traffic safety, and I would have to agree that dances on the side of an unconstitutional search.
DUI is generally not a felony unless extenuating circumstances are involved.
-
You know the operator of the vehicle can avoid the road block altogether by seeking alternative routes. It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out where they will be, and on what weekdays/weekends. My state readily announces them with locations.
Unless of course you think it is your God given right to drive on whatever road you damn well please without being harrassed by the pigs for those two glasses of fine Merlot you drank at your friends house...... you know better than the police what constitutes traffic safety, and surely you aren't one of them.
Seriously?
-
DUI is generally not a felony unless extenuating circumstances are involved.
You are right, I thought it was in MA, but it is only after the third offense.
Note -- although the first is punishable by jail, and the accused does have a right to jury trial, public defender.
-
I did read it, and the premise of his argument is flawed. DUI is a traffic offense that is a felony. SCOTUS has upheld roadblocks as a reasonable expectation of law enforcement to regulate traffic safety.
Two glasses of wine for some is fine, for others it seriously impedes their judgement and reaction time. Drunks don't usually admit or reconize they are too impaired to drive. I am not a doctor, but I will guess it may have something to do with the alcohol.
Driving is not a right. The really over the top "breath on me" of the implied rogue cops is comical.
CA has roadblocks to look for illegal aliens. That has nothing to do with traffic safety, and I would have to agree that dances on the side of an unconstitutional search.
Read it again DUI laws are not about driving. See that's the thing rights & protections otherwise afforded a person under suspicion of any other crime are not in existence if suspected of DUI.
It just truly amazes me the number of folks that are ok with lose of legal protections, rights, priveledges of others because they mistakenly think it does not & will not affect them. History is replete with examples of that not being the case.
-
You are right, I thought it was in MA, but it is only after the third offense.
Note -- although the first is punishable by jail, and the accused does have a right to jury trial, public defender.
New Law here in CA -- people on probation for DUI have an allowable BAC of -- zero. Even one drink -- one SIP -- and citation, license suspension, car impounded and probably public flogging.
-
You are right, I thought it was in MA, but it is only after the third offense.
Note -- although the first is punishable by jail, and the accused does have a right to jury trial, public defender.
In Florida it works like this (basically)
1st Lic Revoke 6mo to 1 year (mis) up to 10 days in jail
2nd Lic Revoke 1 year to 5 years (mis) 10 days in jail (mandatory)
3rd Lic Revoke 1 year to 10 years (mis or fel) 30 days in jail (mandatory)
4th Lic Revok Perm, (fel) up to 5 years prison
modifications
If a minor is in the car then 1st offense can be a felony up to 5 years in prison
If 2nd or greater and minor in car is a felony up to 5 years in prision.
blood alcohol level .2 or greater
2nd offense can be fel
3rd offense is fel
I got very aquainted with these laws and the nuances a couple of years ago.
-
In Florida it works like this (basically)
1st Lic Revoke 6mo to 1 year (mis) up to 10 days in jail
2nd Lic Revoke 1 year to 5 years (mis) 10 days in jail (mandatory)
3rd Lic Revoke 1 year to 10 years (mis or fel) 30 days in jail (mandatory)
4th Lic Revok Perm, (fel) up to 5 years prison
modifications
If a minor is in the car then 1st offense can be a felony up to 5 years in prison
If 2nd or greater and minor in car is a felony up to 5 years in prision.
blood alcohol level .2 or greater
2nd offense can be fel
3rd offense is fel
I got very aquainted with these laws and the nuances a couple of years ago.
Dunno if it's a matter of difference in Laws or difference in attorneys. Few yrs back (8 - 10) one of my brothers got stopped outside of Las Cruses NM. Was cited for DUI(3rd offense),driving under suspension, expired registration and a couple other moinor vehicle citations. He spent a total of about 2 hrs in jail had to pay $300 in fines and agree to attend AA meetings.
-
Dunno if it's a matter of difference in Laws or difference in attorneys. Few yrs back (8 - 10) one of my brothers got stopped outside of Las Cruses NM. Was cited for DUI(3rd offense),driving under suspension, expired registration and a couple other moinor vehicle citations. He spent a total of about 2 hrs in jail had to pay $300 in fines and agree to attend AA meetings.
In Florida they have recently tightened up the laws. When I pled a little over 2 years ago for my 3rd, I was given the minimum sentence due to the long intervals been DUIs. I lost my license for 10 years, 30 days in jail, 2 years with an interlock device, drug and alcohol counciling, DUI school, 1 year probation 1250 in fines and court costs. All in all counting lawyer, insurance, etc my total costs are at $25,000 and counting.
-
Read it again DUI laws are not about driving. See that's the thing rights & protections otherwise afforded a person under suspicion of any other crime are not in existence if suspected of DUI.
It just truly amazes me the number of folks that are ok with lose of legal protections, rights, priveledges of others because they mistakenly think it does not & will not affect them. History is replete with examples of that not being the case.
SCOTUS has found that you have the less of an expectation of privacy while operating a motor vehicle on a public way than you do walking down the street, or sitting in your house, or operating a vehicle on a private road.
You are in the process of operating a vehicle on a public road, which is subject to traffic regulations. A road block is not singling one driver out. The police have shut down the public roadway. In order to pass with your vehicle, you must demonstrate that you are properly operating your vehicle, and are adhering to traffic codes, which includes DUI. The minute you started your vehicle up, you (the driver) are subject to inspection by law enforcement. Once reasonable suspicion that you are intoxicated is made, your vehicles becomes eligible for inspection (inventory search).
The basis of his argument is the two glasses of Merlot, as Sally sunshine who sipped gingerale all night isn't having any problems with the road block. The administration of a sobriety test is absolutely warranted on every level in that instance.
You do not have to submit to a breathalizer, however you will lose your license. Why? because you do not have a right to that license. A driver's license is a priviledge that comes with stipulations which include subjecting yourself to random roadblocks, inspections, and yes, blowing into a machine to see if you are intoxicated. A commercial driver's license holder has to submit to drug testing/medical exam every year to maintain their license. Is that unconstitutional? Of course not.
The criminal process that plays out once DUI has been determined is the same as any other crime.
His reasoning is self-serving to the extreme, as are most Libertarian arguments. You have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but operating a vehicle on a public roadway is not one of them unless you adhere to rules -- as your happy hour could result in the ending of someone's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. So that crap ain't going to fly.
-
Also add, that a big rig truck driver is subject to being pulled over at any given time to inspect his vehicle and look at his driving log. The driver does not have the option to refuse the request. Reasonable suspicion not a requirement at all.
Driving is not a right. It is a priviledge given to you by society, who made a whole bunch of rules that dictate how, when, and where you can drive. It is that simple.
-
SCOTUS has found that you have the less of an expectation of privacy while operating a motor vehicle on a public way than you do walking down the street, or sitting in your house, or operating a vehicle on a private road.
You are in the process of operating a vehicle on a public road, which is subject to traffic regulations. A road block is not singling one driver out. The police have shut down the public roadway. In order to pass with your vehicle, you must demonstrate that you are properly operating your vehicle, and are adhering to traffic codes, which includes DUI. The minute you started your vehicle up, you (the driver) are subject to inspection by law enforcement. Once reasonable suspicion that you are intoxicated is made, your vehicles becomes eligible for inspection (inventory search).
The basis of his argument is the two glasses of Merlot, as Sally sunshine who sipped gingerale all night isn't having any problems with the road block. The administration of a sobriety test is absolutely warranted on every level in that instance.
You do not have to submit to a breathalizer, however you will lose your license. Why? because you do not have a right to that license. A driver's license is a priviledge that comes with stipulations which include subjecting yourself to random roadblocks, inspections, and yes, blowing into a machine to see if you are intoxicated. A commercial driver's license holder has to submit to drug testing/medical exam every year to maintain their license. Is that unconstitutional? Of course not.
The criminal process that plays out once DUI has been determined is the same as any other crime.
His reasoning is self-serving to the extreme, as are most Libertarian arguments. You have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but operating a vehicle on a public roadway is not one of them unless you adhere to rules -- as your happy hour could result in the ending of someone's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. So that crap ain't going to fly.
We must have read different articles.Rules of evidence, gathering of that evidence and so n so are out the door for suspicion of DUI. Procedures the police must following are disregarded because there is no recourse if they don't etc etc.
This,to me anyway,is more than keeping drunks off the road it's erosion of rule of law,innocent until proven guilty, equal protection under the law.
Again I am not defending or excusing drunk driving. I am concerned that the state if it can do it to Bob it can & will do it to you or me.
-
We must have read different articles.Rules of evidence, gathering of that evidence and so n so are out the door for suspicion of DUI. Procedures the police must following are disregarded because there is no recourse if they don't etc etc.
This,to me anyway,is more than keeping drunks off the road it's erosion of rule of law,innocent until proven guilty, equal protection under the law.
Again I am not defending or excusing drunk driving. I am concerned that the state if it can do it to Bob it can & will do it to you or me.
Because that is all bullshit. Once DUI has been determined, the criminal process plays out as it would any other crime.
Held:
1. A person subjected to custodial interrogation is entitled to the benefit of the procedural safeguards enunciated in Miranda, regardless of the nature or severity of the offense of which he is suspected or for which
Page 468 U. S. 421
he was arrested. Thus, respondent's statements made at the station house were inadmissible, since he was "in custody" at least as of the moment he was formally arrested and instructed to get into the police car, and since he was not informed of his constitutional rights at that time. To create an exception to the Miranda rule when the police arrest a person for allegedly committing a misdemeanor traffic offense and then question him without informing him of his constitutional rights would substantially undermine the rule's simplicity and clarity, and would introduce doctrinal complexities, particularly with respect to situations where the police, in conducting custodial interrogations, do not know whether the person has committed a misdemeanor or a felony. The purposes of the Miranda safeguards as to ensuring that the police do not coerce or trick captive suspects into confessing, relieving the inherently compelling pressures generated by the custodial setting itself, and freeing courts from the task of scrutinizing individual cases to determine, after the fact, whether particular confessions were voluntary, are implicated as much by in-custody questioning of persons suspected of misdemeanors as they are by questioning of persons suspected of felonies. Pp. 468 U. S. 428-435.
2. The roadside questioning of a motorist detained pursuant to a routine traffic stop does not constitute "custodial interrogation" for the purposes of the Miranda rule. Although an ordinary traffic stop curtails the "freedom of action" of the detained motorist and imposes some pressures on the detainee to answer questions, such pressures do not sufficiently impair the detainee's exercise of his privilege against self-incrimination to require that he be warned of his constitutional rights. A traffic stop is usually brief, and the motorist expects that, while he may be given a citation, in the end, he most likely will be allowed to continue on his way. Moreover, the typical traffic stop is conducted in public, and the atmosphere surrounding it is substantially less "police dominated" than that surrounding the kinds of interrogation at issue in Miranda and subsequent cases in which Miranda has been applied. However, if a motorist who has been detained pursuant to a traffic stop thereafter is subjected to treatment that renders him "in custody" for practical purposes, he is entitled to the full panoply of protections prescribed by Miranda. In this case, the initial stop of respondent's car, by itself, did not render him "in custody," and respondent has failed to demonstrate that, at any time between the stop and the arrest, he was subjected to restraints comparable to those associated with a formal arrest. Although the arresting officer apparently decided as soon as respondent stepped out of his car that he would be taken into custody and charged with a traffic offense, the officer never communicated his intention to respondent. A policeman's unarticulated plan has no bearing on the question whether a suspect was "in custody" at a particular time; the
Page 468 U. S. 422
only relevant inquiry is how a reasonable man in the suspect's position would have understood his situation. Since respondent was not taken into custody for the purposes of Miranda until he was formally arrested, his statements made prior to that point were admissible against him. Pp. 468 U. S. 435-442.
3. A determination of whether the improper admission of respondent's postarrest statements constituted "harmless error" will not be made by this Court for the cumulative reasons that (i) the issue was not presented to the Ohio courts or to the federal courts below, (ii) respondent's admissions made at the scene of the traffic stop and the statements he made at the police station were not identical, and (iii) the procedural posture of the case makes the use of harmless error analysis especially difficult, because respondent, while preserving his objection to the denial of his pretrial motion to exclude the evidence, elected not to contest the prosecution's case against him and thus has not yet had an opportunity to try to impeach the State's evidence or to present evidence of his own. Pp. 468 U. S. 442-445.
716 F.2d 361, affirmed.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/468/420/
A tad bit different than what the author asserts.
-
Because that is all bullshit. Once DUI has been determined, the criminal process plays out as it would any other crime.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/468/420/
A tad bit different than what the author asserts.
All true for anyone other than those under suspicion of DUI. That's the whole point. The author also sourced specific USSC cases. Incidently the Court cases sourced in the Article weren't brought about because of a determination of guilt but the converse. Apparently some state judges a little more concerned about the issues than the USSC.
-
Did you read the Article or just giving the PC response ? I thought the author did a good job of breaking down the argument of the associated problems with the tests from a legal standpoint and a scientific one. Keep in mind if courts can make "DUI exceptions" it isn't going to be long until other "exceptions" are created. Also the laws are written so Driving basically has nothing to do with it anymore" so your argument is not only silly but moot.
I am not defending/advocating DUI I just think a politically correct approach to laws are a very dangerous road to travel.
Got to agree with you. He is not advocating for the right to drive drunk he is giving a legitimate analysis of the constitutionality of police practices. Remember the police do not much care about your constitutional rights, they have other priorities.
-
Both sides make good arguments: 4th and 5th amend vs public rules on public roads.
This goes back to a discussion of the arguably bogus exclusionary rules judges have concocted over the years...
I cannot recall the case specifically but essentially a murderer was pulled over on a minor traffic violation (actually the cops thought something was fishy about the driver and fabricated an excuse to stop him). They found the murder weapon under his seat still covered in the victim's blood.
The judge threw-out the evidence ruling they did not have sufficient probable cause and the killer walked.
It's odd that killers can walk but 2 glasses of wine over a hearty dinner can ruin your life.
-
All true for anyone other than those under suspicion of DUI. That's the whole point. The author also sourced specific USSC cases. Incidently the Court cases sourced in the Article weren't brought about because of a determination of guilt but the converse. Apparently some state judges a little more concerned about the issues than the USSC.
His assertion:
In 1984 in Berkemer v. McCarty, the United States Supreme Court fooled around for about 20 or 30 pages of opinion and finally concluded that there was apparently a DUI exception to the constitution. And that, "Well, we really can’t tell you when you’re supposed to give Miranda in a DUI case. We do know that it is later than in other types of criminal investigations." So, the U.S. Supreme Court has told us we don’t know when Miranda is supposed to be given in DUI cases, but it is clearly some time later than in other cases.
I posted what the Court actually stated above which clearly not what the author asserts.
The United States Supreme Court, in South Dakota v. Neville in 1983 said, "There’s a DUI exception to the Fifth Amendment. There is no right to refuse and the prosecution can comment freely in trial upon that refusal." And they sent it back to South Dakota. And. like Michigan, South Dakota said, "If you folks in Washington, DC will not protect our citizens, we will rely upon our own state constitution," and they reversed it again based upon the South Dakota constitution’s provisions against self-incrimination. Unfortunately, that’s the last story I have of a state supreme court protecting of its own citizens
Hmmm, not quite skippy:
Held:
1. The admission into evidence of a defendant's refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test does not offend his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. A refusal to take such a test, after a police officer has lawfully requested it, is not an act coerced by the officer, and thus is not protected by the privilege against self-incrimination. The offer of taking the test is clearly legitimate, and becomes no less legitimate when the State offers a second option of refusing the test, with the attendant penalties for making that choice. Pp. 459 U. S. 558-564.
2. It would not be fundamentally unfair in violation of due process to use respondent's refusal to take the blood alcohol test as evidence of guilt, even though the police failed to warn him that the refusal could be used against him at trial. Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U. S. 610, distinguished. Such failure to warn was not the sort of implicit promise to forgo use of evidence that would unfairly "trick" respondent if the evidence were later offered against him at trial. Pp. 459 U. S. 564-566.
312 N.W.2d 723, reversed and remanded.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/459/553/
The reader must conduct their own due diligence when reading hyped up crap like this by actually going to those opinions (big red flag is when the court is not directly quoted in the article) to ascertain it is indeed what the writer contends.
You can take it for face value, but I am going to pass on that.
-
Here's a simple solution.
Don't get effin drunk and then get behind the wheel.
Pretty simple huh?
-
...His reasoning is self-serving to the extreme, as are most Libertarian arguments. You have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but operating a vehicle on a public roadway is not one of them unless you adhere to rules -- as your happy hour could result in the ending of someone's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. So that crap ain't going to fly.
I just love it when people who don't know diddly about libertarian political philosophy try to malign it.
A libertarian would reject the existance of public roads, not to mention a government which presumes to possess the power to license people to operate the property which they have honestly acquired. So, yes, that crap wouldn't fly because, as my colleagues would put it, you're assuming theorems you've yet to prove.
A "could" doesn't concern a libertarian. Even an "absolutely will" doesn't. The only actions which can be justly punished, according to the libertarian view, are actions quantifiably injurious of others which have ALREADY occurred. Preventative law enforcement has no place in such a concept of justice.
Finally, assuming that the statement "...you have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." was meant to be some sort of concession to the hypothetical libertarian, you've got it wrong. It's life, liberty, and property in the original - and of course, this only refers to one right, using three separate names.
-
I just love it when people who don't know diddly about libertarian political philosophy try to malign it.
A libertarian would reject the existance of public roads, not to mention a government which presumes to possess the power to license people to operate the property which they have honestly acquired. So, yes, that crap wouldn't fly because, as my colleagues would put it, you're assuming theorems you've yet to prove.
A "could" doesn't concern a libertarian. Even an "absolutely will" doesn't. The only actions which can be justly punished, according to the libertarian view, are actions quantifiably injurious of others which have ALREADY occurred. Preventative law enforcement has no place in such a concept of justice.
Finally, assuming that the statement "...you have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." was meant to be some sort of concession to the hypothetical libertarian, you've got it wrong. It's life, liberty, and property in the original - and of course, this only refers to one right, using three separate names.
Ah, thank you for proving my point. I get the platform. I actually mastered reading comprehension at an early age. :cheersmate:
The la-la-Libertarians don't deal with reality much, it's all rainbows and kittens in their world of absolutes. Except the world don't turn that way.
Oh Hell why not? Ford gives you a car that your purchased with real money that you made sellin' moonshine, then have at it -- you purchased it so why the hell not drive it anywhere, anyhow and anyway you damn well please. That goes for tanks, planes, and trains too. You have the money to spend then it's all you baby.
Roads don't build themselves, yada yada de freakin da....... :yawn: I am already bored to tears on this path.
-
A "could" doesn't concern a libertarian. Even an "absolutely will" doesn't. The only actions which can be justly punished, according to the libertarian view, are actions quantifiably injurious of others which have ALREADY occurred. Preventative law enforcement has no place in such a concept of justice.
I`m sorry if I am reading this wrong but does that propose that only after the fact should any action be weighed as being injurious.
In other words murder isn`t illegal on its face but the act may be punishable if after the commission of it someone determines it to have been injurious.
Sounds silly but it leaves the door open for situation ethics...XYZ persons life wasn`t determined to be valuable or not enough so that his/her killing proved to be injurious.
Capital "L" Libertarianism is almost as confused and befuddled as its long distance cousin liberalism in trying to set up a utopian society and uses the same suspension of reality to argue its claims.
-
Here's a simple solution.
Don't get effin drunk and then get behind the wheel.
Pretty simple huh?
A sympathetic notion because drunk drivers are a despicable breed but it smacks too closely to the erroneous, "if you didn't do anything wrong than you don't have ant reason to keep the police from searching your __________ ."
At reflex it is very true but the fact remains: we have the 4th and 5th amendments and presumptions of innocence for a reason. Just because there are such things as drunk drivers does not give LEO's carte blanche in treating the entire balance of the citizenry as potential criminals.
Still, your underlying principle of not being a drunken dickhead out on public roads is laudable
-
Here's a simple solution.
Don't get effin drunk and then get behind the wheel.
Pretty simple huh?
A sympathetic notion because drunk drivers are a despicable breed but it smacks too closely to the erroneous, "if you didn't do anything wrong than you don't have ant reason to keep the police from searching your __________ ."
At reflex it is very true but the fact remains: we have the 4th and 5th amendments and presumptions of innocence for a reason. Just because there are such things as drunk drivers does not give LEO's carte blanche in treating the entire balance of the citizenry as potential criminals.
Still, your underlying principle of not being a drunken ****head out on public roads is laudable
Unfortunately one of the first things that alcohol deadens is rational thinking and inhibitions, a bad combination. Once someone drinks past a certain level they can justify pretty much anything.
-
A sympathetic notion because drunk drivers are a despicable breed but it smacks too closely to the erroneous, "if you didn't do anything wrong than you don't have ant reason to keep the police from searching your __________ ."
At reflex it is very true but the fact remains: we have the 4th and 5th amendments and presumptions of innocence for a reason. Just because there are such things as drunk drivers does not give LEO's carte blanche in treating the entire balance of the citizenry as potential criminals.
Still, your underlying principle of not being a drunken ****head out on public roads is laudable
Unfortunately one of the first things that alcohol deadens is rational thinking and inhibitions, a bad combination. Once someone drinks past a certain level they can justify pretty much anything.
Nothing justifies my first marriage. Nothing.
-
A sympathetic notion because drunk drivers are a despicable breed but it smacks too closely to the erroneous, "if you didn't do anything wrong than you don't have ant reason to keep the police from searching your __________ ."
You know I've been on this planet for now almost forty years...and in all that time when I've never seen the kind of heavy handed LEOs salivating at the thought of breaking the 4th and 5th Amendments like some others on here.
Midland, Texas....Savannah, Georgia...Junction City Kansas....Dothan, Alabama...Arlington, Fairfax and Alexandria Virginia and D.C. itself.
Never.
To here what some folks are saying on here...they sound...IMHO...like a bunch of paranoids.
Again it's real simple people....don't break the law...and there won't be any reason for the cops to be in your business.
At reflex it is very true but the fact remains: we have the 4th and 5th amendments and presumptions of innocence for a reason. Just because there are such things as drunk drivers does not give LEO's carte blanche in treating the entire balance of the citizenry as potential criminals.
They don't do that and you know it. Statements like that border on tinfoil country. :tinfoil2:
Still, your underlying principle of not being a drunken ****head out on public roads is laudable
It's as simple as following the damn law. It's common sense.
-
A sympathetic notion because drunk drivers are a despicable breed but it smacks too closely to the erroneous, "if you didn't do anything wrong than you don't have ant reason to keep the police from searching your __________ ."
At reflex it is very true but the fact remains: we have the 4th and 5th amendments and presumptions of innocence for a reason. Just because there are such things as drunk drivers does not give LEO's carte blanche in treating the entire balance of the citizenry as potential criminals.
Still, your underlying principle of not being a drunken ****head out on public roads is laudable
Unfortunately one of the first things that alcohol deadens is rational thinking and inhibitions, a bad combination. Once someone drinks past a certain level they can justify pretty much anything.
Including saying to the supposed human female in the bed next to you, "Who are you, and how did you get here?"
-
Nothing justifies my first marriage. Nothing.
The exception that proves the rule my friend!
-
Here's a simple solution.
Don't get effin drunk and then get behind the wheel.
Pretty simple huh?
Wow--so simple, even an Army guy gets it.
-
Slightly off topic.
When I lived in Florida, I had a friend who was an EMT who told me that if one gets pulled over and you know you're gonna get nailed for drunk driving, fake a heart attack. The police have no choice but to call an ambulance because they can't have you dying on them, they can't administer any kind of test on you, and then once you get into the ambulance or to the hospital you tell them no needles, so they can't draw your blood. Worse thing that can happen (according to him) is the police, EMT's and hospital staff can testify that you had alcohol on your breath, they can testify to the way you behaved while in their care, but there's no evidence to prove you were drunk.
Didn't say this was the cheapest way to get out of a DUI, just a way to not get convicted of one. I suppose some form of this carries over to every State.
.
-
Great... now all I have to do is take some "Fake a Coronary" acting classes and I'll be hooked up. :cheersmate: :-)
The public roads are the same as the territorial waters around the United States. The water is United states territory... essentially "public land." Roads are the same thing, right? Just like you can't cruise around the coast with drugs in your boat and not expect the Coast Guard to hop aboard, you can't cruise around the public roads and not expect the police to be watching you. I just don't see where anyone's rights are being violated.
-
Slightly off topic.
When I lived in Florida, I had a friend who was an EMT who told me that if one gets pulled over and you know you're gonna get nailed for drunk driving, fake a heart attack. The police have no choice but to call an ambulance because they can't have you dying on them, they can't administer any kind of test on you, and then once you get into the ambulance or to the hospital you tell them no needles, so they can't draw your blood. Worse thing that can happen (according to him) is the police, EMT's and hospital staff can testify that you had alcohol on your breath, they can testify to the way you behaved while in their care, but there's no evidence to prove you were drunk.
Didn't say this was the cheapest way to get out of a DUI, just a way to not get convicted of one. I suppose some form of this carries over to every State.
.
Never seen ER records where the party refused tx before, but hey it may work.
-
I actually had a friend of mine do it once in Tampa. He was drunk as a skunk, in the car with his girlfriend, driving a 1971 Datsun 240Z and doing doughnuts in a bank parking lot at about 11pm. His father had a history of having a heart condition, so that had some impact on the judge at the end. But he followed this advise to the "T", and didn't get a DUI but rather a suspended license for about 30 days.
.
-
I`m sorry if I am reading this wrong but does that propose that only after the fact should any action be weighed as being injurious.
In other words murder isn`t illegal on its face but the act may be punishable if after the commission of it someone determines it to have been injurious.
Sounds silly but it leaves the door open for situation ethics...XYZ persons life wasn`t determined to be valuable or not enough so that his/her killing proved to be injurious.
Capital "L" Libertarianism is almost as confused and befuddled as its long distance cousin liberalism in trying to set up a utopian society and uses the same suspension of reality to argue its claims.
What it says is that you can only justly criminalize injurious actions, not simply actions which make one more likely to commit an injurious action, if said action does not in and of itself injure another person. As related to the current topic: it's not the alcohol in the drunk driver's bloodstream that kills his passengers after a collision, it's the collision. That collision is already a crime. To protect the intoxicated driver from his own stupidity by criminalizing driving while intoxicated in an attempt to make his decisions for him - this smacks of nanny-statism, something conservatives are supposed to oppose.
In my experience, however, a great many conservatives oppose nanny-statism only when it involves providing the people with positive benefits - what you might call maternal government - but not government which attempts to control the behavior of its subjects through threats of force - what might be called paternal government. In other words, many conservatives, along with the vast majority of liberals, are guilty of treating citizens - all citizens - like children. They differ only in the implementation of that treatment - liberals want to spoil the "children," while conservatives want to raise them with discipline. While I think conservatism is superior in this, as in most cases, I tend to think that a better solution is to just not treat everyone like a child.
And of course capital "L" Libertarianism is confused and befuddled - it contradicts itself. It is an attempt to organize into a political party the rejection of politics - politics being, by their own philosophy, the exertion of control by one party over another.
To say that libertarianism is the cousin of liberalism is misleading - true as far as it goes, but you neglect to mention that it is also the cousin of conservatism, being that liberalism is generally pro-personal liberties and anti-economic liberties, whereas conservatism is generally the opposite, and libertarianism is pro-both, thereby taking a pro- from each of the other two political philosophies.
-
Wow--so simple, even an Army guy gets it.
Blind squirrel...nut....you know the rest. :-)
-
What it says is that you can only justly criminalize injurious actions, not simply actions which make one more likely to commit an injurious action, if said action does not in and of itself injure another person. As related to the current topic: it's not the alcohol in the drunk driver's bloodstream that kills his passengers after a collision, it's the collision. That collision is already a crime. To protect the intoxicated driver from his own stupidity by criminalizing driving while intoxicated in an attempt to make his decisions for him - this smacks of nanny-statism, something conservatives are supposed to oppose.
Wow.
Collision is not a crime. Unless it was intentional, it is considered an accident. Accidents are a risk associated with operating a motor vehicle.
If not for alcohol, the collision would not have occurred. A person who chooses to operate a vehicle while intoxicated, and as such is too impaired to safely operate his vehicle, is a little more than stupidity. Any collision resultant of the operation of their vehicle is now considered deliberate, and accordingly a crime.
Absence of the alcohol = accident. Alcohol = deliberate.
The primary purpose of law enforcement is public safety. Absence of law enforcement is anarchy. Anarchy can not work in any civilized society, and certainly was not in place when our country was founded, or anytime thereafter.
-
What it says is that you can only justly criminalize injurious actions, not simply actions which make one more likely to commit an injurious action, if said action does not in and of itself injure another person. As related to the current topic: it's not the alcohol in the drunk driver's bloodstream that kills his passengers after a collision, it's the collision. That collision is already a crime. To protect the intoxicated driver from his own stupidity by criminalizing driving while intoxicated in an attempt to make his decisions for him - this smacks of nanny-statism, something conservatives are supposed to oppose.
In my experience, however, a great many conservatives oppose nanny-statism only when it involves providing the people with positive benefits - what you might call maternal government - but not government which attempts to control the behavior of its subjects through threats of force - what might be called paternal government. In other words, many conservatives, along with the vast majority of liberals, are guilty of treating citizens - all citizens - like children. They differ only in the implementation of that treatment - liberals want to spoil the "children," while conservatives want to raise them with discipline. While I think conservatism is superior in this, as in most cases, I tend to think that a better solution is to just not treat everyone like a child.
And of course capital "L" Libertarianism is confused and befuddled - it contradicts itself. It is an attempt to organize into a political party the rejection of politics - politics being, by their own philosophy, the exertion of control by one party over another.
To say that libertarianism is the cousin of liberalism is misleading - true as far as it goes, but you neglect to mention that it is also the cousin of conservatism, being that liberalism is generally pro-personal liberties and anti-economic liberties, whereas conservatism is generally the opposite, and libertarianism is pro-both, thereby taking a pro- from each of the other two political philosophies.
Hence my distinction between libertarian views of limited,unobtrusive government and the "party" views of isolation,almost anarchy in gov function,fisca conservativism and liberalism in the social sense.
-
To protect the intoxicated driver from his own stupidity by criminalizing driving while intoxicated in an attempt to make his decisions for him - this smacks of nanny-statism, something conservatives are supposed to oppose.
It also protects others from the drunk's stupidity.
And that's not nanny-statism anymore than saying premediated murder is a crime, or stealing is a crime. It's just drawing a line in the sand where society has agreed that beyond this certain point you're doing something wrong.
The means by which law enforcement uses to keep drunks off the road is not really something one is going to get a lot of people all riled up about since it's viewed as a good thing.
.
-
It also protects others from the drunk's stupidity.
And that's not nanny-statism anymore than saying premediated murder is a crime, or stealing is a crime. It's just drawing a line in the sand where society has agreed that beyond this certain point you're doing something wrong.
The means by which law enforcement uses to keep drunks off the road is not really something one is going to get a lot of people all riled up about since it's viewed as a good thing.
.
Until it affects them then all hell brakes loose eh. As long as it's the other guy ya know.
-
It also protects others from the drunk's stupidity.
And that's not nanny-statism anymore than saying premediated murder is a crime, or stealing is a crime. It's just drawing a line in the sand where society has agreed that beyond this certain point you're doing something wrong.
The means by which law enforcement uses to keep drunks off the road is not really something one is going to get a lot of people all riled up about since it's viewed as a good thing.
.
Does no good to tell some on here about reality. What they want is anarchy.
-
Slightly off topic.
When I lived in Florida, I had a friend who was an EMT who told me that if one gets pulled over and you know you're gonna get nailed for drunk driving, fake a heart attack. The police have no choice but to call an ambulance because they can't have you dying on them, they can't administer any kind of test on you, and then once you get into the ambulance or to the hospital you tell them no needles, so they can't draw your blood. Worse thing that can happen (according to him) is the police, EMT's and hospital staff can testify that you had alcohol on your breath, they can testify to the way you behaved while in their care, but there's no evidence to prove you were drunk.
Didn't say this was the cheapest way to get out of a DUI, just a way to not get convicted of one. I suppose some form of this carries over to every State.
.
Doesn't work any more. If they take you to the hospital because of a traffic stop the hospital will automatically take some blood and test it to protect themselves and the police from any potential liability. If the results are positive for drugs and/or alcohol it will be used against you in a court of law. The are also trying to adjust the law so that if you refuse a field sorbriety test or breathalyzer blood will automatically be taken. Right now if you refuse the breathalyzer you lose your license for 1 year.
-
The means by which law enforcement uses to keep drunks off the road is not really something one is going to get a lot of people all riled up about since it's viewed as a good thing.
The ends justify the means, right?
-
The ends justify the means, right?
No,there have been laws written by legislatures,signed by a chief executive and subjected to judicial review since the days of the founders.
It is how our form of government operates but since it is by men it isn`t perfect nor will it ever be.
Show me how the Libertarian philosophy of no or few specific laws with existence being based on a for the moment examination of what is in society supposed best interest (or that of those deciding) is any better.
Very soon it becomes a wild west fantasy which looks neat on TV but few would like to live in.
-
The end of the institution, maintenance, and administration of government, is to secure the existence of the body politic, to protect it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it with the power of enjoying in safety and tranquillity their natural rights, and the blessings of life: and whenever these great objects are not obtained, the people have a right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity and happiness.
The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: it is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good. It is the duty of the people, therefore, in framing a constitution of government, to provide for an equitable mode of making laws, as well as for an impartial interpretation, and a faithful execution of them; that every man may, at all times, find his security in them.
We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other; and of forming a new constitution of civil government, for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design, do agree upon, ordain and establish the following Declaration of Rights, and Frame of Government, as the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Ratified 1780. Written by John Adams, Samuel Adams and James Bowdoin.
But what the hell did they know?
-
No,there have been laws written by legislatures,signed by a chief executive and subjected to judicial review since the days of the founders.
It is how our form of government operates but since it is by men it isn`t perfect nor will it ever be.
Show me how the Libertarian philosophy of no or few specific laws with existence being based on a for the moment examination of what is in society supposed best interest (or that of those deciding) is any better.
Very soon it becomes a wild west fantasy which looks neat on TV but few would like to live in.
Anarchists don't understand your arguments. They just wanna do what they wanna do when they wanna do it. If other people get hurt, who the hell cares? It is their RIGHT to do what they wanna do.
I have scoured the USC and couldn't find anything about the right to drive (or ride a horse or carriage or whatever).