It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Shoktek
Originally posted by Diseria
Dude, if I *really* wanted to kill someone on an airplane, I've got all the tools necessary. I'm given plastic-ware to eat with.. that's more than ample. Nevermind the headphones with nice long cords, or my pen/cil....
Seriously. How far do we go in this idea of 'safety'??
Plastic wrap the curbs?
Hmm, yeah. The point was not whether or not you could find a way to kill someone on an airplane, or about airplanes at all. It was just to illustrate that it is a socially accepted norm to allow slight violations of our personal rights, in order to ensure the safety of people in public. No one thinks twice about walking through the metal detector or even being patted down, or having a suitcase searched. Because we would rather do that than have some nutjob blow up our plane. And I think most people wouldn't mind to spare 5 seconds of their time to blow into a tube, if it means that the roads are more safe for all.
We don't need to wait for you to get drunk and kill someone before we bring you to justice.
Many people have multiple DUIs and continue their habits. We don't have enough cops to patrol every road and pull over possible drunk drivers. We easily have technology to stop them from getting on the road. So I don't see how anybody could be against this legislation, unless they are planning to drive drunk.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Originally posted by DYepes
Whatever the case, the high cost makes this unlikely. I mean how often does the entire population of the USA and its territories purchase new vehicles annualy? Whole segments of our populations simply continue to refurbish cars as old as twenty years. I don't mind it, I just do not see it as a reality.
...but it says the US is the strongest economy of the world... so I think that would shoot down your "it's too big of a financial burden" issue.
The US has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of $42,000. In this market-oriented economy, private individuals and business firms make most of the decisions, and the federal and state governments buy needed goods and services predominantly in the private marketplace. US business firms enjoy greater flexibility than their counterparts in Western Europe and Japan in decisions to expand capital plant, to lay off surplus workers, and to develop new products. At the same time, they face higher barriers to enter their rivals' home markets than foreign firms face entering US markets. US firms are at or near the forefront in technological advances, especially in computers and in medical, aerospace, and military equipment; their advantage has narrowed since the end of World War II. The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households. The response to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 showed the remarkable resilience of the economy. The war in March-April 2003 between a US-led coalition and Iraq, and the subsequent occupation of Iraq, required major shifts in national resources to the military. The rise in GDP in 2004 and 2005 was undergirded by substantial gains in labor productivity. Hurricane Katrina caused extensive damage in the Gulf Coast region in August 2005, but had a small impact on overall GDP growth for the year. Soaring oil prices in 2005 and 2006 threatened inflation and unemployment, yet the economy continued to grow through mid-2006. Imported oil accounts for about two-thirds of US consumption. Long-term problems include inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable trade and budget deficits, and stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups.
Originally posted by iori_komei
The first thing was a typo, I meant to type can't, but it
came out can.
I understand the American constitution quite well, as I've
studied it intensively in my government class, and have
read the full thing three times in the last year.
Originally posted by iori_komei
And as I said, it's not a search, since there's no one doing
any searching, and the results are'nt being sent anywhere,
they are'nt even recorded in any memory banks.
Originally posted by XPhilesIt simply goes against the 4th Amendment.....
The technology does not change the fact that the warrantless search should not be carried out.
Originally posted by apc
The argument that this is an warrantless search is valid. However, if we wish to go by the letter, the decisive element would be if this technology would be considered reasonable.
Again, technology doesn't change the constitution.
Originally posted by apc
Would this be reasonable 10 years ago? Most likely not. Will this be reasonable 10 years from now? Most likely. What is the big difference? Technology.
Our US Constitution will only be weakened by those that wish to allow it to be weakened. It was put there to protect us. Technology, globalization, and population growth do not effect the fact we are still free citizens, and it sure the hell isn't reason to take away freedoms and liberties.
Originally posted by apc
Our US Constitution is going to weaken in influence over the next half century. That is an unavoidable inevitability. The primary reasons for this being the rapid advancement of technology, globalization, and dangerous population growth.
I forsee it will break, because I for one will not adapt to "control to the contrary of the US Constitution." I'm sure there are enough "free" citizens that will refuse to give up their liberties, as well.
Originally posted by apc
The world is reaching a major stress point, and it will either break or adapt. I prefer adapt, as fewer people have to die.
I understand what you are saying by "if the majority" feel it to be contrary... only viable argument to that point is whether or not there are "enough educated" persons.
Originally posted by apc
It remains to be seen if the majority will feel this is contrary to the Constitution. As I said, it depends on if this is seen as "reasonable". If it is, then it is not unconstitutional.
I understand what you are saying by "if the majority" feel it to be contrary... only viable argument to that point is whether or not there are "enough educated" persons.
Originally posted by apc
A person must prove they are of legal age to purchase the product. Is our privacy violated when the cashier asks to see ID (being 24 this actually applies to me... obviously to everyone it does not)? Absolutely. But it is a reasonable breach. They can not take our word for it. We have to prove it.
In the case of testing prior to operating a vehicle, a person would prove they are of legal mindset to operate the product. Would this violate our privacy? Again, absolutely. But is it a reasonable breach? Can they take our word for it? Or should we prove it?
A slippery slope indeed... one which I doubt we will have to teeter on just yet. But, as I speculated, as technology evolves so will the law, albeit slowly.
Originally posted by Infoholic
Hang on. The issue you are going to now does not fit under the same text as breaching the constitution from within your vehicle. The 4th Amendment is not violated when you are asked to provide your age (any source derived) in order to prevent the "private establishment" or "public building" (whichever you wish to call it) from being incarserated for selling to minors. There is a big difference between the two issues. Which to satisfy your curiousity, no, it is not a "reasonable" breach of your privacy. With that being said, yes, you should prove it.
Secondly, being incarserated for a DUI does not constitute the government being able to require all or anyone to prove they are of rightful mindset to operate a vehicle.
Fourth, as I've stated... technology is no excuse nor a reason to widdle away at our constitutional rights and liberties. The technologies are a tool to aid in the law enforcement, not to bend the law... and the backbone of the law is the Constitution of the United States of America.
Originally posted by apc
Just isolating one specific aspect of the issue... and your opinion of what is and is not reasonable is just that, an opinion. You aren't expected to provide your age for the benefit of the retail establishment... You are expected to do so because the Government has ruled that persons under a certain age are not allowed posession of alcohol. The Government has decided who can and can not make the purchase, and expects every person to prove their validity at each occurance. That is why this is comparable.
The Twenty–first Amendment grants the States virtually complete control over whether to permit importation or sale of liquor and how to structure the liquor distribution system.
Congress may condition receipt of federal highway funds on a state’s agreeing to raise the minimum drinking age to 21, the Twenty– first Amendment not constituting an “independent constitutional bar” to this sort of spending power exercise even though Congress may lack the power to achieve its purpose directly.
Nope, you just have to test your knowledge of "road rules". There is a difference. You're not going into the licensing facility and taking a drug/alcohol test. You are not going in to take a breathalyser. You are not going in to make certain you are in a "proper mindset" as defined in this discussion (under the influence).
Originally posted by apc
Pretty sure you have to prove you are capable of safely driving every time you renew your license.
Originally posted by apc
No, not an excuse. But the future is fast approaching. There is no avoiding it. All our fates may already be sealed. I for one would rather adapt and survive than die trying to cling to an irrelevant past that will be quickly forgotten.
Originally posted by apc
No, not an excuse. But the future is fast approaching. There is no avoiding it. All our fates may already be sealed. I for one would rather adapt and survive than die trying to cling to an irrelevant past that will be quickly forgotten.
Originally posted by Infoholic
Correction, apc... read the constitution and the amendments. The law placed to prevent minors from possessing alcohol, is in fact a state's law... not a federal law.