Letter to the Editor
Don't give up rights
Published Thursday, May 8, 2008
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!May 1, 2008
To the editor:
How to give away your freedom.
What bad advice your editorial on DUI drivers was. Roadblocks to stop everyone and question them are not only dangerous to your rights but a sign that you place little value on our freedom to travel without permission or interference. For 250 years, men have fought and died for our rights, one of the most important is the freedom to travel without government interference. The police cannot stop you without reason then ask you where you were, where you are going or who you have been with.
You would give those rights away for the dubious effect of catching someone who may have broken a law. We are now questioning our government about their right to intercept phone calls between suspected terrorist members, what irony.
When Hitler began to strip away the rights of the Germans, each time it was for a good cause. Soon, they didn’t need a reason because the people could no longer question the police. They could only answer the questions. Do not be in a hurry to give away my rights, for then I may not be able to protect yours.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Well said.
Uhm....
As people have said on this topic before...If you have nothing to hide - then you won't mind the pull over
Well - what about the strip search or the search of your home?
It is a slippery slope and I agree with you completely, Gordon...
Unless, of course, they say 'its for the children'
Have a great day!
I hate it when Godwin's law applies in the original letter.
I agree with the author for the most part.
I would agree but why is the only "cry" about DWI's. Have you tried getting on an airplane lately? Carry a GUN in most states without government permission? Made a phone call without it being recorded? (at least who and when you called,for now) Driving drunk is killing inocent people and a danger to the public. Where are their "rights" to protection form this act ? I have no problem, nor do I think it is violating my rights to be asked to blow into a tube to determine if I am under the influance of anything that may cause someone else harm. Sit at home and get as drunk as you wish, just dont kill me because you THINK you have that right.
Our never ended witch hunt against alcohol is turning into just that. I think that our current laws are working and I can't remember when the last DUI related fatality happened. Independent research has proven that it is more dangerous to talk on a cell phone than to drive with a BAC of .08, yet no one is willing to crucify cell phone users.
"yet no one is willing to crucify cell phone users."
I don't know how many times I've been driving behind someone, they start swerving and driving stupid and I think "Get off your damn cell phone."
They did these roadblocks out in Illinois when I was a teenager. They worked really good back then. But, in the age of cell phones it isn't practical.
".....I can't remember when the last DUI related fatality happened....."
Is there a threshold frequency of DUI related fatalities that must be reached before it should become an issue?
Is there an "acceptable" number of people who can be killed by drunk drivers?
I think you need to rethink what a right is. We do not have the right to drive a vehicle on public roads. It is a privilege afforded us by the government. That is why we are required to get a license to drive.
Therefore, if the authorities stipulate "you may drive on these roads, provided you stop for a sobriety test" they are simply changing stipulations regarding the privilege of driving. I don't mind it at all, and it is a fallacy to say it is only a step away from strip searching or cell phone tapping.
Further, we cannot say the DUI shouldn't be so closely monitored because people on their cell phones are as dangerous. While I agree they can be dangerous, it doesn't detract from the fact the DUI is a huge problem. To say we should ignore it because there are other crimes that are just as bad is erroneous.
I implore you all to look at the difference between a right and a privilege and drop this sense of entitlement.
One more time for those who have a hard time understanding this: DRIVING IS A LICENSED PRIVILEGE, IT IS NOT A RIGHT! It can be extended and revoked at will, whereas a right cannot.
Fairbanksgas, I bet this man's wife and daughter wish this driver was stopped at a roadblock. Are you telling me that the 10 minutes you may spend at a roadblock late at night is worth more than this man's life? This was from the may 7th news. Or do you only count DUI fatalities that happen in Fairbanks?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,3544...
Joseph Richardson was walking his daughter Kaniyah to a McDonald's for burgers late Monday when a car jumped the curb. Police say the 39-year-old Richardson grabbed his daughter just before the car slammed the two into a fence.
Richardson was pronounced dead at the scene. Kaniyah was taken to Comer Children's Hospital in serious condition.
Police say the driver of the car, 32-year-old Angelo Thomas of Chicago, was charged with two felony counts of aggravated DUI. Witnesses say the man was driving erratically before the accident.
Richardson, a church musician, was the father of three, two girls and a boy, all under the age of 10
ecray: Actually, we do have the right to drive a private vehicle on public roads. There are even numerous court decisions ruling against the requirement to have a drivers license. Here are some:
CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
I first read about this in an article written by a retered Phoenix, AZ police officer. He also happens to be the most decorated officer in Phoenix history.
DRIVING PRIVATE VEHICLES ON PUBLIC ROADWAYS IS A RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEGE.
In fact, most things the government calls a privilege is actually a right
Godwin's Law (no matter what your opinion on the subject matter) does not apply to the letter written by Gordon. His comparison is a valid argument and therefore does not constitute an "inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Hitler or Nazis or their actions."
And yes, there is an "acceptable" number of people who can be killed by drunk drivers - it's called economics.
orion700, two cases in a state court?
Please explain to me that if it is a right, why is it we must be licensed and insured, and how it can be cancelled or suspended. Where in the constitution was this established as a right? Why must you have a license in order to excercise this right?
Please explain to me the difference between a right and a privilege.
I can't believe people are even arguing about this. What has this world come to?
Sure, it may be your right to drive on a public road but it is not your right to drink, drive and plow into a car that could possibly be carrying my family ultimately harming or killing them.
I would argue that we have compromised between punishments and convenience. We have lessened the punishment, which causes behavior to be more acceptable, and now we sacrifice convenience of driving without being hassled. We are not willing to give out harsh punishments for DUI, therefore it happens more frequently and we must take extreme measures to ensure it doesn't happen.
I would suggest we up the penalty on DUI. Any alcohol in your system leaves you with an automatic sentence of 10 years in prison without parole. It is quite easy to not drink if you are driving. It has become such an endemic that those that are "responsible drinkers and drivers" are being punished. But which is it: stops at road blocks or severe sentences for even first time offenders?
I believe people would really think twice after having "just a few drinks" if they knew it was an automatic sentence of ten years.
In some less civilized countries the penalty is death. Maybe we could just send the drunk drivers over there to live.
ecray: the right to life and liberty is established in the 5th amendment: "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;". The right to travel was and is a common law right protected by the 9th amendment:"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people". The right to travel was one of the most important common law rights retained by the people.
The reason you are now "required to" is because people did not to protect their rights. The driver's license started as a fee (no test) paid to the city or county for COMMERCIAL driving purposes, which I am not arguing against. The license then became a fee on the use private vehicles.
Here are some more court decisions:
CASE #1: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
CASE #2: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
Here is a Supreme Court decisions:
"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."
Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60.
Driver's licenses are currently issued by the states, not by the feds,making it a state by state issue. But in order for states to get federal highway funds, they are often required to submit to issuing statutes that the feds want imposed. A new caviate is the Real ID set to go into effect in a couple days. You will get a new, federally mandated driver's license and will be required to have it to get on a plane, get a job, open a bank account. Now, do you see the slope that we allowed ourselves on when we accepted these types of intrusion from our "servant government".
SO.. It is a right to be able to drive a private vehicle (not commercial) on public roadways. It is no different than your right to walk on a public sidewalk. However, It is not a right to endanger others with reckless or drunk driving. People can be stopped for probable cause, like excessive weaving, but not "just to check" at checkpoints, that violates the 4th amendment.
I have enjoyed reading comments to articles, they are often just amusing because some of them are so out there. However, this letter and some comments give me pause. I don't think people realize what a problem drinking and driving is until it directly effects them and then it is too late to prevent it. Why don't we take a proactive stance? What is wrong with trying to prevent deaths and injuries?
If a couple people cannot remember the last time a DUI related fatality happened, does that mean our problems are solved or dimished? There are so many DUIs reported just in our newspaper every week and they don't even include all of the arrests. There are many people out there that think it is just a short drive home or that they have driven the roads often enough to navigate safely while drinking. It is these people that have run over children in the ditch, driven down the highway, caused an accident and killed their own toddler, or lost control and ejected passengers, all of which are recent enough accidents and I am sure that I have omitted many.
It seems to me that those who oppose trying to prevent drinking and driving have most likely not been directly affected by it, lucky for you. However, with the rate that DUI crashes and deaths occur they will be affected some time in their life. It is definitely a touchy topic and I myself have mixed feelings on sentencing. I have seen those who are arrested for a simple DUI and got lucky, but learned no lesson and barely got a slap on the wrist. And I have also seen a good friend go to jail for drinking and driving, resulting in the death of another friend.
DUI roadblocks put the citizen in the position of having to prove their innocence. This is opposite of how it is supposed to be. I don't drink. The majority of people don't drink and drive. Stopping everyone, in the hopes of catching a few, seems like the incorrect answer to me.
Webster....PRIVILEGE "a special right or advantage; to grant someone special favor to...enjoying a special right or immunity."
RIGHT "proper; in accordance with truth and duty; in politics, implying preservation of established order or of former institutions."
We have a right to use our road system, public right-of-ways. Our constitution gives us a right to be on these right-of-ways without interception or interference unless there is cause to do so.
Snow on your licence plate is cause to intercept or interfere with your right to use our road system.
We have a constitutional right to due process and a right not to incriminate ourselves. We waive these rights when we sign the driver's license we are required by law to have when operating a motor vehicle. By signing your driver's license you give the state the administrative right to set aside your constitutional right not to incriminate yourself. By signing your driver's license you give the state the administrative power to revoke your RIGHT/PRIVILEGE to drive.
Because you have snow on your license plate you will loose your RIGHT/PRIVILEGE to drive if you refuse to incriminate yourself by blowing in an official breathalyzer while under arrest. If you do blow in a breathalyzer and it registers 0.08 or more you will loose your RIGHT/PRIVILEGE to drive even if a jury or judge finds you NOT GUILTY.
WEBSTER...EXTORT - EXTORTION "to obtain by force or threats; to extract. illegal compulsion; unjust exaction". Sign on your drivers license to give up your constitution right not to incriminate yourself. Sign on your drivers license or you won't be able to drive on our road system.
Speeding is the largest human factor involving traffic accidents. Remember this when you go home tonight and you are going 60 - 65 mph on a posted 55 mph road system. We all do it. If caught we would get a speeding ticket and go home.
Apply the same rules for speeding drivers that apply to drinking drivers. No driving a motor vehicle, large fine, jail time, possible vehicle loss, possible job loss. In a months time there would not be very many motorized vehicles on our road system. And if you think you will walk or ride your bike or horse on the freeway or Airport Road to go to work, if you still have a job, you can't. Many roads on our road system only allow motorized vehicles.
Wake up folks. Be wary of which witch you decide to burn. Keep the pedal to the metal and keep the snow off your license plate.
That's the way I see it!
Outstanding! Well said G. Depue.
No one is saying Drinking and Driving is ok and no one I have read is advocating leniency. They are simply stating that we are working on it and we appear to be winning. It is not that the quota has been met for deaths or lack of deaths.
To make a statement that 10 years on the first time is just out of the realm of reality. You will have all your children in jail and you will have to staff and feed and run and fund and then build a society for our felon children. No one is advocating Drunk Driving they are advocating a realistic solution. When ever this comes up there are two sides of the fence and people have very strong feelings about both, but to assume because everyone is not of your opinion makes them a bad person and makes them FOR drunk driving is wrong. They simply have a different idea of how to fix a social problem with out making it more of an enforcement issue. THe cops can not baby sit us. they can not and should not be our first option and they should not and will not be the answer to all our social issues unless you want to live in a police state.
Thewayiseeit is absolutely right. We are ruled by administrative laws rather than protected by constitutional laws because we agree by signing our rights away. Rights are never taken, they are willfully given away. We should just stop signing the government's documents and practice our rights as God intended. The police I've met in the Fairbanks area seem like good people. So we should be open to talking to them as well. After all, Their children's rights are in as much jeopardy as anyone's.
Bornbred: I agree with you except that my opinion differs on "winning." All of the names in the papers and crashes/deaths that have occurred does not impress on me that we are winning. Winning is not increasing the arrests, it is preventing and being responsible. Those that have been arrested should feel lucky that is all that happened and that they didn't injure themselves or others. It seems that a portion of those not directly affected by a drinking and driving incident are not aware how prevalent it still is, as I am probably not as aware of other issues that directly affect me.
I guess in a perfect world we would all be responsible adults and not put others in danger because of our choices.
Bornnbred I agree with you 100%. I think that the current laws are working and there is an adequate level of enforcement. Even if the penalty was death there would still be people out there who would have a few drinks and acting on impaired judgment make the decision to drive. When we as society put someone in jail they do not simply go away. They become 100% dependent on the State for every single aspect of their life.
Let's have an example: Joe has a good job and supports his family. One summer afternoon he goes fishing at Birch Lake and has a couple beers. On his way home he gets pulled over because one of his tail lights was burned out. He blows a .081 and goes to jail. Since Ecray's law was passed Joe is sentenced to 10 years in jail. The cost to the State is 10 years x $50,000 a year = $500,000. Since Joe is no longer able to support his family they are now on State assistance and it is costing the State another $50,000 per year for a total of $1,000,000. Now tell me how this would help us as a society?
akgrown25- well said. it is very difficult to explore in 350 words or less all the facets of this argument. No one wants to see a senseless death the challange is how do we fix this?