I'm sorry, but...

09/18/2007 | Philistone

[Dominick]

‘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. ‘

You don’t have a ‘right’ to drive. Sorry, your just wrong about this one. The others I tend to agree with. But driving is not a ‘right’ under any interpretation of the Constitution.

Under common law you have a right to use your own property. We weakened that right by telling people that driving is a privilege. That still does not give you the right to use that property in an unsafe manner, as in being drunk. Just as the right to bear arms does not give you the right to shoot people.

Using your own car is a common law right we have given up.

[L98Fiero]

“You don’t have a ‘right’ to drive.”

When you are in possession of a valid license, you damn well DO have the right to drive. Nobody claimed that right was Constitutionally protected one. The Constitution does not grant rights, bud. It protects them.

[Filo]

You don’t have a ‘right’ to drive. Sorry, your just wrong about this one. The others I tend to agree with. But driving is not a ‘right’ under any interpretation of the Constitution.

Regardless, we still have a Constitutional protection from illegal search and seizure. . .

[Badeye]

You don’t have a ‘right’ to drive. Sorry, your just wrong about this one.
But he does have a right of protection against unreasonable search and/or seizure...

Its not unreasonable, given when it occurs, and the number of dead each year as a direct result of drunk drivers, and the fact that driving is not a right.

[Badeye]

But driving is not a ‘right’ under any interpretation of the Constitution.
Neither is walking down the street.

Hmmmm.

How many people die from drunk walkers?

[mosaicwolf]

Your right. Driving is not referred to in the Constitution; neither is abortion.

[JamesP81]

You don’t have a ‘right’ to drive. Sorry, your just wrong about this one. The others I tend to agree with. But driving is not a ‘right’ under any interpretation of the Constitution.

No, but being secured in one's person, possessions, and papers against unreasonable search and seizure is a right. I don't give a damn if the car is on a public road. You don't forfeit your Constitutional rights when you start your car.

[packrat35]

He never claimed driving was a right.

[GinaLolaB]

I am sorry that Bush is bringing in so many Muslims to this Christian country. He is Balkanizing the United States. The future does not look bright. The man destroyed the USA.

[Borges]

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

Come on that's overstating things a bit no? There are more than a few public school teachers here.

[ElkGroveDan]

How many people die from drunk walkers? You are changing the subject. The question was regarding forms of travel that are specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

[JamesP81]

Its not unreasonable, given when it occurs,

If he doesn't have a warrant, or really strong probable cause, it's unreasonable. Random stops and searches are illegal. Period.

[CJ Wolf]

“Its not unreasonable, given when it occurs, and the number of dead each year as a direct result of drunk drivers, and the fact that driving is not a right.”

Sorry but you are wrong, when it’s a random stop with no probable cause it’s wrong.

[Badeye]

“You don’t have a ‘right’ to drive. Sorry, your just wrong about this one. The others I tend to agree with. But driving is not a ‘right’ under any interpretation of the Constitution.”

I think he was talking about unreasonable searches, you know amendment four, not the ‘right’ to drive.

Given the stats related to the percentage of drivers drunk at very specific times (after 11PM any day of the week) its not ‘unreasonable’.

And I think the courts have ruled along this line repeatedly when its been challenged.

Disclaimer; One of my childhood friends, who was to be in my wedding party as an usher was killed by a drunk driver.

While sitting on his COUCH in his LIVING ROOM.

Hence, I’m a bit hardcore about drunk driving. Its my personal belief the third time your caught driving drunk, the state should surgically remove your eyesight to protect the rest of us.

Yes, I know its Draconian. Then again, I held my friends six month old daughter while we buried him...

[JamesP81]

Ping

[American_Centurion]

Any search without reasonable suspicion that the individual targeted is guilty IS UNREASONABLE. WAYR?

[sure_fine]

I have grown sick of the “ its for the children “ crap

because that is all it is, crap

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

For most of a lot of those things, I’m glad.

[highimpact]

Excellent points, all of them. I didn’t care for the tone though. Saying, “I’m sorry that, but” 30 times in a row leaves me with the impression that you’re not really sorry, you’re just being sarcastic. I’m not saying that to flame you, it’s just my gut reaction.

[Alas Babylon!]

I’m sorry that your husband was killed on the Long Island Railroad by an insane Colin Ferguson, but that doesn’t give you the right to take away my guns and therefore make me as vunerable as your husband was on the train.