Posted on 12/31/2008 2:53:07 PM PST by Ron Jeremy
If you don't want answers to your questions don't ask them!
Yes, I shudder to think that if this guy's claims are true, that he was ever allowed within 200 miles of anywhere where legislation was being drafted and received renumeration for anything. And if so I would wish that there would be a way to revoke any retirement benefits that this pair of clown shoe's is receiving.
I never asked what Washington would do, I asked if he was required to have a license to ride his horse from point A to point B.
“Driving a car is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT. “
So you’re saying that if I own some land and I own a car, I do not have a right to drive the car I own on the land I own?
The only argument I have.... The story is, Pa and Ma Kettle go to dinner. They both have a couple drinks. Pa Kettle has a DUI checkpoint going home and admits to a couple of drinks. Pa fails the one foot stand for 30 seconds and reciting his ABC's backward. Pa goes to jail. Unfortunatly for Pa his is an OTR driver and is now without work. Pa and Ma Kettle just had their pursuit of happiness wiped out on top of a 5000 hit on their budget.
It's all BS.
LOL! I'll have to remember that.
We need to put it in "FReeper Lore." ;-)
In other states and countries. And other leaders after Lightner left.
I read the article, and got the impresssion that pressure groups such as MADD were encouraging government agencies to enact tighter controls/enforcement over the activities of their interest. Licensure, in itself wasn't the theme. There's an awful lot of stuff that the Constitution doesn't guarantee. To give any kind of interest group too much influence over the granting of permission to engage in any of these 'non-guaranteed' activities may tend to restrict the enjoyment of them, wouldnt you agree? Who elected MADD anyway, or does it matter? Most of the details of our lives are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, should the police then be allowed Carte Blanche in arranging their control?
There are systems of private roads in this country however. St. Louis used to have mostly private roads. They still do. The locals agree together to use their own roads, and outsiders don't get in.
Even Virginia allows for the reversion of public right of way to private control. You can just imagine the rules private owner/operators place on their own roads.
At the moment the people's own assemblies have evaluated the situation and established laws for the safe operation of the roads on public right of way. You are free to campaign for different laws. In this state you could win everything you wanted and we'd all have the right to withdraw our property from the public right of way and revert it to private ownership and operation.
Outsiders commiting DUI on our property would be dragged through the courts and stripped of all income and possessions. There'd be no end to the punishment.
You should get on your knees and thank God that you aren't in charge because it could be much worse.
Yes, this is another aspect of the “War on Drugs”.
How come you can't turn around at a check point? When NYC posted policemen to conduct random searches of bags prior to entering the subway system, you had the right to refuse a search and go on your way, just not onto the subway. Turn around before a police road block, and they go after you.
That is usually true enough.........but from personal experience this part of your comment is not always true:
You could have walked the line and passed the Breathalyzer.
I blew .05, without having consumed any alcohol at all. Granted that is not over the limit, but it is high enough to be detained or even arrested. IOW, those breathalyzers are not exactly stellarly accurate.
Depends upon the size of the glass and type wine!
There are those who want to use the public roads, while ignoring the public's laws.
So, what is happening in the DUI field? Same thing that’s always been happening. The real danger to your lives, to my children’s and your children’s lives, are from recidivists. Statistically, the risk lies with recidivists — people that have driven drunk repeatedly. Which is, despite what MADD says, a relatively small percentage of those who are arrested. Problem? How do you reach those people? Can you affect the incidence of death caused by DUIs by increasing the punishment? As to those recidivists, I tell you: no.
100% truth. A whole swath of criminals need to be permanently eliminated - out of society, out of the gene pool. Three-strikes laws are an excellent first step in that process, but far from being enough.
The sole point in the speech I disagree with is:
It was not an intentional act. It was negligent; it may have been reckless. And the prosecutor sought the death penalty. The death penalty. The law permitted it and the judge let him go for it. Fortunately, they didn’t get it.
And I only disagree tepidly (my hesitance hinging only on the severe problems - pointed out in the speech - with the conviction mechanism). Any action performed while under the influence of voluntarily administered mind-altering narcotics (booze, cocaine, heroine, marijuana, etc) should be legally considered an INTENTIONAL act. If "the drug made you do it" and you willingly, consciously, voluntarily, took the drug, then you are the ultimate menace to society. If you can't handle that, keep a clear mind.
Kelo is the law of the land, too. Doesn't mean it's right or that we should not resist it.
I was called to federal jury duty right after US v. Watts was handed down in 1997, and the case had similarities to Watts, which, IMO, legalized double jeopardy. During voir dire, I told the judge that, if there was a vote to accquit on the more serious charge, I would be compelled to accquit on the less serious charge despite the evidence. The judge tried but could not fault my reasoning. Five years later, SCOTUS basically reversed Watts.
You have to stand up to this stuff wherever you can. I respect your opinion about the current realities of the court. But I cannot accept that reality.
We have what were called "Rolling Roads" around here. Those were roads set aside for the purpose of moving tobacco from plantations to ports to be loaded for shipment to Europe.
Since no one had any money back in colonial times, the planters would "donate" right of way for construction of the "rolling road". Others would donate hogsheads of tobacco to the county to improve and clear the roadway.
Years back the Commonwealth of Virginia proposed cutting off the historic residual (which made up my housing development) from its rights to access a "rolling road". They intended to build a brand new super highway between my house and the "rolling road".
We went to a public hearing where I claimed my right of access. The State and county figured it was easier to buy me off than challenge my right of access ~ which is how we got a stoplight system at the entrance to our development on a different main thoroughfare.
The colonial owner of this site at the time the "rolling road" was built was a Mr. Fitzhugh, a notorious Tory who never even visited America. His property was seized by the Commonwealth during the Revolution, but at the conclusion of the War and the signing of the Treaty of Paris, the "rights" pertaining to his land and his usages (albeit under new owners) were re-estblished.
George Washington would have needed the explicit permission of Mr. Fitzhugh (in London) to travel from Cherry Valley in the North to Mount Vernon in the South but for the "rolling road" I mentioned. That he, he would have needed "license". Fortunately for me Fitzhugh managed to get the "rolling road" built on his land rather than his neighbors, so he didn't need to pay for maintenance ~ at the same time, every part of the area retained a right of access to the "rolling road" for time ever after!
Good post. I agree.
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.