U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: State Supreme Court Just Ruled Mandatory DUI Tests are Unconstitutional
Source:
Free Thought Project/KCTV
URL Source: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/ka ... -testing-dui-unconstitutional/
Published: Feb 27, 2016
Author: Claire Bernish
Post Date: 2016-02-27 20:21:10 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 13417
Comments: 109
On Friday, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled the state’s DUI testing refusal law unconstitutional, setting a remarkable precedent concerning forced testing of those suspected of driving under the influence. In a 6-1 ruling, the court decided the state’s law, which had made it a crime to refuse breathalyzer or blood alcohol tests without a court-ordered warrant, is excessive punishment. Those tests, the court found, amounted to searches, and the Kansas law “punishes people for exercising their constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures,” reported the Kansas City Star. “In essence, the state’s reasons are not good enough, and its law not precise enough, to encroach on the fundamental liberty interest in avoiding an unreasonable search,” wrote Justice Marla Luckert for the majority, according to KCTV. According to Kansas law, the act of operating a motor vehicle gives implied consent for breath, blood, or urine testing to prove one’s sobriety, but the Supreme Court ruled the state’s Constitution allows for the withdrawal of consent without punishment for doing so. Previously, refusing a sobriety test qualified as a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail and a fine of no less than $1,250. “Once a suspect withdraws consent, whether it be express consent or implied (under the statute), a search based on that consent cannot proceed,” the court decided. According to the court, the state’s “compelling interest” to combat impaired driving and prosecute cases of DUI does not trump people’s fundamental individual liberties as protected by the Constitution. Justice Caleb Stegall wrote the lone dissenting opinion, saying there are certain situations where the law could adhere to constitutionality, and as such, it should be applied on a case by case basis. “By making this case about consent,” There are similar laws from other states currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, and Kansas’ could potentially wind up under the high court’s consideration as well. In a related ruling, the Kansas Supreme Court also decided the case of an individual who consented to testing after being told he would be criminally prosecuted for refusing. According to the court, such a ‘warning’ is considered “coercive,” thus any consent given in such circumstances would be involuntary. “Jay Norton, an Olathe criminal defense lawyer and expert on DUI law, said the law has often been used ‘as a hammer’ to induce people to plead guilty to DUI to avoid being charged with the additional crime of refusing a test,” reported the Star. Norton also said the law represented “prosecutorial overreach at its zenith.” Christopher Mann, who sits on the national board of directors for Mothers Against Drunk Driving and is a former member of the Lawrence Police Department, said the organization didn’t agree with the court’s ruling. “We support penalties for refusing to take chemical tests,” Mann explained. “We think law enforcement members need to have all the tools at their disposal to keep our roads safe from drunken drivers who kill about 10,000 people a year.” “The Supreme Court has affirmed the right of the individual citizen to be free from forced searches by the government,” Norton stated. Friday, Norton enthused, was a “great day” for both the Kansas and U.S. Constitutions.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
Excellent article.
So, if a driver can refuse breathalyzer or blood alcohol tests without a court- ordered warrant, can they also refuse other sobriety tests (walk a straight line, stand on one leg, etc.)? How will the state enforce drunken driving laws?
On the spot summary execution ? Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There are no Carthaginian terrorists. President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood A friend will help you move ,But a good friend will help you move a body..
They can just call up Deckard and ask him. He knows everything, simply by willing it to be so.
You have a right not to incriminate yourself. You are innocent until proven guilty. You have a right against involuntary servitude. Something you don;t support or comprehend. Here you go again worshiping the police state and hoping it destroys the bill of rights.
And you also have a right to waive that right when it comes to breathalyzers. Like when you apply for a license to drive motor vehicles on public streets.
You got all of that from a question I asked?
Sure! You know how many lives that would save? Let's invent a new law. Call it DWI. We'll set some arbitrary BAC level -- let's use 1.2%. No. 1.0%. No. .08% For now, anyways. We can always lower it. Then we'll set up random roadblocks and pull people over, people who have otherwise done nothing illegal or wrong. Then we'll stick needles in them and draw their blood and compare their BAC to the arbitrary level we set up. If they're over the limit, even by a little, we'll proceed to make their lives miserable -- we'll take their license away, throw them in jail, they'll lose their job, their standing in the community, and be $20,000 poorer when it's all over and done. After all, this is America, where you can be arrested and thrown in jail for something you might do.
That, I got. But do you have the right to waive the right that waives the original right? Whatever that was.
I wonder how long it will be until self-driving cars are mandatory?
Not sure. You (theoretically) can't waive your right to due legal process. I don't think myself nimble enough to dance on the head of that pin though.
That depends. If they're going to give me one, I say whenever they want. If I'm going to be forced to buy one -- like Obamacare -- then I say it'll be a cold day in hell.
Time was, before breathalyzers, prisoner could be taken to a hospital for a blood test. If he / she refused, would be arrested anyway, and lodged in the county jail. Then, in court the judge would use the refusal, in addition to testimony from the arresting officer : "Well judge, after he ran over a bus stop sign, and a bicycle rack at the school, he ran his car through the window of the hardware store, he crawled out, throwing up all over himself, smelled like a distillery, pissed in his pants, could not stand up, and could not state his name" The wrecker driver also confirmed those observations. In my experience, most judges would convict, and cancel drivers license. Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There are no Carthaginian terrorists. President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood A friend will help you move ,But a good friend will help you move a body..
Assuming we're allowed to own. Or even lease. The TOS for the cars will likely be massive, with the manufacturer paying the insurance and liability. Recalls could just drive themselves to the local dealer, without the owners' knowledge or consent. Like a shrink wrap license on steroids. Or maybe the feds could just nationalize Uber and its future self-driving fleet. No more cars, driveways, or garages in suburbia. Driveways cause Global Warming, you know?
Just make sure the driver is strapped down good. You want to minimize the bruising at the syringe's injection point.
Are you saying that in order to exercise your right to travel the government wants you to give up another right. That is bullshit. It is kind of like corrupt Ohio. Where in order to get a public defender. Which is a right. They want you to give up the right to a speedy trial. Only an asshole would say you have to give up one right to exercise another one. Oh yes driving is surely 100 percent a right,.
You got all of that from a question I asked? It is more the cumulative effect of your posts.
Nope. You can travel around your backyard in your car all you want, without a license. You can also landscape your backyard, if you choose to do so. But stay off of the public roads built and maintained at taxpayer expense, and regulated by law and license agreements. And don't chop down a tree for firewood at the local park. TANSTAAFL
If the prisoner was unruly, they would not take blood, and the Judge would usually consider that also as evidence of being under the influence. And/or consider it an act of refusal. Either way, the prisoner would be found guilty.
Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There are no Carthaginian terrorists. President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood A friend will help you move ,But a good friend will help you move a body..
More reason for the test. Is an aggressive prisoner on something that makes him a special risk to officers and other inmates?
But stay off of the public roads built and maintained at taxpayer expense, and regulated by law and license agreements. And don't chop down a tree for firewood at the local park. TANSTAAFL Fuck you. Driving is a right, I pay taxes they are my roads too.
Is the park your's too? How about the public school playground?
More reason for the test. " Think you could draw blood from someone unruly? Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There are no Carthaginian terrorists. President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood A friend will help you move ,But a good friend will help you move a body..
"More states are authorizing forcible blood draws for motorists suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol, regardless of the circumstances of the arrest. Forcible blood draws occur when police hold down a DUI suspect who is unruly or struggling and medical personnel withdraw a blood sample."
Okaaay. And I assume you have participated in these before? Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There are no Carthaginian terrorists. President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood A friend will help you move ,But a good friend will help you move a body..
And I assume you have participated in these before?
No. I have observed the medical personnel refuse to try. Now, answer my question. Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There are no Carthaginian terrorists. President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood A friend will help you move ,But a good friend will help you move a body..
No. So what did they find when they drew your blood?
No. " LOL! Just what I thought. Roscoe is all BLOW, and no go! LOL. Just runs his mouth! Typical ! Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There are no Carthaginian terrorists. President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood A friend will help you move ,But a good friend will help you move a body..
Roscoe is all BLOW, and no go! LOL. Just runs his mouth! I decided to ignore the simpleton for the most part. Seems to me that roadside sobriety tests (walking the line, touching the nose, counting backwards) should be more than enough to determine a person's ability to drive. Pass those (even after having a couple of drinks) and you should be free to go. DWI's are big money revenues for states and towns. That's the main reason they keep lowering the BAC levels. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Yeah, he is FOS & a waste of time. Think I will adopt your stance. Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There are no Carthaginian terrorists. President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood A friend will help you move ,But a good friend will help you move a body..
The driver should be ticked and charged for the damages. The fact that the driver was intoxicated should result in an additional charge. But I was referring to a driver pulled over for no reason whatsoever and subjected to a blood draw. I'm against that.
I gave you the cite. You folded.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Hey look kid, go up stairs and tell your mother she wants you. She does not, otherwise you would not be in her basement. But go tell her anyway, and quit bugging me! Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There are no Carthaginian terrorists. President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood A friend will help you move ,But a good friend will help you move a body..
"More states are authorizing forcible blood draws for motorists suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol, regardless of the circumstances of the arrest. Forcible blood draws occur when police hold down a DUI suspect who is unruly or struggling and medical personnel withdraw a blood sample." It's commonplace. Lemme know if you ever work up the courage to address it.
Whitey, like this one?
Just runs his mouth! Glad you figured that out by now. What's funny to me is that he thinks he's so wise and clever. He's a tool.
I was wondering where my ankle biter went.
Case confirmed and closed, tool. LOL
And away it runs.
You are a silly man. The right to travel, means to travel the normal highways and byways and engage in commerce in order to conduct business or pleasure. The public roads do not mean someone else owns them, it means WE ALL OWN THEM.
Wouldn't you also have the right to refuse to communicate with the police, but refuse to take a test. We have the absolute right to not testify against ourselves, and to have an attorney present when we decide to do so.
Subject to the rules governing their use. It's been that way for centuries.
Absolutely. You could stand there pouting as they towed the car away.
Yes. If they they have right to FORCE him, let THEM use force. His CONSENT is HIS by definition. Do you comprehend this?
He's also a kid, that likes to fling poo. Keeps him out of his mothers hair. Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There are no Carthaginian terrorists. President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood A friend will help you move ,But a good friend will help you move a body..
Correct. But if you want to use a car ...
Then you buy it put some gas on it then drive on the roads that you pay a gas tax for. There have been many decisions that recognize driving as a right. If you don't think it is a right it's probably because you suck.
To: Roscoe You are a silly man. The right to travel, means to travel the normal highways and byways and engage in commerce in order to conduct business or pleasure. The public roads do not mean someone else owns them, it means WE ALL OWN THEM. Someone who gets it. I haven't interacted with you a lot. But you are now on my list of people whose comments I will usually read.
Give one. Actual decision, please.
Case # 1 - "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22 ("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.) Case # 2 - "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579. It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts: Case # 3 - "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125. Case # 4 - "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Iiberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT As hard as it is for those of us in Law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. The American citizen does indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of another. Government, in requiring the people to file for "drivers licenses, vehicle registrations, mandatory insurance, and demanding they stop for vehicle inspections, DUI/DWI roadblocks etc. without question, are "restricting", and therefore violating, the Peoples common law right to travel. Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject of the right to travel? Apparently not. The American Citizens and Lawmen Association in conjunction with The U.S. Federal Law Research Center are presently involved in studies in several areas involving questions on constitutional law. One of the many areas under review is the area of "Citizens right to travel." In an interview a spokesmen stated: "Upon researching this subject over many months, substantial case law has presented itself that completely substantiates the position that the "right to travel unrestricted upon the nations highways" is and has always been a fundamental right of every Citizen." This means that the "beliefs and opinions" our state legislators, the courts, and those of as involved in the law enforcement profession have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that U.S. case law is overwhelming in determining that - to restrict, in any fashion, the movement of the individual American in the free exercise of their right to travel upon the roadways, (excluding "commerce" which the state Legislatures are correct in regulating), is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution, and most state Constitutions, i.e - it is Unlawful. THE REVELATION THAT THE AMERICAN CITIZEN HAS ALWAYS HAD THE INALIENABLE RIGHT TO TRAVEL RAISES PROFOUND QUESTIONS TO THOSE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN MAKING AND ENFORCING STATE LAWS. The first of such questions may very well be - If the States have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions, such as - licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections, D.W.I. roadblocks, to name just a few, on a Citizens constitutionally protected right. Is that not so? For the answer to this question let us Iook, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination on this very issue. The case of Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516. states very plainly: "The State cannot diminish rights of the people." "the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice."- Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22, 24. Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point - that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or Iimitations on rights belonging to the people? Other cases are even more straight forward: "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." - Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491. "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.· - Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489. "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945. ( There is no question that a citation/ticket issued by a police officer, for no drivers license, no current vehicle registration, no vehicle insurance etc. which carries a fine or jail time, is a penalty or sanction, and is indeed "converting a Right into a crime".) We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision, however, In addition, the Constitution itself answers our question- "Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason"? (Such as in this particular case - when the government believes it to be for the safety and welfare of the people). The answer is found in ARTICLE SIX of the U.S. Constitution: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;..shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary not withstanding". (This tells us that the U.S. Constitution is to be upheld over any state, county, or city Iaws that are in opposition to it.) In the same Article it goes on to say just who it is within our governments that is bound by this Supreme Law: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;". - ART. 6 U.S. CONST. We know that Police officers, are a part of the Executive branch. We are "Executive Officers". Article 6 above, is called the SUPREMACY CLAUSE, and it clearly states that, under every circumstance, the above listed officials in these United States must hold this documents tenets supreme over any other laws, regulations, or orders. Every U.S. Police officer knows that they have sworn a oath to the people of our nation that we will not only protect their lives and property, but, that we will uphold, and protect their freedoms and rights under the Supreme laws of this nation, - the U. S. Constitution. In this regard then, we must agree that those within government that restrict a Citizens rights, (such as restricting the peoples right to travel,) are acting in violation of his or her oath of office and are actually committing a crime against such Citizens. Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials? If we are to follow the "letter of the law (as we are sworn to do), this places officials that involve themselves in such unlawful acts in a unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate, or deprive citizens of their Constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law dictates the fact that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are - #1 - by lawfully amending the constitution, or #2 - by a person knowingly waiving a particular right. Some of the confusion in our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel "unrestricted" upon the roadways of the states and opted into the jurisdiction of the state for various reasons. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law, the proper courts, and "sworn, constitutionally empowered officers-of-the-law," and must acquire proper permits, registrations, insurance, etc. There are basically two groups of people in this category: #1 - Any citizen that involves themselves in "commerce," (business for private gain), upon the highways of the state. Here is what the courts have said about this: "...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion..." - State v Johnson, 243 P. 1073, 1078. Other U.S. court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the "right" of the citizen to travel and a government "privilege" are - Barney v Board of Railroad Commissioners; State v City of Spokane, 186 P. 864.; Ex Parte Dickey (Dickey v Davis), 85 S.E. 781.; Teche Lines v Danforth, 12 So.2d 784. There are numerous other court decisions that spell out the JURISDICTION issue In these two distinctly different activities. However, because of space restrictions we will leave it up to officers to research it further for themselves. (See last page for additional references). #2 - The second group of citizens that are legally under the jurisdiction of the state is the individual citizen who has voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel "unregulated and unrestricted" by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state - drivers license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words "by contract only".) We should remember what makes this "legal," and not a violation of the individuals common law right to travel "unrestricted" is that they knowingly volunteer, freely, by contract, to waive their right. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the states powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights. This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the people in each state have filed, and received, licenses, registrations, insurance etc. after erroneously being advised by their government that it was mandatory? Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between "Privileges vs. Rights". We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses, vehicle registrations etc., have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. "laws of no effect". In other words - "LAWS THAT ARE NOT LAWS AT ALL." OUR SWORN DUTY An area of serious consideration for every police officer, is to understand that the most important law in our land he has taken an oath to protect, defend, AND ENFORCE, is not state laws, nor city or county ordinances, but, that law that supersede all other laws in our nation, - the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular police officer's state, or local community are in conflict with the SUPREME LAW of our nation, there Is no question that the officer's duty is to "uphold the U.S. Constitution." What does this mean to the "patrol officer" who will be the only sworn "Executive Officer" on the scene, when knowledgeable Citizens raise serious objections over possession of insurance, drivers licenses and other restrictions? It definitely means these officers will be faced with a hard decision. (Most certainly if that decision effects state, city or county revenues, such as the issuing of citations do.) Example: If a state legislator, judge or a superior tells a police officer to proceed and enforce a contradictory, (illegal), state law rather than the Supreme Law of this country, what is that "sworn officer" to do? Although we may not want to hear it, there is but one right answer, - "the officer is duty bound to uphold his oath of office" and obey the highest laws of the nation. THIS IS OUR SWORN DUTY AND IT'S THE LAW! Such a strong honest stand taken by a police officer, upholding his or her oath of office, takes moral strength of character. It will, without question, "SEPARATE THE MEN FROM THE BOYS." Such honest and straight forward decisions on behalf of a government official have often caused pressure to be applied to force such officers to set aside, or compromise their morals or convictions. As a solace for those brave souls in uniform that will stand up for law and justice, even when it's unpopular, or uncomfortable to do so...let me say this. In any legal stand-off over a sworn official "violating" or "upholding" their oath of office, those that would side with the "violation" should inevitable lose. Our Founding Fathers assured us, on many occasions, the following: Defending our freedoms in the face of people that would for "expedients sake," or behind the guise, "for the safety and welfare of the masses," ignore peoples rights, would forever demand sacrifice and vigilance from those that desired to remain free. That sounds a little like - "Freedom is not free!" Every police officer should keep the following court ruling, that was covered earlier, in mind before issuing citations in regard to "mandatory licensing, registration and insurance" - verses - "the right of the people to travel unencumbered": "THE CLAlM AND EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RlGHT CANNOT BE CONVERTED INTO A CRIME." - Miller v U.S., 230 F 2d 486. 489. And as we have seen, "traveling freely," going about ones daily activities, is the exercise of a most basic right
Car? You can't ride a bicycle down the middle of the freeway? It's tyranny I tells ya!!!
Actual decision, please. Not a crackpot website's misrepresentations. Just one. Surely you can manage that?
I'll add this. I filed a 33 page brief for a driving without a license case. I was ready to fight. Then the court dismissed the charges, and I won. If you fight you win.
Just one. Surely you can manage that? You dumb ass. It is in post 51. If you say it is not there then you are calling me a liar and you will be promptly banned. I will not put up with your bullshit lying today.
Come on pussy say something in response to 51. Show me something that isn't accurate.
Fake quote: Actual quote:
57 Kaboom!!!!
Really? Well if it's a right then everyone has that right, correct? Meaning everyone can drive a car, correct? That's your position?
Yep. They don't need no steenking licences or vehicle inspections.
That's your position? Yes, assuming you can operate the vehicle. Assuming you haven't lost that right by drunk driving or something like that. You are supposed to have the right to travel by the means of the day. I believe you can lose that right of you do harm to others or put others life at risk. But the starting point is you have that right. Certainly.
The case of Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516. states very plainly: "The State cannot diminish rights of the people." Actual quote: "A State cannot deprive a person of his property without due process of law; but this does not necessarily imply that all trials in the State courts affecting the property of persons must be by jury. This requirement of the Constitution is met if the trial is had according to the settled course of judicial proceedings. Due process of law is process according to the law of the land." Looks like they are saying the same thing.
Bull crap!
I've never had my vehicle inspected. Except when taking drivers license test. No you don't need a license to exercise a right. Certainly not.
"Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22 ("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)
They have rights, dammit! And no one can infringe those rights with age restrictions and tests and licenses and stupid Rules of the Road. If a drunk 10-year-old wants to hop in dad's car and hit the road, he has a God- given right to do so!
Your "right" to use the road built and maintained at public expense is limited to use in accordance with to the rules set for their use. Didn't you just unintentionally admit that the "right" could be removed for drunk driving?
They say pretty much the same thing. The state can not diminish the rights of the people. That is common sense. Rights aren't privileges. So they can't be taken away. Duh
Well, there goes your argument.
The rules are the constitution. You have a fifth amendment right to be secure in your papers person and effects. That means they can't constitutionally pass a law requiring you to surrender those documents. Which they do in order to get a "license". The difference between you and I. I belive in freedom. You believe you unconstitutional government micromanagement and control over the people. It is as simple as that.
That was done in post #65.
That means you have to stop at red lights, stop signs, and obey the speed limit. It doesn't mean they can restrict your right to drive without you committing some kind of crime like DUI.
The how do illegals get driver's licenses?
I can't help but wonder why a couple of dyed-in-the-wool statist shills would even want to post at a site called Liberty's Flame. Those two yahoos have utterly no concept of liberty. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much It wasn't unintentional. You can lose a right. If you say drive drunk and kill someone. Or if you drive drunk and put others in danger. I have no problem with that. It is my opinion and I believe supported by the constitution and common sense that you start with that right to travel by the means of the day. No government permission needed. Like I said I already won in court over this years ago. I do have a license and have had one for years. It's just less hassle that way.
WHAT?? The court ruled that the right may be regulated. They didn't limit the regulation to Rules of the Road. Now you're just making shit up.
Nice foot shot. By the way, have you ever read the actual decision?
Those two yahoos have utterly no concept of liberty. I understand. It is for fun. They like to talk about this stuff. They are ok despite me calling one of them a pussy. They are right on some issues. They just want the government to control us to much. They must live in fear of people with real freedoms. I don't think they are bad or evil. They are just week and need to feel safe from real men who know what freedom is. It is really a feminine characteristic. You know that need to be protected. So I guess we could just say they are very feminine.
But not taken away and making you give up your documents in order to exercise that right. That would violate the fifth amendment. Have you actually ever read the fifth amendment? '
"The voluntary support of laws, formed by persons of their own choice, distinguishes peculiarly the minds capable of self-government. The contrary spirit is anarchy, which of necessity produces despotism." --Thomas Jefferson
That was a state court decision.
Do you know the difference between law and color of law? If a law violates the constitution is it really a law?
Well, clearly, they have the right to print their own! Freedom!!!
There is a fifth amendment equivelant in every state. Also the fifth amendment requires states to obey it. There is no "congress shall make no las...." phrase in the fifth amendment.
The Framers never intended for the Fifth Amendment to limit the inherent police powers of the States.
So quote it. An actual quote, please.
"I don't give a shit what some judge says." However, it appears as though A K A Stone does give a shit what some judge says when that judge agrees.
No proof is required to vote?
However, it appears as though A K A Stone does give a shit what some judge says when that judge agrees. Yes when they agree with me they are right. Because I seek and tell the truth. It's not that a judge says it that I don't agree with. It is if they get it wrong I don't give a shit about what they say. I do respect them when they get it right, For example you like Judge Roberts and agree with all of his decisions.
Not until a couple of years ago.
That is incorrect. If you don't know that perhaps you should go back and get your GED.
Not only did I read it, I understand it. "Self-incrimination is the act of exposing oneself to an accusation or charge of crime". It has nothing to do with applying for a drivers license.
A "couple of years" being defined as "since 1950"?
But you and you alone define "right", correct? Just curious. Do judges check with you before they render their decisions? You being the authority on right and wrong.
Until a couple of years ago here in Ohio. But you make the point that the founders didn't think you need a license to vote. Making my broader point.
Just curious. Do judges check with you before they render their decisions? You being the authority on right and wrong. I know the truth. But it isn't because i'm magical. It is because I read it honestly. I don't add or subtract. No judges don't consult with me. But if they did we wouldn't have Obamacare or a whole bunch of other unconstitutional pretend laws on the books.
Ahem. Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of Baltimore, 32 US 243 (1833) Chief Justice Marshall, writing far the unanimous Court: If these propositions be correct, the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the General Government, not as applicable to the States. In their several Constitutions, they have imposed such restrictions on their respective governments, as their own wisdom suggested, such as they deemed most proper for themselves. It is a subject on which they judge exclusively, and with which others interfere no further than they are supposed to have a common interest... Had the framers of these amendments intended them to be limitations on the powers of the State governments, they would have imitated the framers of the original Constitution, and have expressed that intention. Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the Constitutions of the several States by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language...
And even earlier.
He has his opinion and he was a good man. However the fifth amendment talks about crimes that were not federal crimes at the time. It talks about things that were for the states. The wording of the fifth amendment certainly says it applies to "all criminal" cases. If you went back and got your GED you would learn what the word "all" means.
That was ruled unconstitutional. Maybe you need some remedial history lessons also.
I'm just going to throw a curb ball at you. You do agree that the money we have is illegal since congress only has power to coin money. I'm sure you also agree that congress should set the value of the money as the constitution clearly requires.
Bzzzzt. Poll taxes. You not only could be required to obtain conditional permission, you could even be required to pay for that "right." And you could be prevented from voting if you couldn't prove that you owned land.
Those universally understood historic facts were never "ruled unconstitional." Which is why you couldn't provide a quote. But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the Constitution of the United States was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen who then watched over the interests of our country deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- not against those of the local governments.
There is no "congress shall make no las...." phrase in the fifth amendment. ARTICLE VI, the Supremacy Clause, makes it clear that States are 'bound thereby' to obey the Constitution, and its amendments. The "Congress shall make no law" line of the first amendment is deliberately misinterpreted by many statists like roscoe/misterwhite to mean that ALL of our rights are subject to State constitutional revisions. This misinterpretation was corrected by the 14th Amendment, and is not, and never has been a rational argument..
Maybe. What do you think of the Obama Coin idea?
Since that decision has always been left to each state, the Founders had no opinion whatsoever.
Chief Justice Marshall, writing far the unanimous Court: "The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated." Marshall's decision in Barron must be viewed in a defense of slavery context. -- He was trying to prevent the civil war by claiming States could deny 5th amendment rights to slaves. Apparently, roscoe/misterwhite still think this way..
The rules of travel cannot mean that you give up other rights recognized by government. If the police want to bust people for a DWI, use time tested methods. He was sloshed, couldn't or wouldn't walk a line, so I video taped him and presented it at court, would be logical and not violate his rights. When you make him guilty of the crime just because he refuses to blow in a machine, or let you take his blood, that is offensive to American values. The problem is, the eyewitness testimony with video taping requires cops to show up at court. With readings on a machine, they can spin out convictions in a way to make sure the judges retirement fund is always full up.
There are a number of issues associated with our DWI laws, but the recent ruling only dealt with one of them: In the past, refusing a sobriety test qualified as a misdemeanor. Now there is no penalty for refusing a sobriety test (in Kansas). That's it.
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
#3. To: misterwhite (#2)
" How will the state enforce drunken driving laws? "
#4. To: misterwhite (#2)
How will the state enforce drunken driving laws?
#5. To: misterwhite (#2)
So, if a driver can refuse breathalyzer or blood alcohol tests without a court- ordered warrant, can they also refuse other sobriety tests (walk a straight line, stand on one leg, etc.)?
#6. To: A K A Stone (#5)
You have a right not to incriminate yourself.
#7. To: A K A Stone (#5)
"Here you go again worshiping the police state and hoping it destroys the bill of rights."
#8. To: Stoner (#3)
"On the spot summary execution?"
#9. To: Roscoe (#6)
(Edited)
"And you also have a right to waive that right when it comes to breathalyzers."
#10. To: misterwhite (#8)
#11. To: misterwhite (#9)
But do you have the right to waive the right that waives the right that waives the original right?
#12. To: Roscoe (#10)
"I wonder how long it will be until self-driving cars are mandatory?"
#13. To: misterwhite (#8)
#14. To: misterwhite (#12)
#15. To: Stoner (#13)
Time was, before breathalyzers, prisoner could be taken to a hospital for a blood test.
#16. To: Roscoe (#6)
And you also have a right to waive that right when it comes to breathalyzers. Like when you apply for a license to drive motor vehicles on public streets.
#17. To: misterwhite (#7)
"Here you go again worshiping the police state and hoping it destroys the bill of rights."
#18. To: A K A Stone (#16)
Are you saying that in order to exercise your right to travel the government wants you to give up another right.
#19. To: Roscoe (#15)
#20. To: Stoner (#19)
If the prisoner was unruly
#21. To: Roscoe (#18)
Nope. You can travel around your backyard in your car all you want, without a license. You can also landscape your backyard, if you choose to do so.
#22. To: A K A Stone (#21)
I pay taxes they are my roads too.
#23. To: Roscoe (#20)
" If the prisoner was unruly
#24. To: Stoner (#23)
Think you could draw blood from someone unruly?
#25. To: Roscoe (#24)
" Forcible blood draws occur when police hold down a DUI suspect who is unruly or struggling and medical personnel withdraw a blood sample." "
#26. To: Stoner (#25)
And I assume you have participated in these before?
#27. To: Roscoe (#26)
" And I assume you have participated in these before? "
#28. To: Stoner (#27)
Now, answer my question.
#29. To: Roscoe (#28)
" Now, answer my question.
#30. To: Stoner (#29)
(Edited)
LOL! Just what I thought.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#31. To: Deckard (#30)
" I decided to ignore the simpleton for the most part. "
#32. To: Stoner (#13)
"Well judge, after he ran over a bus stop sign, and a bicycle rack at the school, he ran his car through the window of the hardware store, he crawled out, throwing up all over himself, smelled like a distillery, pissed in his pants, could not stand up, and could not state his name" The wrecker driver also confirmed those observations."
#33. To: Stoner (#29)
#34. To: Roscoe (#33)
" I gave you the cite. You folded. "
#35. To: Stoner (#34)
#36. To: misterwhite (#2)
So, if a driver can refuse breathalyzer or blood alcohol tests without a court- ordered warrant, can they also refuse other sobriety tests (walk a straight line, stand on one leg, etc.)?
#37. To: Stoner (#29)
Roscoe is all BLOW, and no go! LOL.
#38. To: Fred Mertz (#37)
#39. To: Roscoe (#38)
#40. To: Fred Mertz (#39)
#41. To: Roscoe (#18)
#42. To: Deckard (#30)
#43. To: jeremiad (#41)
means to travel the normal highways and byways
WE ALL OWN THEM
Ah, a Bernie Bro. I hold fee title to the center of the public road in front of my house. That's very common, by the way. However, you're not interested in how things actually work, are you? You just want what you want. That's all you care about.
#44. To: jeremiad (#42)
Wouldn't you also have the right to refuse to communicate with the police
#45. To: misterwhite (#2)
So, if a driver can refuse breathalyzer or blood alcohol tests without a court- ordered warrant, can they also refuse other sobriety tests (walk a straight line, stand on one leg, etc.)?
#46. To: Fred Mertz (#37)
" He's a tool. "
#47. To: jeremiad (#41)
"The right to travel, means to travel the normal highways and byways and engage in commerce in order to conduct business or pleasure."
#48. To: misterwhite (#47)
Correct. But if you want to use a car ...
#49. To: jeremiad (#41)
#50. To: A K A Stone (#48)
There have been many decisions that recognize driving as a right.
#51. To: Roscoe (#50)
There have been many decisions that recognize driving as a right. Give one. Actual decision, please.
#52. To: misterwhite (#47)
But if you want to use a car ...
#53. To: A K A Stone (#51)
#54. To: Roscoe (#50)
#55. To: Roscoe (#53)
Actual decision, please. Not a crackpot website's misrepresentations.
#56. To: Roscoe (#55)
#57. To: A K A Stone (#55)
The case of Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516. states very plainly: "The State cannot diminish rights of the people."
"A State cannot deprive a person of his property without due process of law; but this does not necessarily imply that all trials in the State courts affecting the property of persons must be by jury. This requirement of the Constitution is met if the trial is had according to the settled course of judicial proceedings. Due process of law is process according to the law of the land."
#58. To: A K A Stone (#56)
Show me something that isn't accurate.
#59. To: A K A Stone (#48)
"There have been many decisions that recognize driving as a right."
#60. To: misterwhite (#59)
Meaning everyone can drive a car, correct?
#61. To: misterwhite (#59)
Really? Well if it's a right then everyone has that right, correct? Meaning everyone can drive a car, correct?
#62. To: Roscoe (#57)
Fake quote:
#63. To: A K A Stone (#62)
Looks like they are saying the same thing.
#64. To: Roscoe (#60)
Yep. They don't need no steenking licences or vehicle inspections.
#65. To: Roscoe (#63)
#66. To: Roscoe (#60)
"They don't need no steenking licences or vehicle inspections."
#67. To: A K A Stone (#64)
No you don't need a license to exercise a right.
#68. To: Roscoe (#63)
Looks like they are saying the same thing. Bull crap!
#69. To: A K A Stone (#65)
"though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience."
#70. To: misterwhite (#66)
#71. To: Roscoe (#67)
"Didn't you just unintentionally admit that the "right" could be removed for drunk driving?"
#72. To: misterwhite (#69)
Well, there goes your argument.
#73. To: A K A Stone (#70)
Which they do in order to get a "license".
#74. To: A K A Stone (#70)
The difference between you and I. I belive in freedom.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#75. To: misterwhite (#71)
"Didn't you just unintentionally admit that the "right" could be removed for drunk driving?" That was done in post #65.
#76. To: A K A Stone (#72)
"That means you have to stop at red lights, stop signs, and obey the speed limit."
#77. To: A K A Stone (#65)
this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience.
#78. To: Deckard (#74)
I can't help but wonder why a couple of dyed-in-the-wool statist shills would even want to post at a site called Liberty's Flame.
#79. To: misterwhite (#76)
The court ruled that the right may be regulated.
#80. To: Deckard (#74)
#81. To: A K A Stone (#79)
That would violate the fifth amendment.
#82. To: Roscoe (#80)
"The voluntary support of laws, formed by persons of their own choice,
#83. To: misterwhite (#73)
The how do illegals get driver's licenses?
#84. To: Roscoe (#81)
That would violate the fifth amendment. That was a state court decision.
#85. To: A K A Stone (#82)
#86. To: A K A Stone (#84)
There is a fifth amendment equivelant in every state.
#87. To: Roscoe, A K A Stone (#53)
"Actual decision, please."
-- A K A Stone
#88. To: A K A Stone (#79)
"But not taken away and making you give up your documents in order to exercise that right."
#89. To: misterwhite (#87)
"I don't give a shit what some judge says." -- A K A Stone
#90. To: misterwhite (#88)
No proof is required to vote?
#91. To: Roscoe (#85)
The Framers never intended for the Fifth Amendment to limit the inherent police powers of the States.
#92. To: A K A Stone (#79)
"Have you actually ever read the fifth amendment?"
#93. To: A K A Stone (#90)
No proof is required to vote?
Not until a couple of years ago.
#94. To: A K A Stone (#89)
"I do respect them when they get it right"
#95. To: misterwhite (#93)
A "couple of years" being defined as "since 1950"?
#96. To: misterwhite (#94)
But you and you alone define "right", correct?
#97. To: A K A Stone (#91)
That is incorrect. If you don't know that perhaps you should go back and get your GED.
The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and we think necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct governments framed by different persons and for different purposes...
#98. To: misterwhite (#93)
A "couple of years" being defined as "since 1950"?
#99. To: Roscoe (#97)
#100. To: Roscoe (#98)
#101. To: Roscoe (#98)
#102. To: A K A Stone (#95)
the founders didn't think you need a license to vote.
#103. To: A K A Stone (#100)
That was ruled unconstitutional.
What Framer ever said that the Federal Bill of Rights was secretly a state Bill of Right?
#104. To: A K A Stone, y'all (#84)
the fifth amendment requires states to obey it.
#105. To: A K A Stone (#101)
#106. To: A K A Stone (#95)
"But you make the point that the founders didn't think you need a license to vote."
#107. To: A K A Stone, y'all (#99)
Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of Baltimore, 32 US 243 (1833)
#108. To: misterwhite (#47)
#109. To: jeremiad (#108)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]