No refusal dui check points in tn.

[tnguy]

Well; you can want driving to be a right...you can think driving is a right but wanting and thinking doesn't make it so.

I don't believe there is anyting in the Constitution or in English common law or any other U.S. or State code that would support the contention that driving is a right. Further, there is SCOTUS decisions dating bake to the early 1900s; when motorized vehicles were just coming onto the scene in a significant way and quite a lot of case law that would that support that driving is a privledge.

I think a compelling case can be made for a right to "travel' but not a right to any specific mode to transport.

 

Why does the 9th amendment always get ignored? Does it need to change its deodorant? Get a more hip hairstyle? Is it hanging out with the wrong crowd?

 

Regardless, driving is not a privilege. That's just something anxious parents tell their kids to try and keep them in line then others use to try and justify unconstitutional actions. Even if it is not a right, that it would have to be a right *or* a privilege is a false dichotomy.

[tnguy]

Take the car, sell it and donate the money to MADD.

 

 

I just disagreed with you up to that point but there I have to issue a "Hell, no". Those mofos are crazy and need no extra encouragement.

[crossfire]

 

 

Regardless, driving is not a privilege. That's just something anxious parents tell their kids to try and keep them in line then others use to try and justify unconstitutional actions. Even if it is not a right, that it would have to be a right *or* a privilege is a false dichotomy.

You may want to check out this site:http://www.tn.gov/safety/dlhandbook/DL_Manual2011.pdf

It's the Tennessee Drivers License Handbook, the one you read to learn the answers to the written part of the drivers test. On page 85 there is a list of offences that deal with "Losing your PRIVILEGE to drive."

It was call a privilege back in Illinois in 1963 when I received my first drivers license and it's still called a privilege today in Tennessee. But I'm sure you were much smarter then your anxious parents were when they told you that. As most of us were at that age. When I was 19 I couldn't believe how dumb my folks were. After coming home from Vietnam at 21, I couldn't believe how smart they got in 2 years. :rofl:

Edited September 1, 2013 by crossfire

[tnguy]

My parents never told me anything like that. It seems to be a particularly American fiction.

 

Driving is merely an action regulated by the government.

Edited September 2, 2013 by tnguy

[tnhawk]

Ya can't win if ya don't play!    

If you don't drink and drive, a checkpoint isn't a problem.

[Chucktshoes]

Ya can't win if ya don't play!    
If you don't drink and drive, a checkpoint isn't a problem.

So if you haven't done anything wrong, then you've got nothing to hide. Right?

[Glenn]

Can you be charged with DUI based only on a field sobriety test? I have nuropathy (lose of feeling in my feet) Terrible knees. And right now, sciatica. No way I could walk a straight line or stand on one foot. If questioned, I think I would be demanding a blood test.

[TMF]

Can you be charged with DUI based only on a field sobriety test? I have nuropathy (lose of feeling in my feet) Terrible knees. And right now, sciatica. No way I could walk a straight line or stand on one foot. If questioned, I think I would be demanding a blood test.

 

In Myrtle Beach I was threatened with arrest on "drunk in public" though I hadn't had a single drink.  I'm pretty sure they can arrest you for anything; doesn't matter if the charge sticks.  I haven't been back to Myrte Beach since.  Their city is a cesspool run by thugs.

[JayC]

Lets set aside the issues involving the government being able to force you to submit to a medical procedure just to try and get evidence against you...

 

And lets focus on not having a right to drive a car...  What is the logic that you're going to use as to why we don't have a right to freely travel?

 

More importantly, can you show me in the TN constitution where the people granted the state the right to regulate travel or any of the modes therein?

 

_{It's legal;. There is no Constitutional right to drive a car. It is a privilege extended by the State of Tennessee. Since they are the agency extending the privilege, they have to right to decide the conditions of the privilege (regulations).}

 

[DaveTN]

Can you be charged with DUI based only on a field sobriety test? I have nuropathy (lose of feeling in my feet) Terrible knees. And right now, sciatica. No way I could walk a straight line or stand on one foot. If questioned, I think I would be demanding a blood test.

You can be charged with DUI without a field sobriety test if you can’t complete it. You have the right to a blood draw but you will probably be under arrest already at that point.
There is more involved than just a field sobriety test. You aren’t going to be arrested because you can’t do a balancing act or say the alphabet backwards.

[bersaguy]

I will say this on the issue pertaining to repeated DUI offenders. It upsets me when I hear on the news that so- n- so has been arrested in a DUI accident and four innocent people including a child has been killed. This is  so-n-so's 5th DUI in less than a year. Why is this person even on the street with 5 DUI's in one year? In my opinion after his 3rd one he should definitely spend some serious time with Bubba and Bubba should make it clear to him that he doesn't want to see him back in again.............JMHO

[DaveS]

I will say this on the issue pertaining to repeated DUI offenders. It upsets me when I hear on the news that so- n- so has been arrested in a DUI accident and four innocent people including a child has been killed. This is  so-n-so's 5th DUI in less than a year. Why is this person even on the street with 5 DUI's in one year? In my opinion after his 3rd one he should definitely spend some serious time with Bubba and Bubba should make it clear to him that he doesn't want to see him back in again.............JMHO

After his second one, he should not have had a car to drive! That's the point I'm trying to make. It's hard to get a DUI when you have to walk every where!

 

DaveS

[bersaguy]

After his second one, he should not have had a car to drive! That's the point I'm trying to make. It's hard to get a DUI when you have to walk every where!

 

DaveS

 

I totally agree with you Dave. Thing is if they cannot buy one some stupid family member will buy them one or loan them one and that cannot be prevented unless if the car is borrowed the person that loaned them the car is also prosecuted for allowing them to use it...........JMHO

[DaveS]

I totally agree with you Dave. Thing is if they cannot buy one some stupid family member will buy them one or loan them one and that cannot be prevented unless if the car is borrowed the person that loaned them the car is also prosecuted for allowing them to use it...........JMHO

Then you hold the owner of that vehicle liable. Something has to happen. The first DUI needs to hurt. The 2nd DUI would be devastating ! This crap going on with drunk drivers on their 3rd or 4th DUI in a year or two, and their still driving and hurting people. Unbelievable!

 

DaveS

[RobertNashville]

Lets set aside the issues involving the government being able to force you to submit to a medical procedure just to try and get evidence against you...

 

And lets focus on not having a right to drive a car...  What is the logic that you're going to use as to why we don't have a right to freely travel?

 

More importantly, can you show me in the TN constitution where the people granted the state the right to regulate travel or any of the modes therein?

The right to travel does not equal the right to travel by operating a motor vehicle. There are any number of ways to travel that do not and never have required someone drive a motor vehicle - unless you are under arrest you are free to travel from anywhere to anywhere. However, the overall public interests and safety demand that the government regulate certain acts, in this case under what conditions a person can legally operate a motor vehicle and it's a more than proper role of government to do so.

 

Article 1 Section 1 of the Tennessee constitution states that "...all power is inherent in the people, and that all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness..."

 

I would argue that one of the most basic responsibilities of our Tennessee government is to provide for the safety of the people. As such, they both have the power and the responsibility to regulate certain acts such as regulating who and under what conditions a person may operate a motor vehicle in Tennessee on the public roads. If a person wants to be able to operate a motor vehicle in any way he/she wants then they should buy the land needed and expend the funds to build their own private highway system; then they can do anything they want...drive 230MPH, drive drunk, let their 8 year old drive their Porsche Turbo...whatever. However, when a person enters a public roadway with a motor vehicle then the PUBLIC, through their elected representatives have the final say on what you can and can't do and who can and can't drive and under what conditions.

[tnhawk]

Anyone seen any results from the dui checkpoints?  We have them several times a year but I've never seen any results from them.  Providing the results might be a deterrent to those who choose to drink and drive. 

I guess the media has more 'important' news to cover.

Edited September 3, 2013 by tnhawk

[Garufa]

Anyone seen any results from the dui checkpoints?  We have them several times a year but I've never seen any results from them.  Providing the results might be a deterrent to those who choose to drink and drive. 

I guess the media has more 'important' news to cover.

 

The paper used to publish results here.  Not sure if the still do but when they did it seems the checkpoints netted a bunch of citations for busted tail lights, suspended licenses, etc.  Maybe one or two DUI's  on average.

[sigmtnman]

The right to travel does not equal the right to travel by operating a motor vehicle. There are any number of ways to travel that do not and never have required someone drive a motor vehicle - unless you are under arrest you are free to travel from anywhere to anywhere. However, the overall public interests and safety demand that the government regulate certain acts, in this case under what conditions a person can legally operate a motor vehicle and it's a more than proper role of government to do so.

 

Article 1 Section 1 of the Tennessee constitution states that "...all power is inherent in the people, and that all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness..."

 

I would argue that one of the most basic responsibilities of our Tennessee government is to provide for the safety of the people. As such, they both have the power and the responsibility to regulate certain acts such as regulating who and under what conditions a person may operate a motor vehicle in Tennessee on the public roads. If a person wants to be able to operate a motor vehicle in any way he/she wants then they should buy the land needed and expend the funds to build their own private highway system; then they can do anything they want...drive 230MPH, drive drunk, let their 8 year old drive their Porsche Turbo...whatever. However, when a person enters a public roadway with a motor vehicle then the PUBLIC, through their elected representatives have the final say on what you can and can't do and who can and can't drive and under what conditions.

 

Using this same logic, then you agree they have the right to regulate arms in public? 

 

Nowhere does it define the mechanism of travel and I'd wager the founders never figured on people arguing over the mechanism of travel while on a public thoroughfare.  Only that every individual is responsible for their actions should an individual cause harm to another party.  

 

Didn't licensing start for commercial regulation purposes and morph into what it is now, like most laws? 

[RobertNashville]

Using this same logic, then you agree they have the right to regulate arms in public? 

 

Nowhere does it define the mechanism of travel and I'd wager the founders never figured on people arguing over the mechanism of travel while on a public thoroughfare.  Only that every individual is responsible for their actions should an individual cause harm to another party.  

 

Didn't licensing start for commercial regulation purposes and morph into what it is now, like most laws? 

I don't believe the two issues are the same at all - regulating an activity that is not a right is wholly different than regulating an activity that is not only a right but one that is enumerated in the U.S. and Tennessee Constitutions.

 

Correct, the founders didn't define any mechanism of travel...they didn't mention aircraft, for example (but I doubt there are many people who would want people who know nothing about how to fly a plane to be flying around overhead)...the founders didn't define a lot of things but were they alive today, I suspect that they too would agree (based on many factors not the least of which are our population numbers, how/where they live, urbanization, etc.) that government has both the right and the obligation to regulate the operation of certain modes of travel such as flying a plane (including having an aircraft control system in place), rules of the road and who can operate a motor vehicle and under what conditions they may do so.

 

While I wasn't around at the time, according to a N.Y. Times article from Ausust 1907, it was the public outcry for better laws regarding motorized vehicles that was the beginnings of licensing, etc.; which isn't surprising since a large city like New York would naturally be the an area where the problems/dangers of incompetent drivers or a lack of rules of the road would be felt first and most often. Actually, that "public outcry" is not all that dissimilar to the public outcry that finally made government agencies get at least a little more serious about drunk driving - for decades, drunk driving was mostly given a pass by law enforcement and the courts (likely because many cops and judges and juries engaged in that "crime" themselves)...it's still treated far to cavalierly even today IMAHO but it's better than it used to be.

 

I'm sure a good argument could be made that we have "too many" driving/licensing laws now (what they morphed into); but I can't nor do I want to imagine what traveling on the public roadways would be like without some basic testing of competency and rules of the road.

Edited September 3, 2013 by RobertNashville

[sigmtnman]

That's a red hearing comparison since regulating an activity that is not a right is wholly different than regulating an activity that is not only a right but one that is enumerated in the U.S. and Tennessee Constitutions.

 

Correct, the founders didn't define any mechanism of travel...they didn't mention aircraft, for example (but I doubt there are many people who would want people who know nothing about how to fly a plane to be flying around overhead)...the founders didn't define a lot of things but were they alive today, I suspect that they too would agree (based on many factors not the least of which are our population numbers, how/where they live, urbanization, etc.) that government has both the right and the obligation to regulate the operation of certain modes of travel such as flying a plane (including having an aircraft control system in place), rules of the road and who can operate a motor vehicle and under what conditions they may do so.

 

While I wasn't around at the time, according to a N.Y. Times article from Ausust 1907, it was the public outcry for better laws regarding motorized vehicles that was the beginnings of licensing, etc.; which isn't surprising since a large city like New York would naturally be the an area where the problems/dangers of incompetent drivers or a lack of rules of the road would be felt first and most often.

 

I'm sure a good argument could be made that we have "too many" driving/licensing laws now (what they morphed into); but I can't nor do I want to imagine what traveling on the public roadways would be like without some basic testing of competency and rules of the road.

 

 

You may feel it is a red herring, but the the Supreme Court has recognized the freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right.  Whether it is enumerated or not, does not make it less important.  You really don't like the 9th Amendment do you?  :P

 

That said.  Your continuing argument reminds me of folks arguing how the framers could not have foreseen "Assult Weapons" being invented or owned by citizens

[RobertNashville]

You may feel it is a red herring, but the the Supreme Court has recognized the freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right.  Whether it is enumerated or not, does not make it less important.  You really don't like the 9th Amendment do you?  :P

 

That said.  Your continuing argument reminds me of folks arguing how the framers could not have foreseen "Assult Weapons" being invented or owned by citizens

I never once said that freedom of movement/of travel isn't a right; in fact I've said exactly the opposite more than once in this thread which leads me to wonder why you would insinuate otherwise.

 

And I like the 9th amendment just fine.

 

Believe whatever you want; the Constitution I read tells me that the government has the right and the obligation to regulate certain acts, in this case, who and under what conditions a person may operate a motor vehicle on public roadways. Any government that did not do so it would be shirking one of its most basic obligations to the public

[sigmtnman]

I never once said that freedom of movement/of travel isn't a right; in fact I've said exactly the opposite more than once in this thread which leads me to wonder why you would insinuate otherwise.

 

And I like the 9th amendment just fine.

 

Believe whatever you want; the Constitution I read tells me that the government has the right and the obligation to regulate certain acts, in this case, who and under what conditions a person may operate a motor vehicle on public roadways. Any government that did not do so it would be shirking one of its most basic obligations to the public

 

Perhaps I misunderstood this statement:

 

I don't believe the two issues are the same at all - regulating an activity that is not a right is wholly different than regulating an activity that is not only a right but one that is enumerated in the U.S. and Tennessee Constitutions.

[bersaguy]

I have never objected to anyone being able to travel. I object to them being able to drive with as many as 5 DUI's in 1 year and still driving. As far as travel goes driving is not their only option for travel. There are buses, spouse/mates, friends,Taxi cabs, Planes and trains and even horse back if need be to travel that bad. George Jones even got a DUI for driving a riding lawn mower on the roadway while drunk. I just said a person with numerous DUI's should be put in jail for an extended period of time and give them a lot to think about............JMHO

[sigmtnman]

I have never objected to anyone being able to travel. I object to them being able to drive with as many as 5 DUI's in 1 year and still driving. As far as travel goes driving is not their only option for travel. There are buses, spouse/mates, friends,Taxi cabs, Planes and trains and even horse back if need be to travel that bad. George Jones even got a DUI for driving a riding lawn mower on the roadway while drunk. I just said a person with numerous DUI's should be put in jail for an extended period of time and give them a lot to think about............JMHO

 

People who wish to restrict gun ownership say that yes you have a right to own a gun, but not ARs, etc, etc, but that owning a .22 or a .20gau should be enough.  It is the same logic you are using to determine what is acceptable as a mode of travel.

 

If someone has caused harm to another person while driving they should have to pay restitution for said harm.  If they have caused no harm, it is a victimless crime and only moves us closer to a nanny state.

 

 

BTW, we lived down the road form George Jones in Lakeland FL and I recall the parents laughing about him driving around on his lawn mower.

Edited September 3, 2013 by sigmtnman

[RobertNashville]

Perhaps I misunderstood this statement:

Yes you did, I was responding to your statement about "mechanism of travel"; not the right to travel/movement.
 
Frankly, if I have a right to travel by motor vehicle then it obviously follows, then, that the government has a responsibility to provide me with a motor vehicle and not just any old motor vehicle but certainly at least something the equivalent of a Cadillac (which seems fitting since the fed owns GM anyway). ;)

 

...I think a compelling case can be made for a right to "travel' but not a right to any specific mode to transport.

The right to travel does not equal the right to travel by operating a motor vehicle...