[miss print]

The U.S. Constitution was set up that the individual was innocent until the government proved them guilty. With the way the government has been conducting itself in the last few years, we are all guilty until we prove ourselves innocent. For that reason, I oppose "check-points" to find drunken drivers. The use of check-points means that all drivers are guilty until they prove that they aren't drinking and driving. The check-points can be used to check one's car for all sorts of other things, e.g., contraband, etc. The use of them inures Americans to the fact that our constitutional rights are being violated. People become afraid to oppose them, too, as we are told these check-points are taking the bad drivers off the road and, after all, don't we all want to be safer? ("What's the matter, fella, you got a problem with being safer?") Etc., etc.

[JD86]

The U.S. Constitution was set up that the individual was innocent until the government proved them guilty.

On this point we agree. I would point out however that at the time the Constitution was written, there were thousands of people in the country versus millions of people in the country. The absolute freedom available in Kentucky when the nearest house was 100 miles away is not available in Kentucky in a subdivision where the next house is 10 ft. away. Does that I mean all constitutional rights should be subjugated to the needs of the government? NO. Does it mean I think there is never a time when a limit on a constitutional right is permissible? NO. I think each situation must be adjudged on its own merits. Balancing the constitutional right in question against the provisions of the Constitution which provide for the enactment of laws for the General Welfare of the People.
People sometimes forget that there is more to the Constitution than the Bill of Rights.