Sobriety Checkpoints

[Kirk Freeman]

Not the preamble but the police power of the states that the Constitution mandates.

It is a matter of reasonableness. I can guarantee you that if we have roadblocks in the neighborhoods of judges, roadblocks will become incredibly unconstutitional overnight.

 

[Survivalcookie]

This sort of lazy thinking is what brought us into this police state/nanny state.

Any tyrannical law or social welfare program can be justified in this same way.

Do you think law enforcement should arrest criminal?
Do you think people who paid into Social Security should get their money or more than they paid into it?
Do you think people should receive unemployment?


Do you not think taking guns out of the hands of criminals is beneficial to the general welfare of the people?

Yes I do think taking guns out of the hands of criminals would be beneficial to the general welfare of the people. But that can never be done unless you know who the criminals are. And that is impossible until they are caught.

Do you not think providing affordable health care to all is beneficial to the general welfare of the people?

Life is not fair, what is affordable to you might not be affordable to me. If you are speaking of Obama Care, no I don't like it. I think we as a nation should take of those who truly cannot take care of themselves, or are care givers to the extremely handicapped. Do you think we should kill these people at birth?

Do you not think providing free food to poor people is beneficial to the general welfare of the people?

Yes I do, if they are truly poor...but free food, not food stamps that can be traded or an EBT that they can be used to get cash instead of food. I went to bed hungry as a child, many times...it is not a good thing.
I think the food stamp program should be vouchers like the WIC program...so many pounds of meat, so many pounds of veggies and fruit, so many gallons of milk, so many pounds of flour and sugar, rice and beans, and what ever else people need to eat healthy.

 

[Survivalcookie]

Not the preamble but the police power of the states that the Constitution mandates.

It is a matter of reasonableness. I can guarantee you that if we have roadblocks in the neighborhoods of judges, roadblocks will become incredibly unconstutitional overnight.

Most road blocks are set up on highly traveled roads not neighborhoods. What difference does it make if it is a judge or governor, You have the opportunity to go around it...it is like voting you don't have to vote, like said 1 drunk check point in 40 years of driving, which took about 5 minuets from start to finish..licence please, how are you tonight, have you been drinking, no sir, have a nice day...they have not affected my live at all. But I would think if you go around it you are setting yourself up to be stopped...just like when you don't vote...it is really hard to complain about what is happening.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

What difference does it make if it is a judge or governor

Because if you subject three members of the Indiana Supreme Court to roadblocks in their neighborhoods, the ruling in Gerschoff will change overnight and roadblocks for OWIs will be as illegal as roadblocks for drugs and general crime.

 

[steveh_131]

I think the food stamp program should be vouchers like the WIC program...so many pounds of meat, so many pounds of veggies and fruit, so many gallons of milk, so many pounds of flour and sugar, rice and beans, and what ever else people need to eat healthy.

From each according to his ability.

To each according to his need.

Sounds about right.

 

[actaeon277]

Most road blocks are set up on highly traveled roads not neighborhoods. What difference does it make if it is a judge or governor, You have the opportunity to go around it...it is like voting you don't have to vote, like said 1 drunk check point in 40 years of driving, which took about 5 minuets from start to finish..licence please, how are you tonight, have you been drinking, no sir, have a nice day...they have not affected my live at all. But I would think if you go around it you are setting yourself up to be stopped...just like when you don't vote...it is really hard to complain about what is happening.

An easy violation of your rights is still a violation.
If someone used a knife to rob you of $5, would you say that it was only a knife and only $5??

And the difference about a high ranking official going through it is.... It is easier to trample on other's rights. When the official is subjected to the same violations.....

 

[actaeon277]

And yes, all our rights have limitations, such as the famous "shouting fire" limit.
But the State must show an overwhelming compelling reason.
It's hard to make that claim based on the stats provided by Kirk and many of the officers present on INGO.

 

[actaeon277]

Like I said the Constitution gives the government authority to look after the general welfare of the people...this includes taking drunk drivers off the road.
Check points are a tool nothing more. DO you not think taking drunk drivers off the road is beneficial to the general welfare of the people?

That same arguement works to take your guns away.
And your car and swimming pool.

 

[Whosyer]

The Constitution gives the authority to the government to protect the general welfare of the people...doing what they can to to protect my right to drive on the road at 2 am with out fear of being killed by a drunk driver.

PREAMBLE

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

When the founders wrote the Constitution, everyone was in bed by 8 pm. No one NEEDS to travel at 2 am. Stay off the roads at that hour, and you'll be fine.

 

[Gordy]

When I was in Civil Defense, we assisted in OPERATION PULL OVER. It was absolutely clear it has NOTHING to do with drunk drivers. The debriefings were always about how many guns they found......legal or not. In Lake County, there is an unspoken policy that they take your weapon and if you can't come down to county with a proof of purchase receipt that you own it, they keep it. They love to search your car and violate your 4th amendment right any time they can. If you think it's keeping any drunks off the road, you're probably so detached from reality you think gestapo road blocks are a good thing. Fact is, they are getting you used to it so they can progress with their intrusive plans. Remember......these drunk driving stops are paid for by grants from the federal government, not you're local community.

 

[RockofStrength]

Most road blocks are set up on highly traveled roads not neighborhoods. What difference does it make if it is a judge or governor, You have the opportunity to go around it...it is like voting you don't have to vote, like said 1 drunk check point in 40 years of driving, which took about 5 minuets from start to finish..licence please, how are you tonight, have you been drinking, no sir, have a nice day...they have not affected my live at all. But I would think if you go around it you are setting yourself up to be stopped...just like when you don't vote...it is really hard to complain about what is happening.

But it is not a power that the government (in this case the police) have any right to use. They have no right to pull me over, or impede my travel at all, without reasonable suspicion that I have done something illegal. The whole idea of a sobriety checkpoint is "you're guilty unless I'm satisfied you're innocent". The fact that it only takes a moment or two is irrelevant: I doubt we'd like to have cops search our houses while we're out shopping/working every day searching for contraband even if it caused us no serious inconvenience.

 

[ryknoll3]

Are you required to identify yourself at these checkpoints in Indiana?

 

[Denny347]

But it is not a power that the government (in this case the police) have any right to use.

According to the USSC, we do. That's how the system works. Some decisions we like and some we don't.

 

[Trigger Time]

I will avoid them. I do not believe they are legal regardless of what a black cape has said.

 

[dross]

According to the USSC, we do. That's how the system works. Some decisions we like and some we don't.

Your implication is that right and wrong change with judicial rulings.

If you democratically pass a tyrannical law, and the President signs it and the SC upholds it, it's not washed clean of its evil. It's just legal.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

And the difference about a high ranking official going through it is.... It is easier to trample on other's rights. When the official is subjected to the same violations.....

To better understand this principle in action - listen to all of the squealing that happened when a few gun manufacturers suggested that the police should be subject to the same limitations that the rest of the citizenry are....

I was told repeatedly that there was a difference between "professionals" and us "non-professionals".

Amazing how fast that happens...

 

[Denny347]

Your implication is that right and wrong change with judicial rulings.

If you democratically pass a tyrannical law, and the President signs it and the SC upholds it, it's not washed clean of its evil. It's just legal.

That's how our legal system works. It's not perfect but I don't think there is one better. I don't know of any other LEGAL way to address contested laws. How would you change our system to address "evil" laws? Who's opinion of the laws do we listen to/value if not those of the USSC?

 

[steveh_131]

How would you change our system to address "evil" laws? Who's opinion of the laws do we listen to/value if not those of the USSC?

Refuse to enforce laws that are unjust.

 

[Rookie]

Are you required to identify yourself at these checkpoints in Indiana?

Can anyone answer this?

 

[Trigger Time]

Refuse to enforce laws that are unjust.

^^^^ this! And maybe refuse to obey them if the risk is worth it. It's called assuming risk and we all do it everyday and don't even realize it. It is like what is going on with the gun grabbing politicians. If they pass a law we all know is wrong to its core but still "legal", will you obey it? I won't answer, but I think morally people who do follow those kind of laws are very wrong and will compromise for anything. Same for the officials who enforce them.

I recommend the next time an INGO member sees one of these checkpoints they immediately post it on INGO and we flood their checkpoint with cars and overwhelm them. A silent protest in a way.