DUI checkpoints and 'no refusal' weekends

mandatory blood draws, are they constitutional?

  • No, it violates my rights as a person

    Votes: 24 88.9%

  • yes, they are clearly constitutional

    Votes: 3 11.1%
  • Total voters
    27
SmarterthanYou said:
there you go making moronic assumptions, again. I don't have to think it's ok, but I do get to call government prohibition of it unconstitutional.............it's not that difficult of a concept, which is probably why it's so hard for you to understand.
Click to expand...

Your words indicate you think it's OK. You're the one having the problem understanding it's what you believe.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
this really shows your ignorance and idiocy, but that's par for the course when it comes to your knowledge of freedom and constitutions.
Click to expand...

You don't have the freedom to drink and drive, but it's par for the course from a selfish little bastard that thinks he can do whatever he wants when he wants. The founders disagree with you.
 
Into the Night said:
Of course, the Supreme Court does not have the authority to change the Constitution.
Click to expand...

They do have the power of interpreting it. As for the threads question, I believe that forcing someone to take a blood test is unconstitutional. But they can still be hauled into jail until their lawyer arrives.
 
CFM said:
Drinking then driving IS doing something.
Click to expand...

You've missed the point. This isn't about someone who has been drinking, but rather has not been drinking but still subject to unreasonable search and seizure.

Whereas, if you are driving down the road below the speed limit and weaving, there is reasonable suspicion you've been drinking. Just passing through a checkpoint and being forced to take a sobriety test is random and unreasonable.
 
Truth Detector said:
You've missed the point. This isn't about someone who has been drinking, but rather has not been drinking but still subject to unreasonable search and seizure.

Whereas, id you are driving down the road below the speed limit and weaving, there is reasonable suspicion you've been drinking. Just passing through a checkpoint and being forced to take a sobriety test is random and unreasonable.
Click to expand...

A checkpoint isn't a sobriety test.
 
CFM said:
You don't have the freedom to drink and drive, but it's par for the course from a selfish little bastard that thinks he can do whatever he wants when he wants. The founders disagree with you.
Click to expand...

you are clueless about the founders intent............show me where they thought you could be arrested for riding a horse while drinking
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you are clueless about the founders intent............show me where they thought you could be arrested for riding a horse while drinking
Click to expand...

Show me where they said it was OK to drive drunk.

You don't have the right to do so despite how selfish you may be.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the government is not the definer of their powers and restrictions.
Click to expand...

I didn't say Government; I said the Supreme Court. They do have final say in the interpretation of the Constitution and laws that may be contrary to it. I never said they were perfect; but then, neither are you. ;)

Article III Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, ................

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
 
CFM said:
Show me where they said it was OK to drive drunk.

You don't have the right to do so despite how selfish you may be.
Click to expand...

again, you show zero understanding of how constitutions and government power works.............why is that? did you go to public schools????????

you appear to be unable to distinguish between that which is not OK and that which is not illegal/constitutional............why is that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top