Supreme Court rejects challenge to roadblocks to find unlicensed drivers

AP | 10-15-01 | Anne Gearan

[TexRef]

checkpoints---randomly detecting drunken drivers---the court found that benefits to public safety and order outweighed the inconvenience and loss of privacy suffered by motorists.

Boy, I can't wait until the inconvenience caused by random house searches and random pedestrian pat-downs are outweighted by our war on terrorism.

[Dianna]

Does anyone know what the break down was on the last decision of this type?

I'd like to think it was close, and maybe things could change when a couple retire?

[Brian Rookard]

Maybe we should just have a couple of police officers sit outside the Justice's houses, survey them with big binoculars and listening equipment (and make it really obvious they're there listening) ... maybe go up to the door, tell the judges they're coming in, that under their rulings they don't need no stinkin' warrant, have them search the house of the judges (they don't need to really look for anything or find anything - just have them snoop around - this should adequately creep out the Justices) ... the next day, when the Judge is leaving his house, have the police officer pull over the Judge about a block from his driveway, for no particular reason, tell him he's searching his car, hey - what's the Judge gonna do (he supposedly said it was alright didn't he) ... let this go on for a couple of days ... maybe the Justices will rethink their position a little after knowing what its like to be subjected to such "minor inconveniences" and being treated like a criminal.

[verity]

You could be sued for any injury resulting from knee jerk reaction to your post.;~)

[SUSSA]

That’s not the way it was supposed to be. It became that way because judges seized power and the political hacks refused to stand up to them.

The case Marbury v Madison is used as the excuse for judicial tyranny. However, neither Jefferson nor Madison (who wrote the Constitution) recognized the courts finding. It is interesting to note that the court never tried to enforce Marbury v Madison until Madison and Jefferson were dead.

Andy Jackson also stood up to the court and disregarded their ruling. The Constitution was set up so that any two branches of government could overrule the third. It did not create an oligarchy of 9 unelected dictators that we have today.

[Wolfie]

Well, then I guess the Founding Fathers were just butt-head stupid, weren't they?

From Kenneth Royce's book:

The Federal Government was given several escape keys to the putative handcuffing by the Constitution. Using the "necessary and proper" and "general welfare" clauses in conjunction with congressional powers under treaty, interstate commerce, and emergency, the "Founding Lawyers" of 1787 purposely designed a constitutional infrastructure guaranteed to facilitate a future federal colossus. While such a massive government was impossible to erect in the freedom-conscious 1780's, the "virus" of tyranny was cunningly hidden within the Constitution to foment the eventual federal behemoth we are burdened with today. The feds take in a third of economic activity and regulate everything from the price of corn to the size of chimneys and it's all constitutional! " Oh, it's only 'constitutional' because autocratic Supreme Court Justices say it is!," some would reply.

Yes, but the Framers allowed the Supreme Court, without any check or balance, to approve of federal encroachment on the States and on the people. There is no constitutional avenue for overturning a despotic Supreme Court ruling--and it was designed that way. The feds are allowed to "monitor" themselves, like students grading their own tests. Had the Framers wanted to really check the Supreme Court, they'd have at least created an appellate court (activated by petition) staffed by justices from the States. Had the Framers wanted to really hamstring Congress and the President, they would have given the people a "no-confidence" device to remove traitorous officials in midterm. Had they wanted to, the Framers could have (as did the Swiss) easily confined the Federal Government--but they didn't want to. In their opinion, a strong central government--independent of real popular approval--was best for America. The Framers left the federal fleas in control of their own flea powder, and that's why we have such an unchallengeable government today.

As far as ch

[gunnedah]

You have a right to privacy in your own home that does not carry over to a vehicle. Driving a vehicle is a privilege rather than a right.This argument has gone on for years and needs to be spelled out once and for all.People driving automobiles kill more people every year than wars do.At the rate things are going in this country you will be begging for security within the next five years or we will be wiped out.Laws are written for lawbreakers and lawyers those of us who obey the law should not mind a small amount of inconvenience.

[Flyer]

. . . those of us who obey the law should not mind a small amount of inconvenience.

You just stepped on a very slippery slope.

[ConservativeNJdad]

Let's save time and go right to methodical house to house searches. If you're not doing anything wrong, you won't mind the police looking in your closets and under your beds.

As long as they search every fourth house, and they find evidence of wrongdoing that is not immediately recognizable to police any other way, then I guess the SC would allow it.