• 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

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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.

Well, I did, as the "me's" still comprised the other 60% of us, and by that time, we were pissed!!!

That's why we won the war.

That's also why we'll win the next one.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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?

But California does because it acknowledges the U.S. constitution as the supreme law.


CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA


SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the
United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the
supreme law of the land.
 

MR Redenck

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Messages
596
Location
West Texas
Well bust my chops why dont ya.
First, I have tried the commented , " See a drunk, call the cops". That doesnt work where I live. I have done this many times. Followed the vehicle all the way across town and never a cop in site.
Second, I dont need introductions to Thomas Jefferson's quotes. Im a bigger fan of Jefferson than most people could emagine.

My issue with the checkpoint is simply a desire to reduce drunk driveing.
Like I said in my post, the one's I have been through in New Mexico were pretty mild.
Also understand that my experiance didnt involve question about where am I going, What an I doing, Are there any guns in your truck, ect....
All I got was a simple " hello sir, have you been drinking". And sometimes a follow up of what the check point is attempting to prevent.
When focussed on something as negative to us as drunk driving is, I think it could be a good thing.
Now if the LE abuses the original meaning of DWI checkpoint while im there, yall will be reading a new post " I got thrown in jail"!!!

Im the first person to always say LE sucks. But im also the first person who offers help when needed. When LE does something that actually " PREVENT's CRIME" such as catching drunks before they run me over, how can I complain.

After reading all yall's post, I do understand what everyone thinks. I also think the same thing. " Give the Law and Law Makers a little, and they want more untill they have it all" !! The goal is to establish methods such as this that will limit all negative results.
Is it possible??? :idea:
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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?

SCOTUS' judicial powers were clearly laid out in the Constitution:

Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. - U.S. Constitution​

Their power to review cases for Constitutionality is directly granted in this line: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution...", and their jurisdiction is appellate, as per the last.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP Their power to review cases for Constitutionality is directly granted in this line: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution...", and their jurisdiction is appellate, as per the last.

I don't know that I agree. Judicial review from the viewpoint of nullifying the actions of another branch for constitutionality, especially the legislative, is widely different from hearing a case like a bench trial on original jurisdiction, or hearing an appeal on a question of law.

There is history on this. Lots. This is why I keep saying we can go around and around on it.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
Well bust my chops why dont ya.
First, I have tried the commented , " See a drunk, call the cops". That doesnt work where I live. I have done this many times. Followed the vehicle all the way across town and never a cop in site.
Second, I dont need introductions to Thomas Jefferson's quotes. Im a bigger fan of Jefferson than most people could emagine.

My issue with the checkpoint is simply a desire to reduce drunk driveing.
Like I said in my post, the one's I have been through in New Mexico were pretty mild.
Also understand that my experiance didnt involve question about where am I going, What an I doing, Are there any guns in your truck, ect....
All I got was a simple " hello sir, have you been drinking". And sometimes a follow up of what the check point is attempting to prevent.
When focussed on something as negative to us as drunk driving is, I think it could be a good thing.
Now if the LE abuses the original meaning of DWI checkpoint while im there, yall will be reading a new post " I got thrown in jail"!!!

Im the first person to always say LE sucks. But im also the first person who offers help when needed. When LE does something that actually " PREVENT's CRIME" such as catching drunks before they run me over, how can I complain.

After reading all yall's post, I do understand what everyone thinks. I also think the same thing. " Give the Law and Law Makers a little, and they want more untill they have it all" !! The goal is to establish methods such as this that will limit all negative results.
Is it possible??? :idea:

How about this... statistics show that the money spent on checkpoints would be better spent on increased roving patrols who pull people over for obviously impaired driving. Why would we have a program that not only abridges our liberties, but is ineffective at doing so?

source 1
source 2
Also see dissenting opinion in Michigan Dept of State Police v. Sitz
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
How about this... statistics show that the money spent on checkpoints would be better spent on increased roving patrols who pull people over for obviously impaired driving. Why would we have a program that not only abridges our liberties, but is ineffective at doing so?

source 1
source 2
Also see dissenting opinion in Michigan Dept of State Police v. Sitz

Jeezus! They knew DUI roadblocks were ineffective even at the time they decided the case!

Thanks for the cite Tawnos!

The link below takes you to the summary. Then click on each of the two dissents. They're relatively short so reading won't take long.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0496_0444_ZS.html
 
Last edited:

MR Redenck

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Messages
596
Location
West Texas
Looks like this subject has prooven to be a failure to us all once again. I admit, the checkpoints I have been through have not been much of an issure at all, but I also realize that the common practice of these checkpoints wont do nothing but negativly effect us sooner or later.
DWI's, they also negativly effect us. Sometimes they also take lives.
When compairing DWI's to the Checkpoints, we lose on both counts.
I once again find myself asking " How do you handle these issues".
Anytime LE makes these decissions, they just simply infringe upon us all.
Is it hard to crack down on DWI's, I think not. Harsh punishment is the proper method for dealing with criminal activity. Here in Texas, a bunch of Libtard are trying to pass a new law that will take it easy on first time offenders. I have never had a DWI because I choose to conduct myself in a manner that does not negativly effect other honest people. When I report drunk driver, my efforts go un-noticed.
What can we expect when we do our part as citizens when Law Enforcement doesnt listen to what " We The People" are saying? :cuss:
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
Being as I drive for a living I've seen a few and reported them via 911. The dispatcher always sounds a bit annoyed that I called. Once I reported one on I-10 at Federal Rd. He was moving about 35-40 usually and sometimes would roll up to about the speed limit, which is 60, all the while changing lanes like he was in a bumper car. By the time a cop called and asked immediately upon my answering the phone, "Where is this drunk driver at right now?" I replied, "Hell if I know. I'm coming into Beaumont. He got off at Sheldon Rd. That was over an hour ago". I haven't called in on one since, and never will again in Houston.

Louisiana has a different mindset I guess. I've called in on 2 on I-10 and within 3 and 5 miles LSP had them on the side of the road.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Wow. According to one of the posters, I'm a "Constitutionalist." Since that's the document upon which our entire system of justice is based, it means those who aren't Constitutionalists are law-hating, if not law-breaking citizens.

Nice. Not too bright, though.

Good video. Kudos to the guy who pulled it off, and a hearty thanks for putting it on YouTube as a way of help educating others.
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
IF 22% of drivers (percent cited for DUI when stopped) are responsible for 37% of the fatal accidents (as of 2008 statistics) warrant the unwarranted stopping of random or all motorists ...

THEN how much of a step is it to the unwarranted stopping of a select group of the population because more than 50% of crime is committed by that particular small group of the population?

Is there anyone who would agree that the second part would be appropriate, even though it surely would assist in apprehending criminals that are a danger to the populace in general?
 
Top