I'm not the one that brought up what the faggot did.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
DUI checkpoints and 'no refusal' weekends
- Thread starter SmarterthanYou
- Start date
I'm not the one that brought up what the faggot did.
I am not the one straddling a statist cock.
That would be you.
Still having faggot thoughts? So sad.
Show me that traveling is a right in the Bill Of Rights. Name the amendment.Driving (traveling) is a right not a privelege.
Actually, people like me who have paralegal degrees know how to read state statutes. We know how laws are created.Only sheep like yourself and those that would deny your rights define it asa privelege.
Show where in the Constitution that driving is not a right.
How could I do that? Driving DIDN'T EVEN EXIST during most of the Constitution's history. Tell me again how the Founding Fathers decided that driving a car was a Constitutional right. Did they drive to the Continental Congress in a Lexus?
Shit fer brains; no contract which violates laws is enforceable as is no law which violates the constitution enforcable.
Tell me again how signing a driver's license violates the law.
To bring you up to speed on Contract Law (and I'm glad you weren't in my college Contract Law class because our professor would have reamed your ass out), a contract is not valid if it is for an illegal purpose. That's as close as Contract Law comes to Criminal Law. Or did you know that there was a difference?
You probably didn't know that there are conflicts between the Universal Commercial Code and Contract Law. You probably don't even know the difference between Civil Law and Criminal Law.
I would recommend you do some reading on the subject, but with your current level of education I don't think you'd live long enough to read enough to understand it. Even if you are a teenager.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you are one of the reasons why freedom is screwed. the founders LIMITED power to the governments by prescribing them certain powers. They did NOT limit freedom by telling us the ONLY rights we had under the bill of rights. it took a newly freed people to recognize freedom. it took a bunch of judges, lawyers, and politicians to turn that on it's head.Show me that traveling is a right in the Bill Of Rights. Name the amendment.
Actually, people like me who have paralegal degrees know how to read state statutes. We know how laws are created.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law
Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right.
they DID drive wagons that were horse drawn. do you think that the framers imagined giving government power to license horse drawn carriages?How could I do that? Driving DIDN'T EVEN EXIST during most of the Constitution's history. Tell me again how the Founding Fathers decided that driving a car was a Constitutional right. Did they drive to the Continental Congress in a Lexus?
this is the problem with you freedom hating statists. you think that the only rights people have are the ones that the government allows. that is NOT what this country was founded upon.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Tell me again how signing a driver's license violates the law.
it portrays to ignorant people that they must seek permission and accept limitations on a fundamental constitutional right for choosing a specific mode of travel.
the USSC ruled that 'travel' is a fundamental right, so what gives any government the power to regulate how, when, where, or why one travels?
Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 and Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 address freedom of movement from one place to another. To use their exact words, it's the "right of free ingress into other states and free ingress from them." That means you cannot be stopped from going from one place to another. It means the government cannot tell you that you can't move from one place to another.
These cases occurred in the 19th Century. Cars and highways didn't even exist then.
Think THIS is ridiculous?
How about the idea that you can have a six pack of beer in the front seat of your car and STILL get a ticket for open container? Even if none of the beers are open. Wanna know how the legislature pulled that one off?
Rather than get piddly and PMS over what the cop does when he pulls you over in a checkpoint and asks you for a breathalyzer test, perhaps you people should have paid more attention when state legislatures were passing the bills that made all this possible.
You're looking at a cop, not a Senator or a Rep. He's just doing his job, enforcing the law. You should have paid better attention when the laws were being written.
it portrays to ignorant people that they must seek permission and accept limitations on a fundamental constitutional right for choosing a specific mode of travel.
There is no constitutional right for a specific mode of travel. At the time the Constitution was written, there was no such thing as car travel. Are you making a case that the Founding Fathers believed we had a RIGHT to car travel?
Seriously, just drop this forum and go find a copy of the Constitution and READ it. You're coming up with all kinds of rights that don't even exist.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
and NOTHING in any of the state constitutions authorizes state governments to regulate the means of travel for individuals. they have power to regulate the roadways with speed limits, lane directions, stop signs, etc. but NO POWER to require permission slips to do such in any vehicle.Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 and Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 address freedom of movement from one place to another. To use their exact words, it's the "right of free ingress into other states and free ingress from them." That means you cannot be stopped from going from one place to another. It means the government cannot tell you that you can't move from one place to another.
These cases occurred in the 19th Century. Cars and highways didn't even exist then.
I can't disagree with you on this. I've always said this of others.Think THIS is ridiculous?
How about the idea that you can have a six pack of beer in the front seat of your car and STILL get a ticket for open container? Even if none of the beers are open. Wanna know how the legislature pulled that one off?
Rather than get piddly and PMS over what the cop does when he pulls you over in a checkpoint and asks you for a breathalyzer test, perhaps you people should have paid more attention when state legislatures were passing the bills that made all this possible.
this did not work at nuremburg, why should it work now?You're looking at a cop, not a Senator or a Rep. He's just doing his job, enforcing the law. You should have paid better attention when the laws were being written.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
There is no constitutional right for a specific mode of travel. At the time the Constitution was written, there was no such thing as car travel. Are you making a case that the Founding Fathers believed we had a RIGHT to car travel?
Seriously, just drop this forum and go find a copy of the Constitution and READ it. You're coming up with all kinds of rights that don't even exist.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. maybe you're familiar with this Amendment?
you are one of the reasons why freedom is screwed. the founders LIMITED power to the governments by prescribing them certain powers. They did NOT limit freedom by telling us the ONLY rights we had under the bill of rights. it took a newly freed people to recognize freedom. it took a bunch of judges, lawyers, and politicians to turn that on it's head.
The Bill of Rights is almost mis-named. It is not a group of RIGHTS at all. It's a list of RESTRICTIONS on what the government can do. There is no RIGHT to free speech, created in the bill of rights. There is just a restriction on the government's ability to curb free speech. Same with guns.
You need to read it again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law
Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right.
Freedom of movement has nothing whatsoever to do with drunk driving laws.
they DID drive wagons that were horse drawn. do you think that the framers imagined giving government power to license horse drawn carriages?
Where do you think those laws came from? Do you think a bunch of Nazis just got together in state houses and wrote those laws?
THE DRUNK DRIVING LAWS CAME FROM PUBLIC OUTRAGE. The PUBLIC voted in the legislators who wrote those laws. The PEOPLE gave the legislators to the power to define driving as a privilege, rather than a right. It's on the books, whether you like it or not. And the "privilege" part is the reason why the legislature can circumvent a driver's protection against self incrimination. That driver didn't have to be driving that car. It is a privilege.
By the way, I don't agree with that at all. And I do agree with Mothers Against Drunk Driving that the new drunk driving laws have IN NO WAY even slowed down the number of highway fatalities. Those laws have done nothing but ruin lives and provide a huge influx of revenue for cities and towns.
If you DON'T want to give up your freedom against self incrimination, DON'T SIGN THE CONTRACT. Simple as that. Nobody is holding a gun to your head.
And if you DON'T want to get your ass shot off in some foreign land, DON'T sign a contract enlisting in the armed services. Same concept.
this is the problem with you freedom hating statists. you think that the only rights people have are the ones that the government allows. that is NOT what this country was founded upon.
There's nothing freedom-hating about contract law. It exists.
The breathalyzer thing has already been ruled upon by the courts.
Where were you when the laws were being passed?
You have a problem answering a simple question. You asked why does any government have a say in how, when, where and why someone travels. The HOW involves someone being able to drive drunk.
Actually, the government has no say as to where you want to travel or how you want to get there, (unless you're on a terrorist no fly list.) The government has no say about whether or not you get drunk. And the government has no say on you being able to drive drunk, UNTIL YOUR CAR IS ON A TAXPAYER FUNDED HIGHWAY OR STREET. Then the government has been empowered by THE PEOPLE (who called for the drunk driving laws in the first place) to stop you.
You don't have to get drunk. If you get drunk you don't have to drive. If you drive drunk, you can do so on your own property, and if you own a huge ranch you can drive all over the place totally shit faced, running into stuff. But if you are drunk on the highway, you are putting lives in danger. That makes you no different than a baby food company that puts strychnine in baby food.
and NOTHING in any of the state constitutions authorizes state governments to regulate the means of travel for individuals. they have power to regulate the roadways with speed limits, lane directions, stop signs, etc. but NO POWER to require permission slips to do such in any vehicle.
Are you saying that states do not have the power to require a driver's license? Seriously?
this did not work at nuremburg, why should it work now?
Are you comparing the work of a police officer with someone who worked in a Concentration Camp?
Seriously?
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. maybe you're familiar with this Amendment?
Apparently, you haven't read this Amendment very well, especially that part concerning THE PEOPLE.
THE PEOPLE are the ones who created the driver's license laws and the drunk driving laws. That was the RIGHT of the PEOPLE.
Again, we don't live in a monarchy.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
can you point to any of the states constitutions that SPECIFICALLY STATE that they can require a drivers license? because I can start posting cases where the courts SPECIFICALLY said driving was a right. Then I can SPECIFICALLY post a case that states a state may not charge a license, fee, or tax for a right guaranteed by the constitution.Are you saying that states do not have the power to require a driver's license? Seriously?
have you seen the cops today? hell yes, I am.Are you comparing the work of a police officer with someone who worked in a Concentration Camp?
Seriously?
seriously.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Apparently, you haven't read this Amendment very well, especially that part concerning THE PEOPLE.
THE PEOPLE are the ones who created the driver's license laws and the drunk driving laws. That was the RIGHT of the PEOPLE.
Again, we don't live in a monarchy.
the PEOPLE don't have the power to deny rights based upon popular vote. that is what amendments to constitutions are made of.
Show me that traveling is a right in the Bill Of Rights. Name the amendment.
Actually, people like me who have paralegal degrees know how to read state statutes. We know how laws are created.
How could I do that? Driving DIDN'T EVEN EXIST during most of the Constitution's history. Tell me again how the Founding Fathers decided that driving a car was a Constitutional right. Did they drive to the Continental Congress in a Lexus?
That clown thinks anything he wants to do is a right and no one should say anything to him about anything related to it.
the PEOPLE don't have the power to deny rights based upon popular vote. that is what amendments to constitutions are made of.
Driving isn't a right. Because you WANT to do something doesn't make it one.
can you point to any of the states constitutions that SPECIFICALLY STATE that they can require a drivers license? because I can start posting cases where the courts SPECIFICALLY said driving was a right. Then I can SPECIFICALLY post a case that states a state may not charge a license, fee, or tax for a right guaranteed by the constitution.
have you seen the cops today? hell yes, I am.
seriously.
Can you show me in the Constitution where driving is listed as a specific right?