It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by getreadyalready
"Routine" traffic stops are not legal. They have to have probable cause to pull you over. They have to have probable cause to make you exit the vehicle. And, in my humble opinion, there is absolutely never a reason to take your breath or your blood! What about the 5th Amendment? Surely my very lifeforce of blood qualifies as "self-incrimination" which I am constitutionally protected from doing!
The world does not revolve around your children.
Everyones Constitutional rights take priority over your little snowflake.
Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by ldyserenity
So with your logic, because of your kids, and your friends daughter's death, that makes it ok to infringe on the rest of public by forcing a blood test? Tell me your kidding?
So you wouldn't be offended if your precious lil 15 year, was say 16, and was fine, and yet was searched, frisked, and the like. Knowing the " groping " methods, you'd be ok with that?edit on 30-12-2010 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by getreadyalready
Well luckily for your hypothetical daughter, there'll be a judge on site!
edit on 30/12/10 by Chadwickus because: BAZINGA
You would allow some perverted cop to take her 15 year old body out of a car...
Weeks illustrates the Supreme Court's first use of the "exclusionary rule." The case concerns a man who was subject to a warrantless search by the police and deputy marshal. While searching Week's premises, the law enforcement agents discovered lottery tickets in his mail. Based on this evidence, Weeks was prosecuted for the illegal transport of gambling items. Prior to the trial, he requested the items taken from his house be returned; during the trial, he objected to their being offered into evidence. This provided the grounds for the Supreme Court appeal. The Court found in favor of Weeks, stating in their decision "...if letters and private documents can thus be seized and used as evidence...his right to be secure against such searches... is of no value, and...might as well be stricken from the Constitution."
Originally posted by ldyserenity
Listen, I know where all you guys are coming from about your liberties, yadda yadda yadda
...Think about it, if for some whacky reason the government said they were going to suspend everyones driving 'privileges', do you think everyone would listen to them? I think not. I think we would claim our right to drive a car, just like any law-breaking LEO would....
In July 2000, USDA officials claimed in our court hearing that, “The farmers have no rights. No right to be heard before the court, no right to independent testing, and no right to question the USDA....” Dr. Linda Fallice www.vtcommons.org...
You thought you had the right to choose what you eat? The FDA says you don't. They claim that there is no fundamental right to choose your food or freedom to contract for it. Responding to a Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund lawsuit, the FDA clearly states that you do not have the right to freedom of choice in your diet....
The FDA's Response and Claims
The FDA makes several statements in response to the lawsuit. The implications for personal freedoms are frightening.
The FDA claims that, before filing a lawsuit, the FTCLDF should have filed a petition with the FDA. In other words, they're claiming that they have the right to set the rules by which they may be accessed and controlled. If the FDA has such a right, then it is unaccountable to the people.
No Historical Tradition of Access to Food of Choice
The FDA states that "there is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition of unfettered access to food of all kinds."...
"There is No Generalized Right to Bodily and Physical Health."
This title quotes the title of a section of the FDA's response to the lawsuit. If that doesn't terrify you, then nothing can....