DUI checkpoints and 'no refusal' weekends

[CFM]

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.

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?

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.

You still don't get that something isn't a right because you want it to be one.

 

[CFM]

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.

Are you saying that laws saying drinking and driving violate someone's rights?

Based on how you think, if you can call it that, stop signs and traffic lights are on the same level as a driver's license. How dare the government tell me I have to slow down, stop, or drive in a manner I don't like.

 

[reason10]

can you point to any of the states constitutions that SPECIFICALLY STATE that they can require a drivers license?

That begs the question. Are you suggesting that there is a single state in the union where you can drive a car WITHOUT a driver's license? I haven't been to every state but I have a pretty strong feeling that they all require driver's licenses, so the question of CAN has been answered. As far as a constitution saying it CAN or CAN'T do anything, I think you'll find the answer in that section of any constitution that provides for a legislature. If a state's constitution provides for a legislature, then it CAN legislate traffic statutes. So far, I'm only aware specifically of two states that require driver's licenses: North Carolina and Florida. And this is because I held a driver's license, first in one then the other.

because I can start posting cases where the courts SPECIFICALLY said driving was a right.

A court case where driving a car on a highway is a right? Not having the ability to travel, but actually driving a car? In Florida and North Carolina, driving is called a privilege. That much I know for a fact. If you're going to suggest some left wing shithole like New York or Califagula says driving is a privilege, I wouldn't doubt it. Those places are as fucked as a hooker on a Saturday night.

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 there any states that are prohibited to charge a license fee? Can you name them? Can you prove it with a link to their statutes?

have you seen the cops today? hell yes, I am.

Most cops today are the reason you're able to walk the streets without worrying about being mugged. They're the reason you can drive the streets and not worry about getting run off the road. They are normal decent people just like you think you are. They're just doing a job. A lot of them are supporting families and paying taxes. Comparing most of them to concentration camp officials is as despicable as it is ignorant.

 

[reason10]

the PEOPLE don't have the power to deny rights based upon popular vote. that is what amendments to constitutions are made of.

There is plenty of documentation that proves the opposite of that statement.

 

[CFM]

There is plenty of documentation that proves the opposite of that statement.

That statement by the anarchist dumbass STY shows he's smarter than none.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

There is plenty of documentation that proves the opposite of that statement.

of course, that still doesn't mean it's actually constitutional. congress was given ZERO power over firearms, yet fucktard statists have no issue with congress using the commerce clause to prohibit machine guns, therefore they overlook the wrongness of it.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

That statement by the anarchist dumbass STY shows he's smarter than none.

here's something that will really fuck your head up.

http://informationliberation.com/?id=54040

A motorist accused of drunk driving walked away after cops in Chicago, Illinois refused to hand over video evidence of the incident. In a ruling last month, the Illinois Appellate Court said Richard Moravec was entitled not just to any dashcam videos of his arrest, but also relevant footage from the city's network of surveillance devices known as "police observational devices" or POD cameras.

In 2003, the Windy City installed remote-controlled cameras that could rotate 360 degrees and zoom in on activities of interest to the monitoring center at police headquarters. All of the footage is saved for at least two weeks. After his June 6, 2012 arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), Moravec and his attorneys demanded the tapes before the 15-day retention period expired.

A Chicago police officer stopped Moravec at the intersection of Thomas Street and Western Avenue in Chicago, a location in sight of three separate police surveillance cameras. Police officials told Moravec's attorney that no dashcam video of the arrest had been found and that video taken at the police station was unavailable due to "technical issues with the video system." Finally, the surveillance camera footage had allegedly been overwritten.

At trial, Cook County Circuit Court Judge William H. Hooks sanctioned the prosecution for its failure to comply with the video discovery request by prohibiting police officers from testifying in the case, effectively freeing Moravec. Prosecutors appealed, insisting that there was no evidence of misconduct on their part. The three-judge appellate panel found the state's argument "unpersuasive."

"in the instant case, defendant made a timely request for the POD camera videos and the state failed to produce it," Justice John B. Simon wrote for the court. "The information provided by the POD camera videos could have potentially been helpful to both the defendant and the state and would have served the truth-seeking function in the trial court."

The court believed that it was likely some part of the 20-minute traffic stop and arrest would have been captured on camera. Prosecutors said the exclusion of police officer testimony was too heavy a sanction on the state's case, but the court did not buy that argument.

"The correct sanction to be applied for a discovery violation is a decision appropriately left to the discretion of the trial court, and its judgment shall be given great weight," Justice Simon wrote. "The trial court gave due consideration to the fact that both the state and the Chicago police department failed to preserve the videos, even though they were timely notified to do so... Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in precluding the testimony of the police officers when the state committed a discovery violation."

A copy of the decision is available in a 370k PDF file at the source link below.

Source: Illinois v. Moravec (Illinois Appellate Court, 1/26/2016)

them damned judges, obviously don't care about YOUR innocent fucking rights, instead giving drunk drivers all kinds of rights ROFL.

 

[reason10]

of course, that still doesn't mean it's actually constitutional. congress was given ZERO power over firearms, yet fucktard statists have no issue with congress using the commerce clause to prohibit machine guns, therefore they overlook the wrongness of it.

On the subject of firearms, I agree with you totally.

One thing you (and probably the others in this discussion who disagree with you) are missing:

There's only ONE event that created the wiggle room for the government to take a leak on the Constitution. That event (which the Founding Fathers would have deplored had they still been alive) was MARBURY V. MADISON.

That horrendous decision gave the courts the power to overrule the will of the people, the will of the legislature and necessarily the will of the Constitution. There will be no changing that ruling EVER. No Supreme Court would EVER just piss away that kind of power. If YOU were on the Supreme Court, (regardless of whether you're a left winger or a strict constructionalist) there's NO WAY you would cut off your legislative nuts by overturning that decision. It's just human nature.

We were fucked a century before we were born.

Why do you think government as a career attracts so many lawyers?

 

[reason10]

here's something that will really fuck your head up.

http://informationliberation.com/?id=54040



them damned judges, obviously don't care about YOUR innocent fucking rights, instead giving drunk drivers all kinds of rights ROFL.

It's hard for me to disagree with that. Judges only care about their salaries and their power.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

On the subject of firearms, I agree with you totally.

One thing you (and probably the others in this discussion who disagree with you) are missing:

There's only ONE event that created the wiggle room for the government to take a leak on the Constitution. That event (which the Founding Fathers would have deplored had they still been alive) was MARBURY V. MADISON.

That horrendous decision gave the courts the power to overrule the will of the people, the will of the legislature and necessarily the will of the Constitution. There will be no changing that ruling EVER. No Supreme Court would EVER just piss away that kind of power. If YOU were on the Supreme Court, (regardless of whether you're a left winger or a strict constructionalist) there's NO WAY you would cut off your legislative nuts by overturning that decision. It's just human nature.

We were fucked a century before we were born.

Why do you think government as a career attracts so many lawyers?

we the people have two avenues left to totally gut that wrongly assumed power of the supreme court........
1) jury nullification
2) force of arms

not using the first one is how people who deplore the constitution, let government get away with unconstitutional powers
not using the second one is because too many people still deplore the constitution, or don't support it enough to restore it.

 

[CFM]

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.

Those state constitutions don't have to. States, according to the 10th Amendment, have reserved powers to deal with things for which the federal government isn't specifically delegated nor prohibited in doing. Since driving isn't listed in the Constitution, it falls upon the States. A state constitution doesn't have to specifically name what driving privileges a person can have. The U.S. Constitution, something you say you have knowledge of but rarely show it, says a state can deal with it. You don't have to like it as that isn't a requirement for it to be so.

Driving can't be a right from the federal level since it's not part of what the federal government has authority to regulate. It's a State matter. Since all states require one, why don't you prove you believe what you say about it not being correct to require you to have one and drive without it. When you get stopped and can't produce, run that damn mouth to the police you hate and see what happens. They have a way of dealing with smartasses like you.

 

[CFM]

we the people have two avenues left to totally gut that wrongly assumed power of the supreme court........
1) jury nullification
2) force of arms

not using the first one is how people who deplore the constitution, let government get away with unconstitutional powers
not using the second one is because too many people still deplore the constitution, or don't support it enough to restore it.

When should we expect you to pick up one?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Those state constitutions don't have to. States, according to the 10th Amendment, have reserved powers to deal with things for which the federal government isn't specifically delegated nor prohibited in doing.

and this is how you fail. read the ENTIRE amendment. in fact, let me post it for you so you don't fuck it up.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

notice that this only says POWERS and doesn't begin to touch RIGHTS....like the RIGHT to travel freely.

Since driving isn't listed in the Constitution, it falls upon the States. A state constitution doesn't have to specifically name what driving privileges a person can have. The U.S. Constitution, something you say you have knowledge of but rarely show it, says a state can deal with it. You don't have to like it as that isn't a requirement for it to be so.

now all you have to do is show me where a state constitution has the power to assign driving privileges that can usurp the right to travel freely.
you obviously are unable to tell the difference between powers and rights. here's your sign.

Driving can't be a right from the federal level since it's not part of what the federal government has authority to regulate. It's a State matter. Since all states require one, why don't you prove you believe what you say about it not being correct to require you to have one and drive without it. When you get stopped and can't produce, run that damn mouth to the police you hate and see what happens. They have a way of dealing with smartasses like you.

here, you can read the following. http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml

and that little blurb I mentioned previously about statists happily denying rights based upon their own idiotologies, that applies to you.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

When should we expect you to pick up one?

when you get off your knees from in front of uncle sam.

 

[CFM]

when you get off your knees from in front of uncle sam.

Since I don't do what you claim, it sounds like you're all talk and no action pussy. Typical run that mouth and then hide like a bitch.

 

[CFM]

and this is how you fail. read the ENTIRE amendment. in fact, let me post it for you so you don't fuck it up.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

notice that this only says POWERS and doesn't begin to touch RIGHTS....like the RIGHT to travel freely.


now all you have to do is show me where a state constitution has the power to assign driving privileges that can usurp the right to travel freely.
you obviously are unable to tell the difference between powers and rights. here's your sign.

here, you can read the following. http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml

and that little blurb I mentioned previously about statists happily denying rights based upon their own idiotologies, that applies to you.

The typical I have a right and it doesn't matter that it violates yours mindset?

You never said whether or not you think driving drunk was OK. You did say how someone travels is not subject to government action. Traveling drunk falls under that how. Should someone be able to drive drunk as a right as to how they travel? Simple question you'll avoid.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The typical I have a right and it doesn't matter that it violates yours mindset?

You never said whether or not you think driving drunk was OK. You did say how someone travels is not subject to government action. Traveling drunk falls under that how. Should someone be able to drive drunk as a right as to how they travel? Simple question you'll avoid.

1) I do not think drunk driving is ok
2) requiring less than a certain ABC falls under basic roadway regulation that is consistent with constitutional power afforded to state governments
3) if you actually READ what i've posted, you'd see that I do agree that states can regulate things on roadways with the exception of who can and cannot drive by way of permission slips/licenses.

 

[CFM]

1) I do not think drunk driving is ok
2) requiring less than a certain ABC falls under basic roadway regulation that is consistent with constitutional power afforded to state governments
3) if you actually READ what i've posted, you'd see that I do agree that states can regulate things on roadways with the exception of who can and cannot drive by way of permission slips/licenses.

1) Then you support government tyranny.
2) I read what you posted that of where there are only two types of government system in this country. You said it's either tyranny or anarchy. Since anarchy is the absence of government and any government would be tyranny, you support tyranny.
3) So you would allow a 5 year old to drive? Saying no means you do have exceptions to who can and can't related to a license

 

[SmarterthanYou]

1) Then you support government tyranny.
2) I read what you posted that of where there are only two types of government system in this country. You said it's either tyranny or anarchy. Since anarchy is the absence of government and any government would be tyranny, you support tyranny.
3) So you would allow a 5 year old to drive? Saying no means you do have exceptions to who can and can't related to a license

holy hell, you are as stupid as desh.

 

[CFM]

holy hell, you are as stupid as desh.

Then you can't refute what I said? Didn't think so. Also, won't answer the questions either. Run coward run.

In your own words, we have two types of government systems in the country - tyranny and anarchy. Since anarchy is the absence of government and means ANY government regulation is wrong, when you say it's OK for any level of government to do anything, since that isn't anarchy, it leaves one other option.