jimmymccready
Verified User
He's too stupid to understand that I drove so he could drink.
Then you both should be in court.
He's too stupid to understand that I drove so he could drink.
yep, otherwise no crime
Then you both should be in court.
The founders are irrelevant to the conversation here. The Constitution of the United States is the fact at hand in this argument. It is the only reference to the Constitution of the United States. He is trying to use the founders as the reference of the Constitution of the United States. It is a false authority.
Bumping this forward, seeing as how it wasn't answered.
OH, OK - So I can fire a weapon into the ground, by your children, and as long as there is no injury, there is no victim or crime??
false equivalency........................two totally different things
Bumping this forward, seeing as how it wasn't answered.
OH, OK - So I can fire a weapon into the ground, by your children, and as long as there is no injury, there is no victim or crime??
WRONG. The Supreme Court does NOT have authority of any kind over the Constitution. They cannot interpret it or change it. They MUST operate UNDER the Constitution. They may rule on laws of Congress, actions by the President, etc.; but they MUST conform to the Constitution when doing so. They cannot interpret the Constitution itself.
The States, own the Constitution of the United States. They are the only ones that have the authority to interpret it or change it. Each State is in turn a republic. Each State also has a constitution. The owners of THOSE constitutions are the people of that State. Only those people have the authority to interpret or change those constitutions. The States represent the people. Thus, the people of each State are the ones to have final say over anything in the Constitution of the United States. They do so through their various States.
Thus, the United States is not an oligarchy ruled over by the Supreme Court (or anyone else). It is not a democracy. It is a federated republic (layers of constitutions).
See Article III of the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court MUST operate UNDER the Constitution. It has NO authority over it.
WRONG. The Constitution says so. You are denying the Constitution by adding stuff to it that isn't there. There were no cars in the 1700's. The Constitution does not address drunk driving at all. See the 10th amendment. The topic is about sobriety checkpoints, not drunk driving.
Presentism fallacy. Redefinition fallacy (void<->Constitution of the United States). Strawman fallacy. Redirection fallacy and fixation.
Lie. You deny the Constitution of the United States. Inversion fallacy.
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.
Such checkpoints are exactly 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.
they're bad stops. no probable cause.
stupid.
Try English. It works better.
RDCF
Why is it stupid, when I'm only using STY's mantra of "No Victim = No Crime"??
YALIFNAP
There was no reason to stop the car or suspect drunk driving. The amount of alcohol the passenger drank is inconsequential. It is legal to get shitfaced.