"Me, desperate? I'm not in opposition to our Constitution kid, -- you are."...
Add to your desperation, condescendingly calling me kid repeatedly. I'm well past half my age of life expectancy. Not as bad as saying I'm against the 4tha Amend. lol, but still desperate.
"USSC really did ignore the 4th in their DUI roadblock 'ruling'. -- They admitted it."
Wrong again. They state clearly that a temporary roadblock checking for DUIs is a minimal intrusion and thus reasonable. Read the Constitution. Read the 4th Amendment.
"You're simply wrong to say they "-- have the final say on the constitutional assessment of a law --"
LOL. The simple reality is that you don't have "rule of law" without a final judge...liberals would love that, a black hole of litigious cases meaning nothing, all revolving around a narcisim of rantings, "my opinion is what matters". The reality is that the Supreme court is the final arbiter in constitutionality. There is one thing that has primacy over the Supreme Court -the next Supreme Court.
"Wrong again. They state clearly that a temporary roadblock checking for DUIs is a minimal intrusion and thus reasonable. Read the Constitution. Read the 4th Amendment."
Would pulling someone one of their car, searching it, moving it, threatening the person with arrest, and running their license when they don't want to tell the officer where they're going be minimal intrusion?
When people right desperate things like this,
Me, desperate? I'm not in opposition to our Constitution kid, -- you are.
Add to your desperation, condescendingly calling me kid repeatedly. I'm well past half my age of life expectancy. Not as bad as saying I'm against the 4tha Amend. lol, but still desperate.
It's your childish repetitive debate style I refer too -- not your actual age. -- You're defending roadblocks, I'm not.
it usually means they disagree with the reality of a situation.
Our Constitution is real, and the USSC really did ignore the 4th in their DUI roadblock 'ruling'. -- They admitted it.
Wrong again. They state clearly that a temporary roadblock checking for DUIs is a minimal intrusion and thus reasonable. Read the Constitution. Read the 4th Amendment.
I've read them both. Nothing is said about "minimal intrusion" being reasonable. -- That's hyperbole from the authoritarian position.
I know you are having a hard time interpreting constitutionality, so I'll repeat again...The SC has ruled that DWI and DUI checkpoints are constitutional.
Read the links I and others have provided to prove our point that the SC was ~wrong~. Just as they have been so many times in the past.
You keep bringing up "infalliable" as it related to the SC, this is just an inferiror straw man. Of course the SC is simply part of the system of laws in our country. But they do have the final say on the constitutional assessment of a law, and they have had their say here.
You're simply wrong to say they "-- have the final say on the constitutional assessment of a law --"
LOL. The simple reality is that you don't have "rule of law" without a final judge...
Our final judgment on individual rights is our Constitution's rule of law under due process.
Justice Harlan on that subject:
"-- The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.
It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . .
DUI roadblocks are "substantial arbitrary impositions".
liberals would love that, a black hole of litigious cases meaning nothing, all revolving around a narcisim of rantings, "my opinion is what matters". The reality is that the Supreme court is the final arbiter in constitutionality. There is one thing that has primacy over the Supreme Court -the next Supreme Court.
Read the 10th & the 14th. The 'final arbiter' of Constitutionality is whether our rights to life, liberty, or property are being infringed upon by powers not delegated.
There is no power to block roads [for DUI control] delegated to ~any~ legislative body in the USA.
Again; - read Marbury. Marshall admitted in 1803 that the SC is also bound by the basic principles of our Constitution. -- 'Laws' that are repugnant to our constitutions principles are null & void from enactment, -- and no SC 'assessment' can make them valid.