Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Would you support checkpoints at every intersection? Where do you draw the line?
I have a problem with these checkpoints because they violate reasonable suspicion laws. They treat everyone as guilty. It would be wrong for cops to pull over every single driver just to check if they have been drinking. So it should be wrong for checkpoints to be set up.
Pull over drivers who appear to be drunk, but do not punish those who are not.
That's such a silly argument. The constitutional does not explicitly give you the right to spit in your bathtub either.
Clearly, the tenth amendment gives the people the power to spit in their bathtub and drive a car.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
It will be a State judge who sends you to jail. I'm sure he will find your argument more persuasive than I do.
Show me in the constitution where that right is given to the government.
Well, mostly Article 1 Section 8 for the federal government, if the food is interstate commerce (and nearly all food is now except for local grown farm products).
For state and local government, it varies, but nearly all state constitutions give state government (and sometimes local) the nearly unrestricted right to regulate the sale of food.
That's such a silly argument. The constitutional does not explicitly give you the right to spit in your bathtub either.
Clearly, the tenth amendment gives the people the power to spit in their bathtub and drive a car.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
But the States are the ones conducting the checkpoints, not the federal government. Have to keep that squarely in mind when talking about how rights and restrictions come into play here. If it is does not fall under 14th amendment restrictions, the individual states have carte blanche.
People who are against the check points need to talk to family members of people who have died as a result of a drunk driver. Because if it were not for check points you'd see a lot more fatal DUI's.
People who are for the check points need to talk to those who fight against those that abuse our rights. We didn't fight a revolutionary war to replace British tyranny with our own tyranny.
These are illegal where I live, but I have no problem with them. Your license is issued by the state and you are driving on public roads. You have to follow certain laws. Police ensure you are doing so. Don't like it? -- Dont drive!
Problem is with what you suggest... where is the probable cause to get all gestapo one a person traveling and broke no laws to suspect they broke a law.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
