DUI checkpoints and 'no refusal' weekends

[USFREEDOM911]

Word salad. Try English. It works better.

Then stop tossing it.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Yes. Your point?

But STY said that if there are no victims, then there is no crime.

 

[domer76]

Not checkpoints which is the thread subject.

Sitz was checkpoints.

And constitutional

 

[Nordberg]

Sitz was checkpoints.

And constitutional

Michigan and 9 other states do not have them. For some reason, state decisions have determined it. That is just a fact. We did have them until a court decision ended them.

 

[domer76]

Michigan and 9 other states do not have them. For some reason, state decisions have determined it. That is just a fact. We did have them until a court decision ended them.

Doesn’t matter whether they have them or not. They can choose not to.

But they are constitutional.

 

[Nordberg]

Doesn’t matter whether they have them or not. They can choose not to.

But they are constitutional.

Do you imagine you are making a point? Michigan does not have check points.

 

[Into the Night]

The road isn't closed. That's what a roadblock is.

The road was closed. You could not pass until examined by police.

 

[domer76]

Do you imagine you are making a point? Michigan does not have check points.

My point is clear.

Checkpoints are constitutional. Period.

 

[Into the Night]

i remember reading about the state of WA and the issue went all the way to their sct...and forced blood draws, with a warrant, are constitutional

Nope. Not legal here. They are unconstitutional. A State supreme court does not have authority to change either the State constitution nor the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

Doesn’t matter whether they have them or not. They can choose not to.

But they are constitutional.

No. They violate the 4th, 5th, 10th, and 16th amendments.

 

[Into the Night]

My point is clear.

Checkpoints are constitutional. Period.

You are chanting. Your chanting will not change the Constitution.

 

[domer76]

No. They violate the 4th, 5th, 10th, and 16th amendments.

Nope.

Stops are constitutional. Reasonable searches. 1990 SCOTUS. 6-3. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)

 

[domer76]

You are chanting. Your chanting will not change the Constitution.

Your stupidity won’t change the decision.

Stops are constitutional. Reasonable searches. 1990 SCOTUS. 6-3. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)

 

[Sirthinksalot]

No. They violate the 4th, 5th, 10th, and 16th amendments.

Nope.

Stops are constitutional. Reasonable searches. 1990 SCOTUS. 6-3. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)

I'll have put this on my calendar. I actually agree with domer. Use of public roadways is not a Constitutional right. It's a privilege. If you want to use public roads, you are subject to rules. I strongly disagree with the concept of DUI checkpoints, but I concede that they are Constitutional.

 

[CFM]

The road was closed. You could not pass until examined by police.

The road wasn't closed and there was no examination.

 

[gfm7175]

But STY said that if there are no victims, then there is no crime.

Already addressed.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Already addressed.

Not by STY; but he did attempt to deflect from his own mantra.

 

[Scut Farkus]

Your stupidity won’t change the decision.

Stops are constitutional. Reasonable searches. 1990 SCOTUS. 6-3. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)

we are not bound to obey unconstitutional laws, according to our own judgement.

 

[domer76]

we are not bound to obey unconstitutional laws, according to our own judgement.

Stops are constitutional. Reasonable searches. 1990 SCOTUS. 6-3. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990).

Your judgement doesn't mean shit. Tell it to the judge.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

This, coming from the idiot that stated “vehicles cannot be necessary” because they are not a right.

After all the dumbfuck posts ever made on this forum, that still, and always will be, the stupidest fucking post EVER.

every post you make far surpasses any i could ever make, with your dumbfuckery. anyone who needs the government to explain to them what the constitution means, is a failure as an american. any moron who claims that ONLY exact wording in the said constitution is the only thing that matters, then tries to use concepts to explain that exact wording is a total fucking idiot. That would be you, since you're too stupid to understand basic english.