U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: Forced Blood Draws & Implied Consent Laws Make a Mockery of the Fourth Amendment
Source:
The Rutherford Institute
URL Source: https://www.rutherford.org/publicat ... ockery_of_the_fourth_amendment
Published: Mar 5, 2019
Author: John Whitehead
Post Date: 2019-03-06 06:50:39 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 5347
Comments: 62
You think you’ve got rights? Think again. All of those freedoms we cherish—the ones enshrined in the Constitution, the ones that affirm our right to free speech and assembly, due process, privacy, bodily integrity, the right to not have police seize our property without a warrant, or search and detain us without probable cause—amount to nothing when the government and its agents are allowed to disregard those prohibitions on government overreach at will. This is the grim reality of life in the American police state. Our so-called rights have been reduced to technicalities in the face of the government’s ongoing power grabs. Consider a case before the U.S. Supreme Court (Mitchell vs. Wisconsin) in which Wisconsin police officers read an unconscious man his rights and then proceeded to forcibly and warrantlessly draw his blood while he was still unconscious in order to determine if he could be charged with a DUI. To sanction this forced blood draw, the cops and the courts have hitched their wagon to state “implied consent” laws (all of the states have them), which suggest that merely driving on a state-owned road implies that a person has consented to police sobriety tests, breathalyzers and blood draws. More than half of the states (29 states) allow police to do warrantless, forced blood draws on unconscious individuals whom they suspect of driving while intoxicated. Seven state appeals courts have declared these warrantless blood draws when carried out on unconscious suspects are unconstitutional. Courts in seven other states have found that implied consent laws run afoul of the Fourth Amendment. And yet seven other states (including Wisconsin) have ruled that implied consent laws provide police with a free pass when it comes to the Fourth Amendment and forced blood draws. With this much division among the state courts, a lot is riding on which way the U.S. Supreme Court rules in Mitchell and whether it allows state legislatures to use implied consent laws as a means of allowing police to bypass the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in relation to forced blood draws and unconscious suspects. Mind you, this is the third time in as many years that the Supreme Court has taken up the issue of warrantless blood draws. In 2016, the Court ruled 7-1 in Birchfield v. North Dakota that states may not prosecute suspected drunken drivers for refusing warrantless blood draws when they are arrested. However, the Court also tossed the cops a bone by giving them a green light to require a warrantless breath test incident to arrest. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito rightly recognized the danger of allowing the government to warrantlessly take possession of—and preserve indefinitely—one’s biological and genetic material. In 2013, a divided Supreme Court held in Missouri v. McNeely that people suspected of drunken driving can’t automatically be subjected to blood tests without a warrant and without their consent. The differences between McNeely, Birchfeld and Mitchell are nuanced, but it is in these nuances that the struggle to preserve the Fourth Amendment can best be seen. The Fourth Amendment has been on life support for a long time. Our freedoms—especially the Fourth Amendment—continue to be strangulated by a prevailing view among government bureaucrats that they have the right to search, seize, strip, scan, spy on, probe, pat down, taser, and arrest any individual at any time and for the slightest provocation. Forced cavity searches, forced colonoscopies, forced blood draws, forced breath-alcohol tests, forced DNA extractions, forced eye scans, forced inclusion in biometric databases: these are just a few ways in which Americans are being forced to accept that we have no control over our bodies, our lives and our property, especially when it comes to interactions with the government. Worse, on a daily basis, Americans are being made to relinquish the most intimate details of who we are—our biological makeup, our genetic blueprints, and our biometrics (facial characteristics and structure, fingerprints, iris scans, etc.)—in order to clear the nearly insurmountable hurdle that increasingly defines life in the United States: we are now guilty until proven innocent. Such is life in America today that individuals are being threatened with arrest and carted off to jail for the least hint of noncompliance, homes are being raided by police under the slightest pretext, property is being seized on the slightest hint of suspicious activity, and roadside police stops have devolved into government-sanctioned exercises in humiliation and degradation with a complete disregard for privacy and human dignity. Remember what happened to Utah nurse Alex Wubbels after a police detective demanded to take blood from a badly injured, unconscious patient without a warrant? Wubbels refused to go along with the cop’s order, citing hospital policy that requires police to either have a warrant or permission from the patient in order to draw blood. The detective had neither. Irate, the detective threatened to have Wubbels arrested if she didn’t comply. Backed up by her supervisors, Wubbels respectfully stood her ground only to be roughly grabbed, shoved out of the hospital, handcuffed and forced into an unmarked car while hospital police looked on and failed to intervene (take a look at the police body camera footage, which went viral, and see for yourself). Michael Chorosky didn’t have an advocate like Wubbels to stand guard over his Fourth Amendment rights. Chorosky was surrounded by police, strapped to a gurney and then had his blood forcibly drawn after refusing to submit to a breathalyzer test. “What country is this? What country is this?” cried Chorosky during the forced blood draw. What country is this indeed? Unfortunately, forced blood draws are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the indignities and abuses being heaped on Americans in the so-called name of “national security.” For example, 21-year-old Charnesia Corley was allegedly being pulled over by Texas police for “rolling” through a stop sign. Claiming they smelled marijuana, police handcuffed Corley, placed her in the back of the police cruiser, and then searched her car for almost an hour. No drugs were found in the car. As the Houston Chronicle reported: Returning to his car where Corley was held, the deputy again said he smelled marijuana and called in a female deputy to conduct a cavity search. When the female deputy arrived, she told Corley to pull her pants down, but Corley protested because she was cuffed and had no underwear on. The deputy ordered Corley to bend over, pulled down her pants and began to search her. Then…Corley stood up and protested, so the deputy threw her to the ground and restrained her while another female was called in to assist. When backup arrived, each deputy held one of Corley’s legs apart to conduct the probe. The cavity search lasted 11 minutes. This practice is referred to as “rape by cop.” Corley was eventually charged with resisting arrest and with possession of 0.2 grams of marijuana. Those charges were subsequently dropped. David Eckert was forced to undergo an anal cavity search, three enemas, and a colonoscopy after allegedly failing to yield to a stop sign at a Wal-Mart parking lot. Cops justified the searches on the grounds that they suspected Eckert was carrying drugs because his “posture [was] erect” and “he kept his legs together.” No drugs were found. During a routine traffic stop, Leila Tarantino was subjected to two roadside strip searches in plain view of passing traffic, while her two children—ages 1 and 4—waited inside her car. During the second strip search, presumably in an effort to ferret out drugs, a female officer “forcibly removed” a tampon from Tarantino. No contraband or anything illegal was found. Thirty-eight-year-old Angel Dobbs and her 24-year-old niece, Ashley, were pulled over by a Texas state trooper on July 13, 2012, allegedly for flicking cigarette butts out of the car window. Insisting that he smelled marijuana, the trooper proceeded to interrogate them and search the car. Despite the fact that both women denied smoking or possessing any marijuana, the police officer then called in a female trooper, who carried out a roadside cavity search, sticking her fingers into the older woman’s anus and vagina, then performing the same procedure on the younger woman, wearing the same pair of gloves. No marijuana was found. Sixty-nine-year-old Gerald Dickson was handcuffed and taken into custody (although not arrested or charged with any crime) after giving a ride to a neighbor’s son, whom police suspected of being a drug dealer. Despite Dickson’s insistence that the bulge under his shirt was the result of a botched hernia surgery, police ordered Dickson to “strip off his clothes, bend over and expose all of his private parts. No drugs or contraband were found.” Meanwhile, four Milwaukee police officers were charged with carrying out rectal searches of suspects on the street and in police district stations over the course of several years. One of the officers was accused of conducting searches of men’s anal and scrotal areas, often inserting his fingers into their rectums and leaving some of his victims with bleeding rectums. It’s gotten so bad that you don’t even have to be suspected of possessing drugs to be subjected to a strip search. A North Carolina public school allegedly strip-searched a 10-year-old boy in search of a $20 bill lost by another student, despite the fact that the boy, J.C., twice told school officials he did not have the missing money. The assistant principal reportedly ordered the fifth grader to disrobe down to his underwear and subjected him to an aggressive strip-search that included rimming the edge of his underwear. The missing money was later found in the school cafeteria. Suspecting that Georgia Tech alum Mary Clayton might have been attempting to smuggle a Chik-Fil-A sandwich into the football stadium, a Georgia Tech police officer allegedly subjected the season ticket-holder to a strip search that included a close examination of her underwear and bra. No contraband chicken was found. What these incidents show is that while forced searches may span a broad spectrum of methods and scenarios, the common denominator remains the same: a complete disregard for the dignity and rights of the citizenry. In fact, in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Florence v. Burlison, any person who is arrested and processed at a jail house, regardless of the severity of his or her offense (i.e., they can be guilty of nothing more than a minor traffic offense), can be subjected to a strip search by police or jail officials without reasonable suspicion that the arrestee is carrying a weapon or contraband. Examples of minor infractions which have resulted in strip searches include: individuals arrested for driving with a noisy muffler, driving with an inoperable headlight, failing to use a turn signal, riding a bicycle without an audible bell, making an improper left turn, engaging in an antiwar demonstration (the individual searched was a nun, a Sister of Divine Providence for 50 years). Police have also carried out strip searches for passing a bad check, dog leash violations, filing a false police report, failing to produce a driver’s license after making an illegal left turn, having outstanding parking tickets, and public intoxication. A failure to pay child support can also result in a strip search. As technology advances, these searches are becoming more invasive on a cellular level, as well. For instance, close to 600 motorists leaving Penn State University one Friday night were stopped by police and, without their knowledge or consent, subjected to a breathalyzer test using flashlights that can detect the presence of alcohol on a person’s breath. These passive alcohol sensors are being hailed as a new weapon in the fight against DUIs. (Those who refuse to knowingly submit to a breathalyzer test are being subjected to forced blood draws. Thirty states presently allow police to do forced blood draws on drivers as part of a nationwide “No Refusal” initiative funded by the federal government. Not even court rulings declaring such practices to be unconstitutional in the absence of a warrant have slowed down the process. Now police simply keep a magistrate on call to rubber stamp the procedure over the phone.) The National Highway Safety Administration, the same government agency that funds the “No Refusal” DUI checkpoints and forcible blood draws, is also funding nationwide roadblocks aimed at getting drivers to “voluntarily” provide police with DNA derived from saliva and blood samples, reportedly to study inebriation patterns. In at least 28 states, there’s nothing voluntary about having one’s DNA collected by police in instances where you’ve been arrested, whether or not you’re actually convicted of a crime. All of this DNA data is being fed to the federal government. Airline passengers, already subjected to virtual strip searches, are now being scrutinized even more closely, with the Customs and Border Protection agency tasking airport officials with monitoring the bowel movements of passengers suspected of ingesting drugs. They even have a special hi-tech toilet designed to filter through a person’s fecal waste. Iris scans, an essential part of the U.S. military’s boots-on-the-ground approach to keeping track of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, are becoming a de facto method of building the government’s already mammoth biometrics database. Funded by the Dept. of Justice, along with other federal agencies, the iris scan technology is being incorporated into police precincts, jails, immigration checkpoints, airports and even schools. School officials—from elementary to college—have begun using iris scans in place of traditional ID cards. As for parents wanting to pick their kids up from school, they have to first submit to an iris scan. As for those endless pictures everyone so cheerfully uploads to Facebook (which has the largest facial recognition database in the world) or anywhere else on the internet, they’re all being accessed by the police, filtered with facial recognition software, uploaded into the government’s mammoth biometrics database and cross-checked against its criminal files. With good reason, civil libertarians fear these databases could “someday be used for monitoring political rallies, sporting events or even busy downtown areas.” While the Fourth Amendment was created to prevent government officials from searching an individual’s person or property without a warrant and probable cause—evidence that some kind of criminal activity was afoot—the founders could scarcely have imagined a world in which we needed protection against widespread government breaches of our privacy, including on a cellular level. Yet that’s exactly what we are lacking and what we so desperately need. Unfortunately, the indignities being heaped upon us by the architects and agents of the American police state—whether or not we’ve done anything wrong—are just a foretaste of what is to come. As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the government doesn’t need to tie you to a gurney and forcibly take your blood or strip you naked by the side of the road in order to render you helpless. It has other methods—less subtle perhaps but equally humiliating, devastating and mind-altering—of stripping you of your independence, robbing you of your dignity, and undermining your rights. With every court ruling that allows the government to operate above the rule of law, every piece of legislation that limits our freedoms, and every act of government wrongdoing that goes unpunished, we’re slowly being conditioned to a society in which we have little real control over our bodies or our lives.
“The Fourth Amendment was designed to stand between us and arbitrary governmental authority. For all practical purposes, that shield has been shattered, leaving our liberty and personal integrity subject to the whim of every cop on the beat, trooper on the highway and jail official.”—Herman Schwartz, The Nation
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-22) not displayed.
.
.
.
#23. To: A K A Stone (#22)
What are murderous opinions?
Driving on public access roadways is a PRIVILEGE. In most states, you agree to Consent when you agree to get a license. You might wanna review Mitchell v. Wisconsin. The only time I might not get a implied consent blood draw, is if the unconscious motorist stuck and killed a fucking paultard.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Stone likes to back the Paultards, occasionally, to keep them posting. He’s smarter than he lets on
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
I have no problem with anything Stone say or does
I’ve made application for a warrant, many times. How many have you done? It takes longer than you think. It CANT BE DONE FROM THE HOSPITAL, unless it’s a telephonic warrant.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
No driving is most certainly a right whether recognized by the government or not.
A right isn’t revocable. You talk a lot of shit for someone with a license in your wallet. You gonna tell us you’ve been driving your adult life without a license? If driving is a right, a license isn’t needed.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
If rights aren't revocable. Then from now on you have to argue against the government taken anybody's guns for any reason.
You'll have to also argue that the death penalty is unconstitutional. Because we have a right to life. You know that life liberty and pursuit of happiness thing.
Come on Gatlin what did you say? You won't hurt my feelings.
lol... you’re an idiot.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
You said rights can't be taken away. If rights can't be taken away as you say then that is the logical conclusion to your view
I did not say rights can be taken away. Don’t pull that Dicktard yella bullshit. I said driving on a public access fucking road is NOT a right. Neither is possessing a kilo of heroin. You never addressed my question. Do you have a driver license?
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
You never responded to my post. How many search warrant applications have you drafted and submitted to a court?
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
So when the police go to take someones gun away who is insane. You have to oppose that to be consistent. When a felon gets out of jail. Your position has to be that he gets his guns back when he gets out of jail. If you are consistent.
Zero i'm not an officer of the law. It doesn't matter how hard it is. It is a constitutional requirement for a search of someones person paper or affects. According to the plain reading of the constitution. The constitution isn't in some secret code that only liars and lawyers can understand. It is meant to be understood and it is with a dictionary and no spin. I'm back on my computer instead of phone. Easier to respond.
Under the constitution a license isn't needed to drive. Under the illegitimate color of law it is required. They have the guns and they are corrupt or ignorant and they will follow their unconstitutional laws. So you will still get arrested. Yes I have a license. But I told you in the past in private message that I drove for a decade without one. Because it is a right. Now under duress I got a license years ago.
I didn't misrepresent you anywhere that I am aware of.
Lets see what point was I trying to make. Ok. The Supreme doesn't get it right always. They have said murdering kids is a ok. So why do you think they get everything right? Because I have no respect for anyone who thinks it is ok to kill adults, kids or anyone. Except in self defense. Or possibly as punishment for murdering someone.
Implied consent laws are bullshit. Every example you gave does not need forced blood draws, or forced breathalyzers. If they cannot convict you of a DUI or further criminal acts while driving by witness observation and the facts, then they shouldn't be police. Implied consent was brought to bear for the ease of earning more money, and it turns the 4th amendment on its ear. Our freedom hangs by a thread as it is, if the USSC strikes down the implied consent decree, no lives will be saved, but people will not fear the police as much.
THIS IS A TAG LINE...Exercising rights is only radical to two people, Tyrants and Slaves. Which are YOU? Our ignorance has driven us into slavery and we do not recognize it.
Roe Vs Wade
Gotcha ...
I agree. And that now makes me understand what you were saying.
It wasn’t a matter of not being tactful and not wanting to hurt you feelings. I posted something I researched on the Internet. And after I posted it I continued researching and found something that contradicted it. Not knowing which was right or wrong and not having time remaining to edit the post. I erased it. The contradiction still stands. The contradiction? SCOTUS did something in one place. And then SCOTUS did the opposite in another place. One of the points which you were making. SCOTUS doesn’t always get it right.
I will follow up on my last post. There are contradictions in court cases and opinions everywhere on “movement” and “driving.” After carefully considering all I could find and reading both sides, I have developed an opinion. Beginning with the Articles of Confederation the Congress recognized freedom of movement (Article 4), though the right was thought to be so fundamental during the drafting of the Constitution as not needing explicit enumeration. Being so fundamental meaning you either walked of used a horse. That is why the article is not detailed. I believe that Article 4 gives you the “right” of “movement” - to freely travel - and I believe that is specifically what it does. It in no way does or does not have anything to do with your mode of travel. So, you have a “right” of “movement” by riding in a car and traveling. [Restricting my comments to pertain to an automobile at this time]. However, the right to drive is a privilege granted by each state. And is necessary for too many reasons to enumerate here. I agree with you that movement (travel) is a right granted under Article 4. And anyone can – say – walk or ride by any convenience anywhere they want to that is not lawfully restricted travel for some reason. But I feel that SCOTUS is charged by the Constitution to interpret the Constitution – and I also feel they get it wrong at times – but the Constitution still charges them to decide. And I read different rulings by SCOTUS which as said I felt some contradicted another in specific cases. So SCOTUS - the way I read it - ruled that freedom of movement (travel) is a “right” under Article 4. And since SCOTUS ruled that each state can regulate you “driving” to get the there is therefore a “privilege.” Dang, I hope this makes sense - I just start banging at the keyboard as I was rehashing this in my mind. If you can drive a car as a “right” then a 10-year old kid also has that right? And a 10-year old kid can study the Internet and then jump behind the controls of an airplane for the first time and then fly over NYC? In summary. I say that freedom of movement (I believe that it the wording in the Constitution, I will not look it up) is a “right.” While driving is a “privilege.” I think I may have just repeated myself so I will stop here. I respectfully have nothing more I can contribute to this exchange. Arrivederci
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams Sadly we no longer live in a moral land and those of belief are persecuted for having simple faith. Adams was right and it is wholly inadequate for today's population. Hence, the quandary. Moral people already know there are consequences for wrong behavior and they avoid it, but what do we do with the rest? I don't agree with the government foot on our throat, but then how does society deal with those who violate rights and victimize others? Even so, come Lord Jesus is the only answer I've got.
Stone ~ Zero i'm not an officer of the law. Then why would you state that “I bet it’s easy” when speaking about obtaining a warrant? The fact is, they are incredibly time consuming and need to be crafted and approved without typographical errors... they can’t be done at the hospital. So, again, why would you claim something you have no clue about? Your Paultards debate that way. So, you may continue to spread your false opinions back and forth between you and the drug loveing Paultards, so you idiots can spread your brand of misinformation.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Typing up a paper without errors is easy compared to the work most Anericans who work do every day. It is easier then restoring the exterior of a house or bldg. The constitution is clear. Get a fucking search warrant. If an officer told a judge it was to hard to get one that they have to submit it without errors. They would and should be laughed out if the room. Oh it's to hard I can't follow the constitution waa waa waa. Implied consent is a word usurper made up to her around constitutional requirements. Come on admit it you don't always support the constitution.
Here is a sample search warrant. That would be easy to fill out. 10 min. www.google.com/url? sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.usco urts.gov/forms/law-enforcement-grand-jury- and-prosecution-forms/search-and-seizure- warrant&ved=2ahUKEwiX05bgivDgAhWZ8oMKHctID Y0QFjAJegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw0QxaJdz17IRQa3Wk HyQAha&cshid=1551963567821
If driving on roads is a privileged that confers "consent" of the terms of state law, then how are millions off illegal invaders driving WITHOUT a license, with impunity? More over -- and you know this to be a fact -- the vast majority of traffic cops who pull over illegals RELEASE un-licensed criminal illegals. Many even release them after they've committed a crime (PERSON EXPERIENCE.) Can you explain why LEOs are ordered to look the other way in both instances??
Lol -- who's sh*tt*ng who?
+1
Adams was right and it is wholly inadequate for today's population. Hence, the quandary. Quandary and inevitability. I don't agree with the government foot on our throat, but then how does society deal with those who violate rights and victimize others? If by that you mean a rabid police state that selectively persecutes constitutionalists, conservatives and Christians? I believe the Greeks had one term for the reaction: "Molon labe." Some will merely just persevere. Compliance and/or the demand to take the "Mark of the Beast" is coming. Even so, come Lord Jesus is the only answer I've got. Amen!
Interesting, Paultard. So tell me you stupid ignorant fuck, how would you handle responding to a one car MVA, where the vehicle, occupied by just one person (the driver), crashes through Dicktards living room wall at 0200 hours on a Saturday morning, killing Dicktard as he laid asleep in his recliner, and you find the driver unconscious, behind the wheel... with the strong odor of alcoholic beverage, emanating from the drivers breath. Just complete an MVA report and issue a ticket for leaving the roadway? Fuck off, you’re a joke.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Liberator ~ Lol -- who's sh*tt*ng who? You right... it’s the Paultards shitting Stone.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
It wasn’t, Mr. Paranoid. Implied consent was brought to bear due to a contract you agree to, when you get your license, that you will submit to breath or blood samples when suspected of driving under the influence, if you want the PRIVILEGE of receiving that states license to drive upon PUBLIC ACCESS ROADWAYS, when you’re unconscious, and you AGREE to this, it’s fucking IMPLIED you give consent. It’s been upheld in the highest courts, almost all states utilize implied consent when the driver of a vehicle CAN’T Submit a breath sample or be tested on the roadside with standard sobriety test because they are UNCONSCIOUS... you simple stupid fuck.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Last month, Reason's Nick Gillespie noted that a record-high number of Americans consider the government to be "the most important threat facing the U.S." According to Gallup, 35 percent of Americans believe that to be true, compared to the previous high of 33 percent back when the government was shut down in 2013.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen.
Murderous opinions don't count. Get a search warrant
#24. To: A K A Stone (#3)
#25. To: Gatlin (#23)
#26. To: GrandIsland (#25)
for as I have said, it's his forum
You know that.
And I have told him that.
I am just missing what he is saying here.
So, I will let it go.
#27. To: A K A Stone (#6)
(Edited)
Why can't they just get a warrant? I bet it is real easy.
#28. To: GrandIsland (#24)
#29. To: A K A Stone, GrandIsland (#28)
(Edited)
#30. To: A K A Stone (#28)
No driving is most certainly a right whether recognized by the government or not.
#31. To: GrandIsland (#30)
#32. To: All (#31)
(Edited)
#33. To: Gatlin (#29)
#34. To: A K A Stone (#32)
You'll have to also argue that the death penalty is unconstitutional. Because we have a right to life. You know that life liberty and pursuit of happiness thing.
#35. To: GrandIsland (#34)
(Edited)
#36. To: A K A Stone (#35)
#37. To: A K A Stone (#35)
Why can't they just get a warrant? I bet it is real easy.
#38. To: GrandIsland (#36)
I did not say rights can be taken away. Don’t pull that Dicktard yella bullshit.
#39. To: GrandIsland (#37)
You never responded to my post. How many search warrant applications have you drafted and submitted to a court?
#40. To: GrandIsland (#30)
You talk a lot of shit for someone with a license in your wallet. You gonna tell us you’ve been driving your adult life without a license? If driving is a right, a license isn’t needed.
#41. To: GrandIsland (#36)
I did not say rights can be taken away. Don’t pull that Dicktard yella bullshit. I said driving on a public access fucking road is NOT a right.
#42. To: Gatlin (#26)
I am just missing what he is saying here. So, I will let it go.
#43. To: GrandIsland (#1)
#44. To: Gatlin (#29)
#45. To: Gatlin (#23)
What are murderous opinions?
#46. To: A K A Stone (#45)
#47. To: A K A Stone (#42)
The Supreme doesn't get it right always.
#48. To: A K A Stone (#33)
Come on Gatlin what did you say? You won't hurt my feelings.
#49. To: A K A Stone, GrandIsland (#48)
#50. To: Deckard (#0)
#51. To: A K A Stone (#39)
Grandisland ~ You never responded to my post. How many search warrant applications have you drafted and submitted to a court?
#52. To: GrandIsland (#51)
#53. To: GrandIsland (#51)
#54. To: GrandIsland (#24)
Driving on public access roadways is a PRIVILEGE. In most states, you agree to Consent when you agree to get a license.
#55. To: GrandIsland (#25)
Stone likes to back the Paultards, occasionally, to keep them posting. He’s smarter than he lets on
#56. To: A K A Stone, GrandIsland (#31)
If rights aren't revocable. Then from now on you have to argue against the government taken anybody's guns for any reason.
#57. To: WWG1WWA (#50)
Sadly we no longer live in a moral land and those of belief are persecuted for having simple faith.
#58. To: jeremiad (#43)
If they cannot convict you of a DUI or further criminal acts while driving by witness observation and the facts, then they shouldn't be police.
#59. To: Liberator (#55)
Stone likes to back the Paultards, occasionally, to keep them posting. He’s smarter than he lets on
#60. To: jeremiad (#43)
(Edited)
Implied consent was brought to bear for the ease of earning more money,
#61. To: Gatlin (#2)
And so it is that with each and every fear mongering article like this, the anti-government campaign continue
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#62. To: Deckard (#61)
And so it is that with each and every fear mongering article like this, the anti-government campaign continue
I posted that and you jumped right in with: Last month, Reason's Nick Gillespie noted …
And so the anti-government campaign continues – on and on, on and on, on and on, on and on, on and on, on and on …
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]