DWI Law Latest Case of Disregard for Constitution

Albuquerque Journal ^ | Friday, May 6, 2005 | By Peter G. Simonson, Executive Director, ACLU of New Mexico

[elkfersupper]

Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every now and then. The ACLU gets it right for once.

[jocon307]

"The ACLU gets it right for once."

Gotta agree. All this seizure stuff is out of control. And the way it is done, a disgrace.

[elkfersupper]

The op/ed piece doesn't mention it, but they can also call your house a nuisance, confiscate and sell it if the police department's "Party Patrol" find alcohol and minors there at the same time----adults / parents there or not.

[ellery]

Recall that in this country the Constitution guarantees people the chance to prove their innocence in court before suffering the government's punishment.

I agree with this ACLU guy, overall (for once!). HOWEVER, I can't believe he is undercutting the case by the absurd statement, above. No one in our system has to prove his or her innocence -- innocence is presumed. The government has to prove a person guilty. That's not a minor distinction.

[claudiustg]

What's constitutional about the gun laws in Massachusetts, New York, or California?

[elkfersupper]

I agree, but the people have allowed and encouraged this perversion.

There are a number of offenses for which you are guilty until proven innocent. Most notably, DWI, domestic violence, tax evasion.

[elkfersupper]

What's constitutional about the gun laws in Massachusetts, New York, or California?

Nothing I can see. It's mob rule facilitated by decades of disinformation.

[Logical me]

Many years ago I said we were being put in a box and not allowed to come out. Our fear is our Government. It is out of control. This included the three branches of the feds right down to local townships. America is headed for another civil war and I don't like the battle groups. The most uneducated jacka@@ in America go for politics. We are being lawed to death.

[NautiNurse]

Why did the mayor get re-elected if he's been screwing up since 1999?

[elkfersupper]

America is headed for another civil war and I don't like the battle groups.

The good news is the people who just want to be left alone have more guns. We're just not organized.

[elkfersupper]

Why did the mayor get re-elected if he's been screwing up since 1999?

Democrat in a Blue area of a Red state. He's up for election again this October. He's running and will probably be reelected.

[sandydipper]

"....we're just not organized"

The first amendmant gives us the right to "peaceably assemble" - I just need to know where and when.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

The New York and San Francisco chapters of the ACLU are always wrong. The other chapters do some good on some occasions.

[elkfersupper]

I just need to know where and when..

Waiting for the catalyst here, also. It's only a matter of time.

[JLS]

Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every now and then. The ACLU gets it right for once.
________________________________________________________

I agree but didn't SCOTUS allow Detroit or some Michigan governmental body to seize the car of a woman whose spouse was caught in engaging a hooker in said car. I think those were the basic fact and I found that one pretty outrageous and I thought clearly a taking without due process or compensation. But as I said, the way I remember it SCOTUS upheld the law?

[elkfersupper]

SCOTUS also has upheld laws requiring one to testify against oneself and to provide evidence without a warrant in DWI cases.

They are wrong on this and have been wrong before. Remember Dred Scott? It took a civil war to straighten that one out.

[JLS]

Here is the citation to the michigan case I mentioned:

http://www.fear.org/bennis.html

and here is a page that has cites to several takings cases:

http://www.fear.org/sctcas.html

[JLS]

I tend to agree with you. I am only trying to provide you with information to further the discussion. It is shocking to me that the government could seize you property if someone uses it without your knowledge in a crime?

[elkfersupper]

I tend to agree with you. I am only trying to provide you with information...

Thanks. I'm looking at your citations. Will have some more of my own to add later, if I can find time.

[Abogado]

The below statement asserted by the author as a historical fact in the story is wrong.

"Recall that in this country the Constitution guarantees people the chance to prove their innocence in court before suffering the government's punishment."

It is has been and - unless the communists like ACLU finally prevail - will always be:

In this country the Constitution guarantees that the government must prove a person's guilt before that person suffers the government's punishment.

American citizens do not have the burden of proving their innocence under our Constitution. Think about it, does one really want to have the burden of proving their innocence under a regime run by Clintons?

Just another standard deceptive tactic attempted by America's enemies to reshape the minds of the prospective victims (and prospective jury pools). Its an insidious strategy because of the author's casual method of inserting the deception as established fact.