• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

DWI Checkpoints

MR Redenck

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Messages
596
Location
West Texas
I have read a few topic on this subject. People not wanting to show I.D. and complaining that its a violation of their rights. So I thought I would start a thread of discussion.
Firts, I have no issue with DWI checkpoints because I dont drink. I have actually been through a few in the New Mexico area. Around Carlsbad, and Artesia. I have read one thread where one of our members was jacked up because he was carrying a gun, but other than that, im fine with it. As we are all aware, sometimes we run across some cops that are nothin more than Natzi Cops. Those idiots that gave the man a bunch of crap in Artesia for exercising his rights should be punished, and from what I understand they were.
Here in West Texas, I often read about accidents involving a drunk driver. If the SOB's kill themselfs I just dont care. Thats never the case though. In the past few months we have had several DWI accidents that left people dead. One of the most recent accidents, a Drunk POS right here in my home town killed both parents of a child.

We complain too damn much about stuff like this, because it could actually help with negative issues that pleague us all. Dont get me wrong, Im not saying I support harrasment by LE, I just support the effort to reduce drunk driving.
Should we suppot checkpoint, I think we should. With the same effort of support we should also make it know when LO's act in a nebative manner toward the public. When good cops conduct this type of activity, we will all benefit.
Like I said, I have been through these checkpoint afew time and never had any problem, but thats just me. Actually I have done some stupid crap like driving down the wrong side of the road in Carlsbad, and found myself going head on with a Carlsbad city cop.:eek: Believe it or not, I didnt even get a ticket. I have yet to run across Natzi Cops in other areas I travel, not yet... Most of my LE issues are right here where I live. Maybe thats why I never spend any money at home, but love to go somewhere else to spend it! :dude:
 

AZkopper

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
675
Location
Prescott, Arizona, USA
I am 100% against DUI check points. If you have no reasonable suspicion to detain someone, you should not be doing it. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS has ruled that checkpoints are 'minimally invasive and are balanced by public safety'. I disagree wholeheartedly with that argument.
 

AFPVet

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
105
Location
Indiana
Sobriety checkpoints are not the answer. This is indicative of a police state function. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that sobriety checkpoints are constitutional—as long as the individuals have a lawful means of escape; however checkpoints are once again, a function of a police state.

If people suspect a drunk driver, they should call law enforcement... law enforcement can spot drunk or impaired drivers easily! We do not need police state functions or Nazi ID laws.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I am 100% against DUI check points. If you have no reasonable suspicion to detain someone, you should not be doing it. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS has ruled that checkpoints are 'minimally invasive and are balanced by public safety'. I disagree wholeheartedly with that argument.

+1

Rights are not a balancing act.

Just the fact that the government invented the spin term "checkpoint" for something that is really a roadblock, tells you something is up.

As could be predicted, in the years these unconstitutional seizures of drivers have been perpetrated, evidence has been stacking up that they are ineffective, thus even the Court's "balance" argument is proven hollow.

Never forget that the Constitution nowhere gives SCOTUS the power to declare constitutionality. SCOTUS assumed this power to itself in 1803 in Marbury vs Madison.
 
Last edited:

AFPVet

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
105
Location
Indiana
+1

Rights are not a balancing act.

Just the fact that the government invented the spin term "checkpoint" for something that is really a roadblock, tells you something is up.

As could be predicted, in the years these unconstitutional seizures of drivers have been perpetrated, evidence has been stacking up that they are ineffective, thus even the Court's "balance" argument is proven hollow.

Never forget that the Constitution nowhere gives SCOTUS the power to declare constitutionality. SCOTUS assumed this power to itself in 1803 in Marbury vs Madison.

I just learned about this in my constitutional history class. You are absolutely right. This is where Justice John Marshall used 'judicial review'.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
I just learned about this in my constitutional history class. You are absolutely right. This is where Justice John Marshall used 'judicial review'.

If not the power to declare what is and is not constitutional, what do you think Article 3 meant by "judicial Power"?
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
If not the power to declare what is and is not constitutional, what do you think Article 3 meant by "judicial Power"?

We can go around in circles on this all day. Heh, heh, probably for about 207 years, too.

While Marshall's arguments in Marbury v Madison make sense, the real problem, in my view, is that the constitution does not expressly give SCOTUS such authority. Nor, does the constitution give such authority exclusively to SCOTUS--see, for example, the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and 1799.

The point is not whether SCOTUS needs some degree of latitude (power) in determining such questions in order to do its job. The point is whether appointed-for-life political party creatures can be trusted to protect freedom if they have that power, and they alone.

History has proven they can't. No more so than the legislative branch can be trusted to protect freedom. No more so than the executive branch can be trusted to protect freedom.
 
Last edited:

Lokster

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
127
Location
Unincorporated Jefferson County
We can go around in circles on this all day. Heh, heh, probably for about 207 years, too.

While Marshall's arguments in Marbury v Madison make sense, the real problem, in my view, is that the constitution does not expressly give SCOTUS such authority. Nor, does the constitution give such authority exclusively to SCOTUS--see, for example, the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and 1799.

The point is not whether SCOTUS needs some degree of latitude (power) in determining such questions in order to do its job. The point is whether appointed-for-life political party creatures can be trusted to protect freedom if they have that power, and they alone.

History has proven they can't. No more so than the legislative branch can be trusted to protect freedom. No more so than the executive branch can be trusted to protect freedom.

Well said, Citizen. I wish more people would understand that and the fact that originally the Constitution was only intended to apply to the Fed. The SCOTUS is not the be-all and end-all of the debate.
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
Firts, I have no issue with DWI checkpoints because I dont drink.

Will there be anyone left to help when they come for you?

Those that would give up essential liberties for temporary security deserve neither liberty or security. Ben Franklin

One should always air on the side of liberty, lest they come for you.

It could be "checkpoints" for anything next.
 

AZkopper

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
675
Location
Prescott, Arizona, USA
Citizen:

I do not want to put words in your mouth, so let me state what I think you might be saying, and then you can correct me when I'm wrong.

I believe you are saying that the SCOTUS, as originally formed, had the duty and authority to rule on Congressional laws or Executive branch decisions only, not State laws that someone might feel runs against the intent of the United States Constitution. Much in the same way Congress does not make State laws, and the President does not make governor-type descisions for States.

I first read your comments to mean that the SCOTUS (as intented) did not have the authority to declair ANY law or ruling unconstitutional. That would seem to be a strange argument, for what else would such a court have a purpose for?
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
I believe you and I were thinking of the same quote when we read MR Redneck's comment.

Probably. I did it again over in the Nevada thread yard sale mentioned.

Somebody somewhere don't mind if they take all of our guns because they don't own any.
 
Last edited:

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
We can go around in circles on this all day. Heh, heh, probably for about 207 years, too.

While Marshall's arguments in Marbury v Madison make sense, the real problem, in my view, is that the constitution does not expressly give SCOTUS such authority. Nor, does the constitution give such authority exclusively to SCOTUS--see, for example, the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and 1799.

The point is not whether SCOTUS needs some degree of latitude (power) in determining such questions in order to do its job. The point is whether appointed-for-life political party creatures can be trusted to protect freedom if they have that power, and they alone.

History has proven they can't. No more so than the legislative branch can be trusted to protect freedom. No more so than the executive branch can be trusted to protect freedom.
You earlier said the constitution does not give the judicial branch the power to determine constitutionality. I disagree with that, because inherent in the concept of "judicial Power" was the ability to judge the validity of any particular law against the metric of the constitution. This was discussed in the federalist papers, number 78, where Hamilton remarked "Limitations [on legislative power] can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void." The supreme court did not assume this power, it was inherent in the idea of the overall law of the land.

A further look at the history of the judicial branch shows that, certainly, the judicial branch was meant to have broad oversight of the laws passed in this country. In that same Federalist paper, it is remarked that one of the defects of the existing Confederation was a lack of such a judicial power. Continuing his discourse on the domain of powers such a judiciary must oversee, Hamilton remarks in Federalist 80 that the judiciary must rule on all cases "which arise out of the laws of the United States, passed in pursuance of their just and constitutional powers of legislation;". To this end, the early supreme court found it could not overturn certain state-enacted provisions, because the initial protections of the Bill of Rights were meant and secured only against federal authority. However, to deny the history that follows is to presume the constitution was birthed a perfect document, free from needing any alteration.

In ratifying the 14th amendment, a supermajority of the states agreed that those principles which were so fundamental that we held them against the strongest power in our land should also be applied against each state and for all citizens and persons in each state. Though the court faltered in this when it ruled on the Slaughter-House Cases, it has slowly realized and reattained this goal, culminating most recently with Thomas's concurring majority opinion in McDonald v. Chicago that revitalized the privileges or immunities clause. One should not ignore the history that lead to our modern situation, where part of the agreement between the union and the states is the limitation of state powers against our rights, enumerated and not. It is due to that part of the agreement that the judiciary most definitely has the power to determine constitutionality of laws, and it is quite clear from the Federalist papers that the power to interpret constitutionality was an intended consequence of "judicial Power".
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
You earlier said the constitution does not give the judicial branch the power to determine constitutionality. I disagree with that, because...

You are right. This is exactly why I said we can go around in circles all day. Marshall makes lengthy discussion on this in Marbury vs Madison. Like I said, it makes sense. Yet, he had to extract a bunch of implied powers to do it. It ain't in there, except as an implied power.


Separately, entirely separately, be careful with relying on Hamilton's Federalists for arguments. It is well understood the Federalist Papers were just op-ed letters intended to mollify antagonism towards the proposed constitution. Essentially, they were a PR campaign. Hamilton is on record as strongly desiring a British-like government, senators appointed for life, and a president appointed for life. He was no friend of liberty. He wanted the strongest central government he could get. Trust little of what he says in Federalist; some of his stuff has already been proven wrong, and other stuff was easily spotted as being so much smoke even at that time. He was basically just trying to write whatever he thought would be convincing in order to reduce resistance to the constitution.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP Citizen:...I first read your comments to mean that the SCOTUS (as intented) did not have the authority to declair ANY law or ruling unconstitutional. That would seem to be a strange argument, for what else would such a court have a purpose for?

In a sense. But, read Tawnos' posts, and Marbury vs Madison, too, because they both align on your view.

Then consider the outcome, 221 years later, of leaving an implied power totally to the discretion of the group exercising that power.

Oh, and don't forget to weigh it against the only legitimate reason for government: "We hold these truths to be self-evident...that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Note that it doesn't say all powers; only the just ones.

I'm not saying either side is wrong. I'm saying "think about this."

And, while I think about it: SCOTUS can no more have an implied power to legitimize rights violations than the other branches to perpetrate them in the first place. Stare decisis (following precedent) or not. By Marshall's own logic about the seniority of the constitution, the constitution is senior even to stare decisis.
 
Last edited:

AZkopper

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
675
Location
Prescott, Arizona, USA
Citizen, I don't want to debate (but I guess I am...), I just want to play devils advocate and try to understand your view and role of the SCOTUS.

So, California's constitution does not have a RTKBA clause. California denies its residents the ability to bear firearms for all intensive purposes. Are you saying that the 2A doesn't apply within CA, since as long as the feds are not disarming U.S. citizens, it is ok for states to? Keeping that in mind, do you think it inappropriate for McDonald to have taken Chicago to federal court over his right to keep arms?

If your answer to California's 2A problem is 'it is the people's duty to press their legislators to repeal unjust laws' or some similar aspect, what about when (as in CA), the majority may want to deprive the minority (gun owners/would be carriers) of that 'fundamental right'?

Without a legal recourse, what options due they have?

What is your view of the role of the SCOTUS in government?
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP So, California's constitution does not have a RTKBA clause. California denies its residents the ability to bear firearms for all intensive purposes. Are you saying that the 2A doesn't apply within CA, since as long as the feds are not disarming U.S. citizens, it is ok for states to? Keeping that in mind, do you think it inappropriate for McDonald to have taken Chicago to federal court over his right to keep arms?

Sorry, I didn't think to specifically address your state's rights question. I didn't even have that issue in mind at all.

Broadly, the whole scene is a mess. One big patchwork of cobbled-together jurisprudence.

Add that Article III is incomplete. The Judiciary Act of (1789?) is considered by some scholars, and not just recent one's, to actually be an amendment to the constitution. It filled in the rest of Article III without going through the amendment and ratification process.

I think we would all be better off if Marshall had just said, "Uh. The constitution doesn't give us the authority to rule on all these points, and I don't wanta set precedent that will open cans and cans of worms down the road. Congress is gonna hafta float another amendment for approval. Sorry, Mr. Marbury." The irony is that the Court didn't give Marbury his commission, anyway.

I guess the main objection is that SCOTUS formalized the concept of judicial review in Marbury v Madison, rather than the constitution or Bill of Rights formalizing it.

Separately, as far as McDonald is concerned, realize that your questions have perhaps an underlying premise that SCOTUS is/was the only remedy, ever, for the ills mentioned. Part of the problem is that SCOTUS set themselves up as the arbiter and solidified that position across time to the point where everybody has come to think of them as the only arbiter.

There is no law of the cosmos that says McDonald was needed in order to get self-defense rights back in states where they were severely abridged. It just turned out that way because of the way system evolved. For all we know, gun makers and concerned citizens could have lobbied congress critters for a commerce-clause law requiring those states to loosen their gun restrictions because the state laws were reducing gun sales. (Heh, heh. Think of the argument. OC must be legalized everywhere because prohibition of OC is reducing gun sales--people won't buy what they can't carry. :) )
 
Last edited:

TechnoWeenie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
2,084
Location
, ,
Firts, I have no issue with DWI checkpoints because I dont drink.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
 
Top