Ummm, the question at hand was which had more human characteristics, an unborn human (say 38weeks gestation) or a cockroach?
If you feel that DNA and chromosomes aren't an important part of being human, then that's fine, but since chimpanzees share 96% of the DNA of human beings and they aren't human, it seems unlikely that a cockroach, which shares much less DNA would be more human.
When they're able to ask for it, then it's obvious they deserve it.
This is awfully absurd. Maybe they are already asking to be let out of Seaworld and all the other cages we keep them in. Perhaps we aren't capable of understanding them? Does one simply ignore all signs of intelligence because we simply enjoy their tricks? Your suggestion in many ways is how slavery was justified by stating that the slaves were somehow an inferior animal.
I specifically remember Cmdr. La Forge always talking about iso-linear chips. Not once did he ever mention ARM chips. Just like Microsoft to support the wrong Next Generation systems.
I hate to say this, but it appears that Windows 7 is doing much better than the article title implies. While it is true that it broke 20%, what isn't apparent until digging into the article is that they are including Apple's iOS and Google's Android in the mix of operating systems. These weren't an issue when XP peaked as they were just looking at pc desktop/laptop installations.
Shouldn't our driving laws be objective? It is true it is a choice to drink. However, it is also true that if one is too drunk to drive, then they are also to drunk to make a rational decision regarding driving. That is what impaired means.
Drunk driving laws are not instituted to protect the drunk, but the rest of society. Therefore, shouldn't driving while under the influence of any medication that can impair you have the same punishment?
Sudafed is just as impairing as that demon rum, but only one gets you to lose your license. Two vicodins are a lot more dangerous to drive with than drinking two beers, but we don't see people being asked to submit to narcotic checkpoints.
I think you are wrong about treating people different if they cause an accident from over the counter or prescription medications. They would be quite outraged. However, they would not pass laws criminalizing driving while under those influences.
It is because society associates drunk driving with alcoholism, which is further seen as a character weakness and not an illness. It allows us to feel good about ourselves by singling out those bad alcoholics, even though it does not make the roads significantly safer.
If we were truly being objective, instead of taking people's license away, we would be mandating treatment for their drinking.
Can the government close roads? Yes. Can the government create new roads? Yes. Can people close roads? No. Can people create new roads (on public property)? No.
I'd love to see the lawsuit where there is a bridge collapse like in Minnesota and all the people of Minnesota, who owned that bridge, have to personally pay the settlement.
It's hard to say the people own the roads, when in fact they have no control over how they are used or any liability for it either?
My taxes pay for roads, yes. They also pay for tanks and bombers. That doesn't mean I can go down to the armoury and check one out. Public assets may be owned by the people, but they are not owned by individual people, only a collective.
If that collective, through their elected officials, put restrictions on their collective property (speed limits, no passing zones and yes sobriety checkpoints), then you have to abide by it. The people have spoken, even if the individual disagrees.
Trying to claim you can or comparing it to the first amendment, is just nonsense.
Comparing the Fourth Amendment to the First Amendment is just nonsense?
Anyway, my argument here is not that anyone has the right to drive an automobile. My argument is that the government cannot require that you waive your Fourth Amendment rights as a condition of being licensed to drive. To accept some special pleading for any given form of transportation, on the grounds that you can use another, invites the government to use special pleading on every form of transportation separately. This has in fact already happened.
The government can require you to do all kinds of things in the interest of public safety. Things like airport screening, pass a test to get a license, carry insurance to drive a car. Requiring you to prove you are fit to drive a vehicle, ie. you are not intoxicated is just one more of those things.
If this were about them giving breath tests to people walking down the street, then yes, it would be a violation. However, since they only give the test to the driver of the vehicle, not even the passengers, it is not a violation.
Put the questions differently. If the government cannot put certain restrictions on those who operate vehicles in the interest of public safety, then you'd better not get on a train or plane of bus, because you have no idea whether that person is qualified to be driving/piloting/engineering that vehicle.
What if you were blind, wouldn't making you take a vision test to prove you can see well enough to drive a vehicle also be an imposition on your 4th amendment right? If not, then how is making you take a sobriety test an imposition.
Besides, these are publicly announced checkpoints. One could also argue that you are free to take a different route and therefore they are not mandatory. By choosing this route, knowing that their is a checkpoint, you are choosing the test.
There is no freedom of movement. Oh, you mean for US citizens to move freely in the country. Not, Mexicans crossing the border. Of course if it were a true freedom, then there wouldn't be a problem with people crossing the boarder.
This was how it was at the turn of the last century (late 1800s). Immigration was encouraged. People were also encouraged to move west and settle the unsettled areas. Then again, there was no automobile.
So, the last time freedom of movement was actually recognized in the US was prior to there being automobiles, so it seems unlikely that such a freedom implies a right to drive.
Even if such a right existed, it does not mean that it would include a birthright to driving. Driving is only one form of movement and has only been truly universal in this country less than 50 years (yes it was around longer than that, but not where everyone has access to vehicles like today).
I guess that if we have a right to drive, then we have a right to the gas and oil needed for the car, too? So, it's not fair that the oil companies charge us for it. This is just one big slippery slope. Because unlike other true rights, you don't have to pay somebody to exercise it like buying the gas for your car.
Of course, if we don't actually have a right to drive, then the oil companies infringing on our right by making us pay for the fuel to exercise that right is a non-issue.
I was referring to public roadways. However, it's even more clear on private roadways. If a roadway is privately owned, even in colonial times, you would have no right to be on it without the owners permission. Now, most roadways are publicly owned, while technically by the people, it is through the state (or municipality) and as such, you only have the rights the state gives you when you are on it.
Like it or not, you do not have the right to drive an automobile, just like you do not have the right to fly a plane or a hot air balloon.
Trying to claim you can or comparing it to the first amendment, is just nonsense.
Next thing you know, people will claim that they have a right to have sex. No, you don't. If you did, you would not need consent from the partner, could have sex with children or just about anything. The fact that you can pretty much have sex on demand (unless you are a frequenter of slashdot), does not mean you have a right to have sex on demand. Likewise, just because you can drive a vehicle does not mean you have a right to drive a vehicle.
At last tally, there are approximately 251 million passenger vehicles on the road. Also, deaths due to drunk driving are just under 14,000 per year. That equates to less than.006% of highway deaths caused by drunk drivers.
If 14,000 were caused by drunk driving, then that makes it closer to 50% of deaths caused by drunk driving, or at least far more than 0.006% by a few orders of magnitude.
Math isn't one of your strong points, is it?
Here is why your math does not work. Use commercial airliners. In the US, post 9/11 there have been six crashes where there were fatalities. In one of those crashes, a co-pilot was hung-over (BAC.06 - technically not DWI, but DUI if he was driving). Using your methodology, almost 17% of airline deaths are due to drunken pilots. Assuming that the crash in question was because the copilot was drunk, then that statement, like yours is true (your statement is that half of of auto deaths are caused by drunk driving).
However, both of those statistics 17% and 50% are meaningless. What is important is what is the likelihood of being killed by a drunk driver (or pilot)? For drivers in the US it is.006%. For fliers in the US it so much less that my calculator doesn't go that far out.
Yes, we do not want drunk drivers or drunk pilots. But, with limited resources, is that the best use of public safety funds? No, because the risk is so much lower than other things that are more likely to happen.
In the case of the original article, say the checkpoint is Florida catches 10 people out of 1,000 stopped? Was it successful? It depends, it did get 10 drunk drivers off the road. However, what was the risk involved? Statistically, none of those 10 would have been in an accident, let alone cause a fatality. As a matter of fact, there was a greater chance for an accident being caused by the checkpoint diverting traffic than by the drunk drivers them self.
I am not trying to belittle or minimise drunk driving, however, society does over exaggerate its impact which leads to wrong solutions and bad laws being enacted.
At last tally, there are approximately 251 million passenger vehicles on the road. Also, deaths due to drunk driving are just under 14,000 per year. That equates to less than.006% of highway deaths caused by drunk drivers.
If 14,000 were caused by drunk driving, then that makes it closer to 50% of deaths caused by drunk driving, or at least far more than 0.006% by a few orders of magnitude.
Math isn't one of your strong points, is it?
You better check your math. 14,000 deaths out of 251 million drivers is.006%. While it may be true that about half of all highway fatalities are related to drunk driving, it does not change that the percentage of drivers killed by drunk drivers is.006%.
But to be more accurate, I should have stated: That equates to less than.006% of highway drivers killed by drunk drivers. So, it's not my math, but my english that is off.
You were able to get a taxi, say at 1am in Columbia, Missouri (population 60,000)? That's pretty impressive, since they don't run after 11:00pm. What about Silana, KS or Macon, MO. Just because some place has taxi service, even a single taxi, does not mean it runs at night when most of the people are leaving bars. That's the whole reason for having designated drivers.
And yet, when the country was formed, there were no highways, no interstates, no mass transit. The founding fathers either walked, rode a horse or rode in a carriage. And, ironically, the states all had regulations on how that travel would go. Just like they do now.
Fighter jets aren't public. They are owned by the military. Roads are public.
cell phones, makeup, and GPS do not cause nearly as many deaths as drunk driving even if you add them all up. I do think that the fines should be stiff for all of those things, but drunk driving is one of those things which everyone knows kills lots of people. You can't say that you were driving drunk and didn't think you could have killed someone.
Last time I checked, the military is funded by tax dollars, just like roads, so fighter jets are just as much public property as roads. And lets not forget that the highway system was built not for the public, but for the ease of moving troops. At least that was the idea behind the interstate system, so effectively you are using the military's highways.
At last tally, there are approximately 251 million passenger vehicles on the road. Also, deaths due to drunk driving are just under 14,000 per year. That equates to less than.006% of highway deaths caused by drunk drivers. Also, included in that 14,000 are many of the drunk drivers themselves, so the actual percentage of innocents killed are even less.
According to the CDC, you are 2.5 times more likely to die from an infected cut in the US then you are from being killed by a drunk driver (35,000 vs 14,000). The flu kills almost 4 times as many people as drunk drivers (53,000 vs 14,000).
We would save more lives in this country by developing cheap vaccines for everyone or treating staph infections versus cracking down further on drunk driving.
Where to begin. The state cannot force your consent to be raped to get a drivers license. For one, if you consented, it wouldn't be rape. However, rape would fall under the constitution as violation of the person.
Saying you agree to abide by the laws of the state to get a drivers license is not forcing consent, because, even under common law, abiding by the law is part of being a part of the community.
You can through all the Obama/Bush garbage you want, it is meaningless in a discussion regarding driving licenses. Particularly since the courts have upheld that licensing drivers falls under the state, not the federal government.
I get it, you hate Obama, you hate Bush, you hate the US, you hate everyone who disagrees with you. That's your prerogative. Luckily, you live in a country that doesn't execute you for disagreeing with your political leaders. Oh, but you probably hate that, too.
Since driving is a privilidge, granted by the state, the state is free to restrict it in anyway it wants.
It's a funny thing. All my life I have believed that power came from the people; that we merely allowed the government to restrict our power in ways beneficial in preserving those rights.
True, but the people elect representatives who act on their behalf. So, if said representatives have passed laws which restrict your rights, it is because you have allowed them to do so.
No where in the constitution does it say we have a right to eat. But of course we do. The constitution is not a list of the rights we have, It is a list of the ones we've agreed to give to the government, with everything not mentioned held in reserve.
But the constitution, at least the Bill of Rights, does say you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I'm pretty sure that eating falls under at least one of those. Even, still, if you are starving and steal food from the grocery store, your right to eat/life does not trump the protection of the store owner's property and you go to jail. So even basic rights as eating, are not all powerful.
Whether under common law or under constitutional law or under statutes, we have a representative democracy, a Republic. The people's governmental power stops at the election of others to act on their behalf. Those representatives, in full compliance with the constitution (at least as far as the courts are concern) and on your behalf, have established the conditions under which you may drive a vehicle.
Not only did the people in general approve of this by electing these representatives, but everyone who drives did so explicitly by signing for their driving license.
The question is, however, is the use of a privately owned vehicle on a public thoroughfare protected under the constitution? The answer is, only to a limited extent.
The courts have held time and time again, that States can place restrictions on modes of transportation. Whether we are talking about cars, trains, planes or horse and buggies. Otherwise, why would you need a drivers license in the first place? Why would you need to be 16 to obtain one and why must you carry insurance to get a car licensed?
Just because people want it to be a constitutional right to drive a vehicle does not make it one.
The State cannot possibly force you to consent to ANYTHING where there are criminal penalties involved without you first consulting an attorney if you choose.
The state does not force your consent in DWI/DUI cases. You willingly consented the moment you signed for your drivers license. Think of it as a contract you entered into for the privilege, not right, to drive.
And what any of this has to do with Obama or national health care, I don't know. Hopefully, somebody will mod you down for having a diatribe.
How can I not have the right to drive a vehicle though? (Yes, I know it's not a right. But thinking about it, it doesn't make sense.)
Our tax dollars pay for roads. Our tax dollars even pay to make the cars we drive (There is a Nissan plant in my town that was paid for by tax money from the state, NOT by Nissan.) How then can I be forced to have a license to use a public road? I do not need a license to use the swings at a public park or to watch a concert on public tv. I don't need a license to visit a public museum or ride public transportation.
Licensing something means that the state has the right to restrict something. If my license gets revoked, my tax money doesn't stop paying for that road upkeep. I don't have less of a tax burden if I chose not to drive.
If I pay for it, I feel that I have a right to use it. (I also believe that I have a right to drink alcohol as long as I'm over 21 and have the cash; but think driving drunk should be prosecuted as attempted murder.)
Your tax dollars also pay for fighter jets, but that doesn't mean you have the right to go fly one.
Besides, you do get the benefit of your tax paid roads, every time you purchase something that is delivered either to your home or the store via those roads.
With regards to your drunk driving statement, should that not also be the case with driving while on the cell phone or putting on makeup or playing with the gps? Why single out just alcohol?
Refusing to take a brethalyzer test is a constitutional right under the 5th amendment
Courts are almost never willing to extend the privilege against self-incrimination to the collection of ordinary physical evidence - hair, fingerprints, blood samples and so on - paricularly when the procedure is non-invasive - and least of all when you look and smell as drunk as a skunk.
You are very much in your right to refuse a brethalyzer test. The courts have upheld that time and again. However, since you do not have a constitutional right to drive, the courts have also held that states are free to revoke your privilege to drive if you refuse to take the test.
Implied consent is bullshit, and already makes a mockery of the Fourth Amendment. There is no consent to a breath test (or any other test) implied by driving.
Requiring you to submit to a breath test if you want to be allowed to drive in the state, is not a violation of your rights, because, you have no right to drive in the first place. Since driving is a privilidge, granted by the state, the state is free to restrict it in anyway it wants.
Slashdot Mirror
Ummm, the question at hand was which had more human characteristics, an unborn human (say 38weeks gestation) or a cockroach?
If you feel that DNA and chromosomes aren't an important part of being human, then that's fine, but since chimpanzees share 96% of the DNA of human beings and they aren't human, it seems unlikely that a cockroach, which shares much less DNA would be more human.
you mean other than that stuff called DNA?
When they're able to ask for it, then it's obvious they deserve it.
This is awfully absurd. Maybe they are already asking to be let out of Seaworld and all the other cages we keep them in. Perhaps we aren't capable of understanding them? Does one simply ignore all signs of intelligence because we simply enjoy their tricks? Your suggestion in many ways is how slavery was justified by stating that the slaves were somehow an inferior animal.
But dolphins ARE an animal.
I specifically remember Cmdr. La Forge always talking about iso-linear chips. Not once did he ever mention ARM chips. Just like Microsoft to support the wrong Next Generation systems.
I hate to say this, but it appears that Windows 7 is doing much better than the article title implies. While it is true that it broke 20%, what isn't apparent until digging into the article is that they are including Apple's iOS and Google's Android in the mix of operating systems. These weren't an issue when XP peaked as they were just looking at pc desktop/laptop installations.
I'm pretty sure that the FBI and CIA already do this and have been doing so for a number of years.
100,000 will buy you half the town, if not more.
Shouldn't our driving laws be objective? It is true it is a choice to drink. However, it is also true that if one is too drunk to drive, then they are also to drunk to make a rational decision regarding driving. That is what impaired means.
Drunk driving laws are not instituted to protect the drunk, but the rest of society. Therefore, shouldn't driving while under the influence of any medication that can impair you have the same punishment?
Sudafed is just as impairing as that demon rum, but only one gets you to lose your license. Two vicodins are a lot more dangerous to drive with than drinking two beers, but we don't see people being asked to submit to narcotic checkpoints.
I think you are wrong about treating people different if they cause an accident from over the counter or prescription medications. They would be quite outraged. However, they would not pass laws criminalizing driving while under those influences.
It is because society associates drunk driving with alcoholism, which is further seen as a character weakness and not an illness. It allows us to feel good about ourselves by singling out those bad alcoholics, even though it does not make the roads significantly safer.
If we were truly being objective, instead of taking people's license away, we would be mandating treatment for their drinking.
Can the government close roads? Yes. Can the government create new roads? Yes. Can people close roads? No. Can people create new roads (on public property)? No.
I'd love to see the lawsuit where there is a bridge collapse like in Minnesota and all the people of Minnesota, who owned that bridge, have to personally pay the settlement.
It's hard to say the people own the roads, when in fact they have no control over how they are used or any liability for it either?
My taxes pay for roads, yes. They also pay for tanks and bombers. That doesn't mean I can go down to the armoury and check one out. Public assets may be owned by the people, but they are not owned by individual people, only a collective.
If that collective, through their elected officials, put restrictions on their collective property (speed limits, no passing zones and yes sobriety checkpoints), then you have to abide by it. The people have spoken, even if the individual disagrees.
Comparing the Fourth Amendment to the First Amendment is just nonsense?
Anyway, my argument here is not that anyone has the right to drive an automobile. My argument is that the government cannot require that you waive your Fourth Amendment rights as a condition of being licensed to drive. To accept some special pleading for any given form of transportation, on the grounds that you can use another, invites the government to use special pleading on every form of transportation separately. This has in fact already happened.
The government can require you to do all kinds of things in the interest of public safety. Things like airport screening, pass a test to get a license, carry insurance to drive a car. Requiring you to prove you are fit to drive a vehicle, ie. you are not intoxicated is just one more of those things.
If this were about them giving breath tests to people walking down the street, then yes, it would be a violation. However, since they only give the test to the driver of the vehicle, not even the passengers, it is not a violation.
Put the questions differently. If the government cannot put certain restrictions on those who operate vehicles in the interest of public safety, then you'd better not get on a train or plane of bus, because you have no idea whether that person is qualified to be driving/piloting/engineering that vehicle.
What if you were blind, wouldn't making you take a vision test to prove you can see well enough to drive a vehicle also be an imposition on your 4th amendment right? If not, then how is making you take a sobriety test an imposition.
Besides, these are publicly announced checkpoints. One could also argue that you are free to take a different route and therefore they are not mandatory. By choosing this route, knowing that their is a checkpoint, you are choosing the test.
There is no freedom of movement. Oh, you mean for US citizens to move freely in the country. Not, Mexicans crossing the border. Of course if it were a true freedom, then there wouldn't be a problem with people crossing the boarder.
This was how it was at the turn of the last century (late 1800s). Immigration was encouraged. People were also encouraged to move west and settle the unsettled areas. Then again, there was no automobile.
So, the last time freedom of movement was actually recognized in the US was prior to there being automobiles, so it seems unlikely that such a freedom implies a right to drive.
Even if such a right existed, it does not mean that it would include a birthright to driving. Driving is only one form of movement and has only been truly universal in this country less than 50 years (yes it was around longer than that, but not where everyone has access to vehicles like today).
I guess that if we have a right to drive, then we have a right to the gas and oil needed for the car, too? So, it's not fair that the oil companies charge us for it. This is just one big slippery slope. Because unlike other true rights, you don't have to pay somebody to exercise it like buying the gas for your car.
Of course, if we don't actually have a right to drive, then the oil companies infringing on our right by making us pay for the fuel to exercise that right is a non-issue.
I was referring to public roadways. However, it's even more clear on private roadways. If a roadway is privately owned, even in colonial times, you would have no right to be on it without the owners permission. Now, most roadways are publicly owned, while technically by the people, it is through the state (or municipality) and as such, you only have the rights the state gives you when you are on it.
Like it or not, you do not have the right to drive an automobile, just like you do not have the right to fly a plane or a hot air balloon.
Trying to claim you can or comparing it to the first amendment, is just nonsense.
Next thing you know, people will claim that they have a right to have sex. No, you don't. If you did, you would not need consent from the partner, could have sex with children or just about anything. The fact that you can pretty much have sex on demand (unless you are a frequenter of slashdot), does not mean you have a right to have sex on demand. Likewise, just because you can drive a vehicle does not mean you have a right to drive a vehicle.
Plain and simple, no amendments needed.
At last tally, there are approximately 251 million passenger vehicles on the road. Also, deaths due to drunk driving are just under 14,000 per year. That equates to less than .006% of highway deaths caused by drunk drivers.
There were 30,797 road fatalities in 2009, according to your government ( http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx/ ).
If 14,000 were caused by drunk driving, then that makes it closer to 50% of deaths caused by drunk driving, or at least far more than 0.006% by a few orders of magnitude.
Math isn't one of your strong points, is it?
Here is why your math does not work. Use commercial airliners. In the US, post 9/11 there have been six crashes where there were fatalities. In one of those crashes, a co-pilot was hung-over (BAC .06 - technically not DWI, but DUI if he was driving). Using your methodology, almost 17% of airline deaths are due to drunken pilots. Assuming that the crash in question was because the copilot was drunk, then that statement, like yours is true (your statement is that half of of auto deaths are caused by drunk driving).
However, both of those statistics 17% and 50% are meaningless. What is important is what is the likelihood of being killed by a drunk driver (or pilot)? For drivers in the US it is .006%. For fliers in the US it so much less that my calculator doesn't go that far out.
Yes, we do not want drunk drivers or drunk pilots. But, with limited resources, is that the best use of public safety funds? No, because the risk is so much lower than other things that are more likely to happen.
In the case of the original article, say the checkpoint is Florida catches 10 people out of 1,000 stopped? Was it successful? It depends, it did get 10 drunk drivers off the road. However, what was the risk involved? Statistically, none of those 10 would have been in an accident, let alone cause a fatality. As a matter of fact, there was a greater chance for an accident being caused by the checkpoint diverting traffic than by the drunk drivers them self.
I am not trying to belittle or minimise drunk driving, however, society does over exaggerate its impact which leads to wrong solutions and bad laws being enacted.
At last tally, there are approximately 251 million passenger vehicles on the road. Also, deaths due to drunk driving are just under 14,000 per year. That equates to less than .006% of highway deaths caused by drunk drivers.
There were 30,797 road fatalities in 2009, according to your government ( http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx/ ).
If 14,000 were caused by drunk driving, then that makes it closer to 50% of deaths caused by drunk driving, or at least far more than 0.006% by a few orders of magnitude.
Math isn't one of your strong points, is it?
You better check your math. 14,000 deaths out of 251 million drivers is .006%. While it may be true that about half of all highway fatalities are related to drunk driving, it does not change that the percentage of drivers killed by drunk drivers is .006%.
But to be more accurate, I should have stated: That equates to less than .006% of highway drivers killed by drunk drivers. So, it's not my math, but my english that is off.
You were able to get a taxi, say at 1am in Columbia, Missouri (population 60,000)? That's pretty impressive, since they don't run after 11:00pm. What about Silana, KS or Macon, MO. Just because some place has taxi service, even a single taxi, does not mean it runs at night when most of the people are leaving bars. That's the whole reason for having designated drivers.
And yet, when the country was formed, there were no highways, no interstates, no mass transit. The founding fathers either walked, rode a horse or rode in a carriage. And, ironically, the states all had regulations on how that travel would go. Just like they do now.
Fighter jets aren't public. They are owned by the military. Roads are public.
cell phones, makeup, and GPS do not cause nearly as many deaths as drunk driving even if you add them all up. I do think that the fines should be stiff for all of those things, but drunk driving is one of those things which everyone knows kills lots of people. You can't say that you were driving drunk and didn't think you could have killed someone.
Last time I checked, the military is funded by tax dollars, just like roads, so fighter jets are just as much public property as roads. And lets not forget that the highway system was built not for the public, but for the ease of moving troops. At least that was the idea behind the interstate system, so effectively you are using the military's highways.
At last tally, there are approximately 251 million passenger vehicles on the road. Also, deaths due to drunk driving are just under 14,000 per year. That equates to less than .006% of highway deaths caused by drunk drivers. Also, included in that 14,000 are many of the drunk drivers themselves, so the actual percentage of innocents killed are even less.
According to the CDC, you are 2.5 times more likely to die from an infected cut in the US then you are from being killed by a drunk driver (35,000 vs 14,000). The flu kills almost 4 times as many people as drunk drivers (53,000 vs 14,000).
We would save more lives in this country by developing cheap vaccines for everyone or treating staph infections versus cracking down further on drunk driving.
Where to begin. The state cannot force your consent to be raped to get a drivers license. For one, if you consented, it wouldn't be rape. However, rape would fall under the constitution as violation of the person.
Saying you agree to abide by the laws of the state to get a drivers license is not forcing consent, because, even under common law, abiding by the law is part of being a part of the community.
You can through all the Obama/Bush garbage you want, it is meaningless in a discussion regarding driving licenses. Particularly since the courts have upheld that licensing drivers falls under the state, not the federal government.
I get it, you hate Obama, you hate Bush, you hate the US, you hate everyone who disagrees with you. That's your prerogative. Luckily, you live in a country that doesn't execute you for disagreeing with your political leaders. Oh, but you probably hate that, too.
Since driving is a privilidge, granted by the state, the state is free to restrict it in anyway it wants.
It's a funny thing. All my life I have believed that power came from the people; that we merely allowed the government to restrict our power in ways beneficial in preserving those rights.
True, but the people elect representatives who act on their behalf. So, if said representatives have passed laws which restrict your rights, it is because you have allowed them to do so.
No where in the constitution does it say we have a right to eat. But of course we do. The constitution is not a list of the rights we have, It is a list of the ones we've agreed to give to the government, with everything not mentioned held in reserve.
But the constitution, at least the Bill of Rights, does say you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I'm pretty sure that eating falls under at least one of those. Even, still, if you are starving and steal food from the grocery store, your right to eat/life does not trump the protection of the store owner's property and you go to jail. So even basic rights as eating, are not all powerful.
Whether under common law or under constitutional law or under statutes, we have a representative democracy, a Republic. The people's governmental power stops at the election of others to act on their behalf. Those representatives, in full compliance with the constitution (at least as far as the courts are concern) and on your behalf, have established the conditions under which you may drive a vehicle.
Not only did the people in general approve of this by electing these representatives, but everyone who drives did so explicitly by signing for their driving license.
The question is, however, is the use of a privately owned vehicle on a public thoroughfare protected under the constitution? The answer is, only to a limited extent.
The courts have held time and time again, that States can place restrictions on modes of transportation. Whether we are talking about cars, trains, planes or horse and buggies. Otherwise, why would you need a drivers license in the first place? Why would you need to be 16 to obtain one and why must you carry insurance to get a car licensed?
Just because people want it to be a constitutional right to drive a vehicle does not make it one.
The State cannot possibly force you to consent to ANYTHING where there are criminal penalties involved without you first consulting an attorney if you choose.
The state does not force your consent in DWI/DUI cases. You willingly consented the moment you signed for your drivers license. Think of it as a contract you entered into for the privilege, not right, to drive.
And what any of this has to do with Obama or national health care, I don't know. Hopefully, somebody will mod you down for having a diatribe.
How can I not have the right to drive a vehicle though? (Yes, I know it's not a right. But thinking about it, it doesn't make sense.)
Our tax dollars pay for roads. Our tax dollars even pay to make the cars we drive (There is a Nissan plant in my town that was paid for by tax money from the state, NOT by Nissan.) How then can I be forced to have a license to use a public road? I do not need a license to use the swings at a public park or to watch a concert on public tv. I don't need a license to visit a public museum or ride public transportation.
Licensing something means that the state has the right to restrict something. If my license gets revoked, my tax money doesn't stop paying for that road upkeep. I don't have less of a tax burden if I chose not to drive.
If I pay for it, I feel that I have a right to use it. (I also believe that I have a right to drink alcohol as long as I'm over 21 and have the cash; but think driving drunk should be prosecuted as attempted murder.)
Your tax dollars also pay for fighter jets, but that doesn't mean you have the right to go fly one.
Besides, you do get the benefit of your tax paid roads, every time you purchase something that is delivered either to your home or the store via those roads.
With regards to your drunk driving statement, should that not also be the case with driving while on the cell phone or putting on makeup or playing with the gps? Why single out just alcohol?
Refusing to take a brethalyzer test is a constitutional right under the 5th amendment
Courts are almost never willing to extend the privilege against self-incrimination to the collection of ordinary physical evidence - hair, fingerprints, blood samples and so on - paricularly when the procedure is non-invasive - and least of all when you look and smell as drunk as a skunk.
You are very much in your right to refuse a brethalyzer test. The courts have upheld that time and again. However, since you do not have a constitutional right to drive, the courts have also held that states are free to revoke your privilege to drive if you refuse to take the test.
Why don't people understand that?
Implied consent is bullshit, and already makes a mockery of the Fourth Amendment. There is no consent to a breath test (or any other test) implied by driving.
Requiring you to submit to a breath test if you want to be allowed to drive in the state, is not a violation of your rights, because, you have no right to drive in the first place. Since driving is a privilidge, granted by the state, the state is free to restrict it in anyway it wants.