DUI checkpoints and 'no refusal' weekends

[CFM]

I drove you retard! He didn't want to drink and drive, that's why I drove. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?
After all these years I haven't drank any alcohol, I could drink a half a case of Colt 45 malt liquor and still rationally say you're a progressive idiot....and be correct.

I'm not questioning who drove. You said he didn't drive because he was "somewhat shitfaced" which means his judgment was impaired. Why is it so hard for you to answer why if he was too impaired to drive he could be rational enough to make a judgment like the one you say he made. He can't be impaired and not impaired at the same time. Thinking he can is a progressive mentality.

 

[CFM]

I'd need a hazmat suit to come where you live, banjofuck.

You'd need some balls which you clearly don't have. You've talked like you had them but they're actually nothing more than shriveled prunes from a lifetime of cowardice living.

 

[RB 60]

Fuck your 'fuck you,' R B 60. No one cares what you think. If you post, you are fair game. Start telling the truth, whiner.

Prove I'm lying, moron.

 

[Into the Night]

Drinking then driving IS doing something.

Yes it is. Good for you.

Not drinking and driving is doing something too. So is posting here.

I assume you are doing something all the time.

 

[RB 60]

I'm not questioning who drove. You said he didn't drive because he was "somewhat shitfaced" which means his judgment was impaired. Why is it so hard for you to answer why if he was too impaired to drive he could be rational enough to make a judgment like the one you say he made. He can't be impaired and not impaired at the same time. Thinking he can is a progressive mentality.

Using your extremely limited mentality, was my judgement of the officer's arrogance impaired because I was pissed off I was stuck and not believed for 15 minutes?

 

[Into the Night]

Your words indicate you think it's OK. You're the one having the problem understanding it's what you believe.

You are equivocating driving with drinking and driving and using that to allow the police to assume anyone driving is probably drinking. False equivalence fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

You don't get to speak for the founders. You only get to speak for you.

The Constitution of the United States 4th and 5th amendments disagree with you.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

No, they do not. See Article III of the Constitution of the United States. They were never given power to interpret the document that creates them. Only the States have that power, collectively. The States are the owners of the Constitution of the United States. Only they can change it. Only they can interpret it.

People are jailed all the time for laws they never broke. Does that make it right?

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Quite right. Drunk and drugged drivers are already breaking laws with their weaving and other poor driving that they do. That is perfectly justifiable for a cop to stop them.

 

[Into the Night]

A checkpoint isn't a sobriety test.

Such checkpoints are exactly that.

 

[Into the Night]

you are clueless about the founders intent............show me where they thought you could be arrested for riding a horse while drinking

What if the horse had been drinking?

 

[Into the Night]

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.

False equivalence fallacy. This has nothing to do with sobriety checkpoints.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Nothing in Article III, Section 1 gives the court authority to interpret the Constitution of the United States.

It specifically limits authority UNDER the Constitution. It cannot judge the Constitution itself. It has no power OVER the Constitution. It can neither interpret it or change it.

 

[jimmymccready]

Using your extremely limited mentality, was my judgement of the officer's arrogance impaired because I was pissed off I was stuck and not believed for 15 minutes?

So you pissed off the police, got held for a bit, and you blame the police?

What a doofus.

 

[Into the Night]

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?

He is making a false equivalence. The problem is that he is using the assumption that a driver MIGHT be drunk to stop ALL drivers (including those that are not drunk). Thus, he is justifying interfering with a legal activity to stop an illegal activity.

This kind of thinking is what creates the so-called justification for gun control laws, the TSA making people take off their shoes and searching their luggage, implementing laws that punish everyone for the act of a single person, etc.

Such thinking is itself a fallacy, known as the attempted force of negative proof fallacy. In simpler terms, a man is guilty until proven innocent. This fallacy is a dangerous one. It starts wars.

 

[RB 60]

So you pissed off the police, got held for a bit, and you blame the police?

What a doofus.

Yep, I pissed them off because I wasn't drinking and they hoped I was. Screw them.......and you too, asshole.

 

[RB 60]

What if the horse had been drinking?

The horse wasn't driving

 

[Into the Night]

I, as the founders did, fully understand your right to drink and drive doesn't exist.

Did you get past the first grade?

You don't get to speak for the founders. You only get to speak for you.

Cars didn't exist in the 1700's.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm being objective and honest. You're being selfish like spoiled child. Did your mommy not let you suck her tits as long as you wanted? You wife lets me.

YALIFNAP.

 

[Scut Farkus]

The courts are more correct than far right conservatives or libertarians.

they're bad stops. no probable cause.