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.

 

It's Starting..Random Road Check Points

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Why is traveling a "privilege"? Who is responsible for blessing us with such a glorious "privilege"? Please give me his address so I can gravel and pay homage to his (or her) shiny loafers.




posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 01:28 PM
link   
RD,
Why did you say travelling when everyone else is talking about driving? Two very different things! Of course travelling is a right in a free country. Driving isn't.



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Care to elaborate the slightest little bit?



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Man!

You know, you have to qualify for the driving privilege* by demonstrating, to an authorized representative of the state, you can even operate a motor vehicle to qualify for this licensing.

*With the state, insurance companies, etc., this is always refered to a "driving privilege".

This said, you have to have "skills", which all do not have, to drive a vehicle.



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 03:07 PM
link   
You asked me "Care to elaborate the slightest little bit?" in my reply to your post

Originally posted by roxdog
Why is traveling a "privilege"? Who is responsible for blessing us with such a glorious "privilege"? Please give me his address so I can gravel and pay homage to his (or her) shiny loafers.


As I responded "Why did you say travelling when everyone else is talking about driving? Two very different things! Of course travelling is a right in a free country. Driving isn't."

I think it's all pretty straight forward to me. You're talking about two different things. Why did you change the subject?


And with that I think I'll sign off from this thread.


[edit on 18-7-2004 by AlterEgo]



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by CommonSense
It seems as though ignorance is the only thing prevailing in this thread. In Michigan, and probably all other states, driving is not a right. It is a privilege. Sobriety checkpoints have been around for a long time and have passed the tests of the court. Again, part of the argument is that driving is not a right.

Where ignorance prevails is when one attempts to extrapolate a roadway checkpoint with police or government officials conducting random searches of homes without cause or other off the wall improbable scenarios. Given the long standing history of the courts protecting, and sometimes even over protecting, rights, it is the height of ignorance to make that type of argument.



Thats the problem with this country we have way to many freedoms and our rights are protected way to much but I am sure with time all that will be taken care of.

Its not a big of jump of a jump as you may think.



Who would have thought a few years ago that we would even be arguing about wither the government could hold you without charges for as long as they wished? I am over fifty years old and I have watched our freedoms slowly erode over the years if you think we have to much freedom today you would have been shocked by what we had back then.

You can call me names if it makes you feel better but it does not change the fact that if we dont wake up soon and take back our government we will be in a police state.

But at least you will be safe from the boggie man



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Well Amuk, I'm 49 so I've seen a bit too. As far as holding people without charges, the only cases I'm aware of are enemy combatants. Typically these are not US citizens and may also be held as POWs. In the rare case where one is a US citizen, fine charge him with treason and hold him. It seems we have a lot of people running off half cocked without really understanding the issues and applicable law.



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlterEgo
Well Amuk, I'm 49 so I've seen a bit too. As far as holding people without charges, the only cases I'm aware of are enemy combatants. Typically these are not US citizens and may also be held as POWs. In the rare case where one is a US citizen, fine charge him with treason and hold him. It seems we have a lot of people running off half cocked without really understanding the issues and applicable law.


I am not half cocked.....ask my wife......LOL


It is rare for a citizen, what is it two now, to be held without charges but my point was who would have thought we would even be talking about the governments right to hold you without charges. If the are guilty of treason charge them, convict them and shoot the bastards. As for the POWs, not being citizens they are a different story.

If you are 49 than you must remember when it was not expected for the government to be allowed to pry into any part of your life an the whim of some cop or official, because someone somewhere MIGHT be breaking the law and you must prove you are not him.

Do you deny that we are living in a LOT less free country than say, 30 or 40 years ago?

Thats why I joined the Libertarians to help restore some of that freedom.

was that a shameless plug for the Libertarians or not?



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Amuk, I think AE has some valid points. Here's a few more to consider. Actually our rights are better protected today than ever before. Think of the days before the Miranda warning. Police weren't required to advise people of their rights. Evidence was seized regularly without search warrants and admitted in court without question. Prisoners were held for long periods without being charged. Think back to the earlier days of Hoover's FBI - now that a scary thought. Or think of McCarthy and the communist witch hunts. No, in the context of our full history as a nation, I really think our rights are more secure and well defined than at any point in time.



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Driving is an extension of traveling. All you have done is tell me what they do. You haven't told me who grants us these glorious privileges. The state isn't God. If so you might have a point. And even still, how does driving a car equal the loss of your 4th amendment?



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 05:09 PM
link   
I see the point both of you are making in some ways, yes you are better protected but in some ways you are not and they have a lot better methods of intruding into your life now. I grew up in the backwoods south where we had little real government involvement in our daily lives and I like it that way.

Between the patriot act and the drug laws we are walking a scary path not so much as for where we are but for where the path leads to. We could very easily return to the commie witch hunts of the 50s.

I am just saying we must gaurd EVERY right and freedom we have and not give them up at the merest hint of a reason.



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by roxdog

Originally posted by Majic
roxdog: If you can tell me which document associated with the founding of the United States of America contains the words "innocent until proven guilty", I'll give you a Scooby Snack.

Most nations don't have a written constitution. This concept PREDATES the US constitution and to say the Founding Father's weren't forming a rule of law BASED on this concept is just silly.


This basic right comes to us, like many things, from English jurisprudence, and has been a part of that system for so long, that it is considered common law. The concept is embodied in several provisions of the Constitution, however, such as the right to remain silent and the right to a jury.

www.usconstitution.net...


Of course, there was a point to my challenge, and here it is: a concept does not itself carry the weight of law. As such, it can be invoked, but cannot necessarily be considered a protection or defense at law.

While it is possible for a statute to be rejected on the basis of common law, it will more likely be found to supersede common law. Certainly the principle of "presumed innocent until proven guilty" is embedded throughout the Bill of Rights and legal process, but specific statutory exceptions to it can be upheld, although thankfully this is uncommon.

However, the point is that (even though it would seem otherwise) "innocent until proven guilty" is not inviolate. It can be challenged directly by legislation. If done and accepted incrementally, we could see it fall.

The good news is that we're not there yet, but the recent and alarming example of Rumsfeld v. Padilla (O3-1027, dec. 6/28/04), the case of the imprisonment of a U.S. citizen without habeas corpus, provides more than enough reasonable cause for concern. The court threw it back on jurisdictional grounds. Padilla remains in custody indefinitely.

There is also precedent for denying habeas corpus, as was done during the Civil War, even though the Constitution specifically requires a writ of habeas corpus (but oh so importantly, "unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it", talk about a loophole!). As it applies today, the matter itself remains undecided. It may be decided that the U.S. government can detain any citizen indefinitely without trial! We should never get too smug.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a noble concept, but can be misleading. Some folks take this idea to mean that a criminal is literally "innocent until proven guilty". This is not true. A criminal is guilty the moment he commits a crime. It amazes me how often this crucial distinction is forgotten. Witnesses, misled by this fallacy, have even gone so far as to "not be judgmental" about the man they just saw murder three people. It's important to maintain perspective.

But getting back to my point, you could accurately summarize it to ultimately be:

The only rights you have are the rights you can defend.

As for the Scooby Snack, ah what the heck, I think you've earned it.



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 05:47 PM
link   
something to gnaw on......

"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."

II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135
HERE
is the site. it may hurt a bit............the whole web site is interesting and a painfull reminder of what America has lost...and has now turned into AMERICA Inc.



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Very nice. You are obviously not yet a fallen warrior and you have found and are fighting the good fight...Freedom with no compromises.



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by roxdog
Driving is an extension of traveling. All you have done is tell me what they do. You haven't told me who grants us these glorious privileges. The state isn't God. If so you might have a point. And even still, how does driving a car equal the loss of your 4th amendment?


How did the 4th amendment get into this discussion? Driving is a means of travel, not an extension. Driving is still a privilege granted by, of all things, the state. There have been many intelligent posts in this thread that have made the point abundantly clear. If your looking for the Constitution to validate your position, forget it, cars didn't exist at the time. It seems as though when you found you lost the argument on driving privileges, you attempted to change the issue to travel, didn't work. The only thing that can restrict your ability to travel is an order of the court such as probation.

This thread has become a pointless discussion reminiscent of the arguments of those found in various militia movements. While discussion is good, it's pointless when one holds a position they cannot support and simply attempts to obfuscate the issues.



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Knowledge is power. Ignorance is surrender.



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 07:02 PM
link   
They do a checkpoint near my house about once a week. There is a looping exit after you go under an overpass so there is no way to see the checkpoint until you are on the ramp. Since we know the local cops they usually just wave us through
. However they say that they always catch a few drunks and at least one car loaded with drugs everytime they do it. Driving without license and insurance IS against the law so they have every right to ask you for it at a checkpoint IMO. Maybe I'll believe this NWO stuff when that checkpoint includes an APC and squad of soldiers instead of the local cops.



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 07:12 PM
link   
isn't driving also travel??? speaking of which...hasn't travel...which sounds like it is defined by some to be something other than convayance in your personal auto...becomeing more and more restrictive????????

well back to traveling on road ways...(driving for those who don't care about personal freedoms) just because you are 'licenced' does not mean you can 'drive' safley. people play musical instruments, putting on make up, talking on cell phones and eating at the same time...sexual favors while driving, just being plain afraid of the road ways........someone who has forgoten to pay a fine and has thier d.l. suspended, not paying child support, forgot to renew their d.l. or tags.. all sources of revenue for the state...has nothing to do with saftey.....in my time in law enforcement i have seen more of these than those with suspended d.l. because of dui's.

you want to talk 'saftey'....how many of you have lost control of your vehicle 'cause of driver error?? not many will admit that thay have done that. can you controll your vehicle in a skid, or at speed around a corner, or in rush hour trafic, how comfortable are you driving at night??should there be a better vehicle control test???? oh wait, that isn't what you get tested on when you get a d.l.

the 'check points' are for 1) revenue and 2) try to make people fear the pole-leaz again.

AMERICA is falling deeper and deeper into the abyss of govt/law enforcement wanting to know what they want, when they want, for what ever reason, you are under suspicion untill you can PROVE you apperant innocense..................we are in a very crucile time in American/AMERICAN history.................what will you do when the hammer falls..........



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 07:43 PM
link   
clearmind - Driving is a means of travel, travel is a much larger topic. Driving is a privilege. I think you should read the responses to your thread with a clearmind. BTW, do you, or did you ever belong to a militia or paramilitary group?



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by clearmind
I didn't see this story posted already...sorry if it is but....
Well, well, well....I guess it was inevetable. Random Road Check Points So now in what we thought was the land of the free......we now have, the Supreme Court ok'd Informational Check Points and now we have the pole-leaz pushing the limits or testing the waters with thier latest technique to make everybody equal...that is a suspect.
whats next?!?!?!?!?! what other off the wall reason will the pole-leaz think of to stop you? why stop at vehicle check points????
"No way" you say......every time the pole-leaz or the govt gets 'new' powers to do something, it does not take long for them to push the limits....use it for something that it was not intended for.....that is the way of the current AMERICAN govt....using legal double speak to circumvent the Constitution and the privacy of the individual. AMERICA is now the land where all individuals are under suspicion...all individuals exept foriegners.

do you think there is a 'larger' plan to make travel in AMERICA subject to more restrictions?? That is, you wont be able to hop in your personal cinvayance and travel to another state(s) without being searched or having your background checked????? haven't the terrorist allready won......look how the govt can/will/have restrict your personal liberties and is making it more difficult to travel freely around the u.s.??????

we are in a crucial time in AMERICAN/American history....will we once again be a 'free' country or will you sit around the govt controled neighborhood, shamfull telling your grandkids how you say it coming but didn't do anything




I feel sorry for you dude. But America has no business anywhere but within their own boarders. And they shouldnt.
If you dont like it, come live up north in canada, and enjoy the classic moose burgers and antler aile




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join