No refusal dui check points in tn.

[RobertNashville]

We are talking about the stopping of innocent people. If your method picks out only drunk drivers or gives you at least a reasonably suspicion that they may be drunk, have at it.

 

Some are talking about that, some aren't.

 

I don't have a problem with DUI checkpoints when done as proscribed by SCOTUS and neither does the Constitution.

 

Moreover, as I said in the post you quoted, we have DUI checkpoints for one very simple reason, people who refuse to be responsible and not drive if they've been drinking and EVERYONE who has ever driven under the influence or has ever let a friend do so is part of that problem.

 

Those who drink and drive or let others do so deserve no sympathy from anyone and will receive no sympathy from me as those who do so are just as much of a thug and just as dangerous to innocent people as the thug who breaks into a another person's home at 3AM.

[RobertNashville]

...

You can post all the pictures you want (which is actually nothing more than your attempt to be insulting without raising the ire of the Admins). However, equating the right to keep and bare arms with the freedom of travel is then and is now an relevant and illogical comparison no matter how much anyone wants it not to be.

The same supreme court that has affirmed the right to travel as a right has also CONSISTENTLY throughout its history affirmed the right of states to place restrictions on specific modes of travel; most especially driving a motor vehicle on public roadways. You do not have a constitutional or natural or "god-given" right to drive an automobile without restrictions on how/when/where and who may do so.

[JayC]

Robert,

 

Lets pretend you're right...  That there is no natural right to freely travel via the least expensive, quickest, safest, easiest mode of travel...  Lets pretend for a minute that is the case...  

 

Can we agree that you do have a right to freely travel in this country and that is a natural right?  If so what modes of travel are you free from being stopped with no RAS/PC at a checkpoint and be forced to show you papers?

 

I don't think anybody here is making the argument that drunk drivers shouldn't be punished when they get caught...  I see people complaining about checkpoints that stop people at random and force them to interact with the police when they haven't done anything criminal to justify the stop.

 

So again, is there a natural right to freely travel, and if so what modes of travel are covered by that natural right?

 

Whether it's the "same logic" or not is immaterial; just because the logic is flawed in the case of the second amendment  doesn't mean it cant' be sound logic in another matter.

 

In the case of arms it's perfectly incorrect logic for reasons I'm sure everyone here knows and I won't bore people with by recounting it.  In the case of mode of travel, I think that logic is moot because there is no natural (and certainly no enumerated) right right to a specific method/mode of travel - arguing about which method is "good enough" is a non-issue.

 

However, let's assume, for the sake of discussion that "driving a motor vehicle" is a "right". So what if it is? ANY right can be taken away from a person, even up to and including the right to live at all. So, once someone has shown themselves to be an incompetent driver or has shown such a total lack of personal responsibility that they would drive under the influence, whether it's a "right" or a mere privileged, that person's freedom to drive a motor vehicle should be stripped from him/her.

 

[Chucktshoes]

You can post all the pictures you want (which is actually nothing more than your attempt to be insulting without raising the ire of the Admins). .

That's good that I have your permissin.I have an almost compulsive inability to ignore something in need of ridicule, and I appreciate your support of me in that endeavor. :D

[RobertNashville]

Robert,
 
Lets pretend you're right...  That there is no natural right to freely travel via the least expensive, quickest, safest, easiest mode of travel...  Lets pretend for a minute that is the case...  
 
Can we agree that you do have a right to freely travel in this country and that is a natural right?  If so what modes of travel are you free from being stopped with no RAS/PC at a checkpoint and be forced to show you papers?
 
I don't think anybody here is making the argument that drunk drivers shouldn't be punished when they get caught...  I see people complaining about checkpoints that stop people at random and force them to interact with the police when they haven't done anything criminal to justify the stop.
 
So again, is there a natural right to freely travel, and if so what modes of travel are covered by that natural right?

 

Your question has no relevance to the discussion in this thread.

 

The law in question that started this thread and as well as the checkpoints that people are "complaining about" relate to DRIVING a motor vehicle under the influence; not all possible modes of travel.

 

Therefore, my answer is as it has been; I don't have and the Constitution doesn't have a problem with DUI checkpoints conducted as proscribed the SCOTUS.

 

Perhaps instead of "complaining" about something already ruled (and I believe is) constitutional; people's efforts would be put to better use in working to stop the problem that necessitates the checkpoints.

[TMF]

We should stop complaining about unconstitutional gun legislation too.

[RobertNashville]

We should stop complaining about unconstitutional gun legislation too.

We probably should since there are more effective ways to do something to address what is being complained about.

 

While just about everyone does it, complaining rarely accomplishes anything; even complaining about gun legislation that is unconstitutional.

 

Complaining about laws that are constitutional accomplishes even less.

Edited September 4, 2013 by RobertNashville

[tnguy]

Some are talking about that, some aren't.

 

I don't have a problem with DUI checkpoints when done as proscribed by SCOTUS and neither does the Constitution.

 

Moreover, as I said in the post you quoted, we have DUI checkpoints for one very simple reason, people who refuse to be responsible and not drive if they've been drinking and EVERYONE who has ever driven under the influence or has ever let a friend do so is part of that problem.

 

Those who drink and drive or let others do so deserve no sympathy from anyone and will receive no sympathy from me as those who do so are just as much of a thug and just as dangerous to innocent people as the thug who breaks into a another person's home at 3AM.

 

 

OK, can we have a quick check? Hands up anyone who is defending drunk driving.

[Chucktshoes]

OK, can we have a quick check? Hands up anyone who is defending drunk driving.

Anybody raise their hand yet?

[npgunner]

So Robert since you're pro-DUI checkpoint because SCOTUS says so ... can we assume you're pro-Obamacare since SCOTUS says so?

[RobertNashville]

So Robert since you're pro-DUI checkpoint because SCOTUS says so ... can we assume you're pro-Obamacare since SCOTUS says so?

One has nothing to do with the other; insinuating otherwise is a pretty cheep shot.

 

I am not "pro" DUI checkpoints and never said I was; what I have consistently said is that I don't have a problem with them as they fill a need necessitated by the irresponsibility of those who chose to drive drunk and put other people's lives in danger and when done as proscribed by SCOTUS, in my opinion, are constitutional.

[TMF]

One has nothing to do with the other; insinuating otherwise is a pretty cheep shot.

I am not "pro" DUI checkpoints and never said I was; what I have consistently said is that I don't have a problem with them as they fill a need necessitated by the irresponsibility of those who chose to drive drunk and put other people's lives in danger and when done as proscribed by SCOTUS, in my opinion, are constitutional.

And if weren't for the irresponsibility of people who live unhealthy lives but won't carry health insurance....

[DaveS]

I too, am Pro DUI checkpoint. You have a God given right to walk on your God given feet. Anything else requires a license and to "play the game." Cause' just the way it is. Don't like it? Surrender your drivers license!

 

DaveS

[sigmtnman]

I too, am Pro DUI checkpoint. You have a God given right to walk on your God given feet. Anything else requires a license and to "play the game." Cause' just the way it is. Don't like it? Surrender your drivers license!

 

DaveS

 

You have a God given right to bear the finger at the end of your "arm" too!

[tnguy]

Just be careful where you say "bang".

[DaveS]

You have a God given right to bear the finger at the end of your "arm" too!

And your point is?

 

DaveS

[JayC]

I think it's already been established that just because SCOTUS says something is constitutional doesn't make it so...  nor does it make it moral, ethical, or somehow magically not a violation of peoples rights...  Every now and again SCOTUS even admits they've made really bad case law and reverses itself...

 

I think we can all agree that locking up 100,000+ Americans in concentration camps with no proof of criminal activity let alone a trial is completely unconstitutional and a clear violation of a persons natural rights...  Yet SCOTUS ruled it constitutional in 1944.  Or do you argue that because SCOTUS said it was constitutional everything was just fine?

 

How about separate but equal?  Which SCOTUS ruling on that issue was the 'constitutional' one with ZERO changes in the constitution between the two rulings?

 

I think you're the crazy one for thinking that 9 men and women sitting on the bench in Washington are somehow infallible and just because they say so we must all obey.

 

The issue is drunk driving can not and will not be solved until we outlaw all people from driving.  Since outlawing all people from operating motor vehicles doesn't seem like a reasonable step, we must assume some reasonable risk in a free society...  Today that risk is about 6-7% of fatalities on the road are causing the deaths you're describing.

 

So you're talking about well under 10k of deaths a year (probably a lot closer to 2k),,,  I'm not sure the cost of my freedoms are worth 100,000 lives a year let alone 10,000 or 2,000.

 

Your question has no relevance to the discussion in this thread.

 

The law in question that started this thread and as well as the checkpoints that people are "complaining about" relate to DRIVING a motor vehicle under the influence; not all possible modes of travel.

 

Therefore, my answer is as it has been; I don't have and the Constitution doesn't have a problem with DUI checkpoints conducted as proscribed the SCOTUS.

 

Perhaps instead of "complaining" about something already ruled (and I believe is) constitutional; people's efforts would be put to better use in working to stop the problem that necessitates the checkpoints.

Edited September 5, 2013 by JayC

[RobertNashville]

I think it's already been established that just because SCOTUS says something is constitutional doesn't make it so...  nor does it make it moral, ethical, or somehow magically not a violation of peoples rights...  Every now and again SCOTUS even admits they've made really bad case law and reverses itself...
 
I think we can all agree that locking up 100,000+ Americans in concentration camps with no proof of criminal activity let alone a trial is completely unconstitutional and a clear violation of a persons natural rights...  Yet SCOTUS ruled it constitutional in 1944.  Or do you argue that because SCOTUS said it was constitutional everything was just fine?
 
How about separate but equal?  Which SCOTUS ruling on that issue was the 'constitutional' one?
 
I think you're the crazy one for thinking that 9 men and women sitting on the bench in Washington are somehow infallible and just because they say so we must all obey.
 
The issue is drunk driving can not and will not be solved until we outlaw all people from driving.  Since outlawing all people from operating motor vehicles doesn't seem like a reasonable step, we must assume some reasonable risk in a free society...  Today that risk is about 6-7% of fatalities on the road are causing the deaths you're describing.
 
So you're talking about well under 10k of deaths a year (probably a lot closer to 2k),,,  I'm not sure the cost of my freedoms are worth 100,000 lives a year let alone 10,000 or 2,000.

 

At what time in this thread or any other have I ever said or hinted that SCOTUS is right just because it's SCOTUS?

 

When have I ever said in this or any other thread that SCOTUS doesn't make bad, even totally incorrect decisions or even hinted at infallability?

 

The correct answer is "never".

 

I happen to think they got the one about DUI checkpoints right; it's as simple as that; your attempt to make my position imply more than that indicates that the purpose of your post above has nothing to do with a desire for actual discussion.

Edited September 5, 2013 by RobertNashville

[TMF]

At what time in this thread or any other have I ever said or hinted that SCOTUS is right just because it's SCOTUS?

When have I ever said in this or any other thread that SCOTUS doesn't make bad, even totally incorrect decisions or even hinted at infallability?

The correct answer is "never".

I happen to think they got the one about DUI checkpoints right; it's as simple as that; your attempt to make my position imply more than that indicates that the purpose of your post above has nothing to do with a desire for actual discussion.

You say that, yet you counter arguments of folks who say they are not constitutional by saying the SCOTUS already ruled on it, suggesting that the benchmark for what is or isn't constitutional is the SCOTUS opinion.

[JayC]

Woah, you're the one saying stop complaining about a ruling that is 'constitutional' because SCOTUS ruled so, and focus on stopping drunk driving instead... which can't be stopped through any reasonable or logical method so it's a false argument.

 

I have a natural right (and protected by the constitution) to have freedom of movement without having to show my papers within the US...  Any ruling by any court, any law by any level of government is a violation and an infringement on those natural rights...  The method I use to travel doesn't change or alter my right to free travel, even more so if the excuse used is because said mode of travel wasn't invented at the time the constitution was written.

 

Just because a group or majority of people follow an unconstitutional law/ruling, or are so poorly educated to not recognize the violation of their natural rights, doesn't give the ruling or law anymore authority, or make the violation of peoples freedoms who do notice any less serious.

 

Does the fact that millions of black people followed the 'separate but equal' laws that were ruled constitutional by SCOTUS make those rulings any less immoral, or a lesser violation on the civil rights of black Americans who suffered through them for decades?  No of course not.

 

You might be fine giving up your freedom for the fake security of DUI checkpoints...  but you have no right or authority to give up MY freedoms and rights for your crusade against drunk drivers...  anymore than the men and women who sit on the bench have...  It's not your freedom to give or take, it belongs to me and only I can willing give up my freedoms...  Just because I'm suffering through these violations doesn't make it any less immoral or less of a gross violation of my natural rights.

 

​The real problem here is nobody ever explained liberty, freedom and rights to you...  you've somehow gotten the notion in your head that somehow your rights come from the law, the government, or the collective of society...  and are not endowed to you individually by your creator...

 

Robert with all do respect you seem to think you know what's best for your fellow man, that somehow your choices are the 'right' choices and they should be forced to obey for your vision for the good of society...  That your perceived risk of drunk drivers is so great that we must force innocents to suffer at the hands of the government to save us from this 'threat'...  This is the same twisted line of thinking as used by many of the progressives you love to disagree with on a regular basis :)

 

I'm smart enough to realize I don't know what's best for my fellow man, that there can never be a 'perfect' or safe society...  That I'm not smart enough to see all of the unintended consequences of my 'master plan'...  the best I can do is trust they will do what is in their best interest for themselves and their families, and unless they physically harm me, or steal from me, it's none of my business what they do with that freedom. And that is all I ask in return from them.

 

But hey look on the bright side, your argument is winning in the public, and it's working out so well for us as a country huh?

 

At what time in this thread or any other have I ever said or hinted that SCOTUS is right just because it's SCOTUS?

 

When have I ever said in this or any other thread that SCOTUS doesn't make bad, even totally incorrect decisions or even hinted at infallability?

 

The correct answer is "never".

 

I happen to think they got the one about DUI checkpoints right; it's as simple as that; your attempt to make my position imply more than that indicates that the purpose of your post above has nothing to do with a desire for actual discussion.

Edited September 5, 2013 by JayC

[npgunner]

@JayC I wish I could like your post more than once.

[Oh Shoot]

Y'all can debate all the constitutionality of this you like, but implied consent by not taking the breath test is legal under TN law and as long as they get a warrant for it, so is mandatory blood check.

 

Sort of like debating the constitutionality of the HCP.

 

You don't have a right if you can't exercise it. Any argument otherwise is merely a semantic one.

 

- OS

[TMF]

Y'all can debate all the constitutionality of this you like, but implied consent by not taking the breath test is legal under TN law and as long as they get a warrant for it, so is mandatory blood check.

Sort of like debating the constitutionality of the HCP.

You don't have a right if you can't exercise it. Any argument otherwise is merely a semantic one.

- OS

I'm not debating that at all. A license isn't a right, so the fact they can revoke it because you wouldn't submit to a breathalyzer when suspected of being under the influence is not a problem for me whatsoever.

My argument revolves around the theory that it is constitutional to stop someone to investigate a crime that has not been committed or suspected of being committed, all under the excuse of driving not being a right. I see the problem between that and the 4th Amendment. If an officer suspects me of committing a crime, such as DUI then he has PC, right? But if I'm just driving home and have not committed any moving violation, nor have I been so much SUSPECTED of committing a moving violation, how on God's green Earth is it okay for the government to demand answers? Why can't I just ignore the officers and be on my way? I haven't committed a crime, nor been suspected of committing a crime, nor has my vehicle been identified to officers as exhibiting drunken driving indicators..... so what justified reason does any officer have for detaining me for an investigation? I shouldn't be required to say anything. I should just be able to ask why I'm being detained.

I'm not defending the YouTube warriors here. I'm not gonna give a cop a hard time while he's doing his job and working within what he had been taught are the rules, but I will never accept that compulsory interaction with officers when I am in no way involved with a crime (neither a participant or witness to) is constitutional. It ain't, end of story.

[Oh Shoot]

I'm not debating that at all. A license isn't a right, so the fact they can revoke it because you wouldn't submit to a breathalyzer when suspected of being under the influence is not a problem for me whatsoever.

My argument revolves around the theory that it is constitutional to stop someone to investigate a crime that has not been committed or suspected of being committed, all under the excuse of driving not being a right. I see the problem between that and the 4th Amendment. If an officer suspects me of committing a crime, such as DUI then he has PC, right? But if I'm just driving home and have not committed any moving violation, nor have I been so much SUSPECTED of committing a moving violation, how on God's green Earth is it okay for the government to demand answers? Why can't I just ignore the officers and be on my way? I haven't committed a crime, nor been suspected of committing a crime, nor has my vehicle been identified to officers as exhibiting drunken driving indicators..... so what justified reason does any officer have for detaining me for an investigation? I shouldn't be required to say anything. I should just be able to ask why I'm being detained.

I'm not defending the YouTube warriors here. I'm not gonna give a cop a hard time while he's doing his job and working within what he had been taught are the rules, but I will never accept that compulsory interaction with officers when I am in no way involved with a crime (neither a participant or witness to) is constitutional. It ain't, end of story.

 

I suppose one could make the same argument about searches to board a plane. Wanting to fly somewhere is no more reasonable grounds for a stop/search than wanting to drive somewhere, eh?

 

Though you may have the ability to kill more folks on a plane, you can still kill multiple folks with your car, too, so the justifications are much the same.

 

- OS

Edited September 5, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[TMF]

I suppose you could make the same argument about searches to board a plane. Wanting to fly somewhere is no more reasonable grounds for a stop/search than wanting to drive somewhere, eh?

Though you may have the ability to kill more folks on a plane, you can still kill multiple folks with your car, too, so the justifications are much the same.

- OS

Negative. I don't think the gov should have any right to search me before going on an airplane. I had no problem when airport security was private, as airlines are private. If a private entity wants to search me before entering their establishment that is their call to make. The government doing it is called a violation of my rights.