Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Eldon Tyrell
The issue here is an implied consent to give away fundemental rights.

This is why we have a 2nd amendment. To protect the others.

No, the issue is not fundamental rights. There is no fundamental right to driving a vehicle, people choose to drive. With this choice, the driver (dependent on the state they are licensed in) knowingly signs the 'implied consent' waiver. Yes, you can refuse to give a blood sample. That is your right under the US Constitution. However, the LEO can then exercise the (usual) state provision under the 'implied consent' law and confiscate your drivers license, and if there isn't another licensed driver in the vehicle, impound your vehicle.
So, you can exercise your rights under the US Constitution. I highly recommend it. However, you better know a real good attorney and have their phone number handy.

45 posted on 11/13/2010 7:05:49 AM PST by Traveler59 (Truth is a journey, not a destination.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]


To: Traveler59
There is no fundamental right to driving a vehicle, people choose to drive.

Most people in the nation "choose" to drive in the same manner which people "choose" to submit to an electronic strip search or being groped by a government functionary at the airport.

47 posted on 11/13/2010 7:09:26 AM PST by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

To: Traveler59

Lots of words - not a lot of thinking.

The point here is - the government can’t decide that you have consented to give up your constitutional rights.

There is a difference between negotiation and coersion. The Constitution is not negotiable.

Your argument is an EXTREMELY slippery slope. Next - following your logic - if you choose to drive on the roads, we can access the computer in your trunk. If you choose to fly, we can ....

Your argument is backwards - it has nothing to do with the right to drive a car - which was never claimed, by the way. It has to do with rights which the government CANNOT abridge for any reason. The government is constrained by the Constitution - they cannot coerce a citizen to nullify their Constitutional rights.


55 posted on 11/13/2010 5:49:18 PM PST by Eldon Tyrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

To: Traveler59

Not exactly. It’s not LEO that suspends a license under implied consent. It’s the licensing agency (motor vehicles) that suspends for failure to take a test.

When a cop impounds a vehicle, it has nothing to do with the driver not taking a test. It has to do with public safety and protection of the personal property of the driver he is arresting. When a cop takes a driver into custody, the government accepts liability.


58 posted on 11/13/2010 9:43:41 PM PST by chilltherats (He was born with a roaring voice, and it had the trick of inflaming half-wits against their betters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson