Posted on 09/18/2007 9:39:52 AM PDT by Philistone
I'm sorry that your child was killed by a drunk driver, but that doesn't give you the right to pull my car over at random and search me or it.
I'm sorry that your father died of lung cancer at the age of 60, but that doesn't give you the right to tell me I can't smoke in my own house or car.
I'm sorry that your best friend died of a heart-attack after eating nothing but Big Macs all his life, but that doesn't give you the right to tell me that I can't eat fats if I want to.
I'm sorry that you were raised to be squeamish at the sight of blood, but that does not give you the right to force me to eat only vegetables or wear only plant fibers.
I'm sorry that you can't afford health insurance, but that does not give you the right to force me to provide it for you.
I'm sorry that over 150 years ago people with the same color skin as me enslaved people with the same color skin as you, but that doesn't give you the right take the hard-earned efforts of my labor for yourself.
I'm sorry that your homeland is corrupt and your culture has no work ethic, but that doesn't give you the right to come here illegally and burden our schools and emergency rooms with your presence.
I'm sorry that your parents chose to come here illegally, but that doesn't give you the right to force me to fund your college education.
I'm sorry that you find it fashionable to ride your bike to work, but that doesn't give you the right to take away my car.
I'm sorry that your lack of intelligence and attention through high school and college left you fit only for a job as a public school teacher, but that doesn't give you the right to inflict your anger and ideology on my child.
I'm sorry that you are mentally and physically unfit to serve in our nation's Armed Forces, but that does not give you the right to disparage those who are fit and do serve.
I'm sorry that your parents and teachers continually told you that you are unique and special, but you are not.
I'm sorry that the jocks stuffed you in your locker in high school, but that doesn't give you the right to equate my President with Hitler.
I'm sorry that you failed Trigonometry, but that doesn't give you the right to equate Sociology with Engineering
I'm sorry that you are not as attractive as other women, but that does not give you the right to impose your feminist idiocracy on me, my company or my family.
I'm sorry that your nervous system is so exquisitely sensitive that you can be hurt by minute variations in air pressure caused by sound waves, but that doesn't give you the right to determine what I can and can not say.
I'm sorry that your enormous ego coupled with a complete lack of self-esteem, lack of any sense of self-worth and ignorance about how the real world works has led you to becoming a Liberal, but... Well, no buts. I'm not really sorry.
Remember: Anyone who tells you "it's for the children" believes that YOU are a child.
There's enough here to keep my head spinning all afternoon.
Ownership of real property and automobiles is a separate issue from whether or not one may legally use an automobile on the road. Home ownership is not licensed, nor is vehicle ownership. Anyone who has the money can purchase either.
Being licensed to drive (and having your vehicle registered to operate) on the public roads is a different matter, though it pains me greatly to say it.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.
Unless, of course, you're an undocumented worker in California. Then laws are changed, seas are parted & heaven and earth are moved to facilitate your right to drive.
Ya think?
‘I ask again: Did horse-riders and drivers have to be even licensed, much less pulled over to see if they were drunk?’
I know they were routinely cited for ‘speeding’ in city limits. US Grant was cited during the Civil War for this specifically in Washington DC.
But I don’t recall thousands killed or injured due to ‘drunk horsemen’ do you? As such, while its a nice exercise in ‘theory’ its simply not applicable in 2007.
Oreo Cakester and Kroger 2% milk in my Avon Deer glass which I think is really meant for beer.
Richard M. Nixon instituted the war on drugs when he changed the old BNDD to the DEA and started approving “buy” money for undercover agents. And that includes sending G, Gordon Liddy to Mexico to interdict and poison (Paraquat) the flow of weed.
1 situation is as egregious as the other, and is basically the same - violation of 4th Amend. That’s why I made an assumption that you might approve of those “random searches (for no good reason)”.
Actually, I was thinking - maybe I’m recalling poorly - that we disagree a alot. It seemed to me very recently that’s what I think when I see your name. ;-)
To me, the idiot drunk drivers are not the ones out there being given criminal records for being at a .08 level. They are not a danger to the public. The ones who are killing people will have double or triple that amount in their system. Personally, I believe the police will get more dangerous drivers off the road on any given day by putting out teams of well trained observant officers than by putting up these checkpoints.
I don’t see how you can determine if somebody is driving drunk by ‘watching’ them go by at 55 MPH.
And that is exactly what the point of the original posting was.
‘I imagine that if a police officer had saw this kid, there likely would’ve been probably cause for his erratic driving. That hardly would’ve constituted a random stop.’
I related my personal experience on this topic as a ‘disclaimer’ so that everybody reading the thread understood where I’m coming from on the topic in general terms. Not as a reason for the specifics of ‘random stops’ but to reveal my own bias on this.
Hell, I thought I was being very ‘above board’ by doing so, in the interest of being ‘fair’.
so its your view we let it continue to escalate (drunk driving)?
Is that your position? If it isn’t, I’d like to hear your solution to this ongoing problem.
Bully for you. To those of us affected by this nonsense, it means a great deal.
You know what I’m saying here if you have that one at your fingertips.
‘Yeah, what you’re saying is that government authorities don’t even have to follow prevailing SCOTUS decisions if it doesn’t suit them .. and that you’re OK with that.’
Not at all. I’m saying you know the prevailing case precedents that have been cited over and over and over again, in spite of the ‘cherrypicked’ ruling you offered me above from 1979.
And your response pretty much confirms I’m right about that aspect, otherwise you’d cited those cases SINCE the 1979 ruling.
“Ultimately, a man must decide which is more important to him: freedom or safety. And here’s another truth: if you decide freedom is more important, you could very well pay for that with your life. If this risk is unacceptable, then there are other societies that can reduce this risk for you...at the cost of your freedoms. As for me and mine, we have chosen the animating contest of freedom.”
BRAVO.
‘I wouldn’t say they mean nothing...but I would say that personal tragedy, however tragic, should trump the Constitution. Ever’
Random stops are not ‘unconstitutional’ and driving isn’t protected by the Constitution, its not a ‘right’.
Remember? We just had that part of the discussion up above.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.