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 hawkiye
Ah no I am not wrong the supreme court agrees with me... read em and weep...
"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.
"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.
"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.
"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.
In City of Salina v. Wisden (Utah 1987): "Mr. Wisden's assertion that the right to travel encompasses 'the unrestrained use of the highway' is wrong. The right to travel granted by the state and federal constitutions does not include the ability to ignore laws governing the use of public roadways. The motor vehicle code was promulgated to increase the safety and efficiency of our public roads. It enhances rather than infringes on the right to travel. The ability to drive a motor vehicle on a public roadway is not a fundamental right it is a privilege that is granted upon the compliance with the statutory licensing procedures."
Originally posted by hawkiye
I am not granted anything. THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GRANT RIGHTS! This is the problem people believe their rights were granted by the constitution THEY WERE NOT! The right to travel, keep and bear arms, free speech etc. etc. existed long before the constitution was ever written. What is granted can be revoked. The bill of rights only illustrated some of the more important UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. Do you understand what unalienable rights are?
Originally posted by hawkiye
That means they cannot be alienated from you. They have always existed they are not revokable.
Originally posted by hawkiye
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand this amounts to a take over by coercion and force. Legal does not equal lawful. It is unconstitutional the feds have no constitutional authority to do any such thing!
Originally posted by hawkiye
Such measures are a direct cause of decline in passengers causing financial problems as I show below.
Originally posted by TsukiLunar
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by TsukiLunar
No one wants to be searched, however I would give consent for it because i am willing to put up with it for public safety and because otherwise it makes no practical or logical sense to refuse.
Sure, it was an action done for "public safety", using innocent people as suspects to barricade and flush out the armed criminal. Who cares that this Dirty Harry strategy could have gone horribly wrong and the armed robbers pulled a North Hollywood Shootout killing you and several other innocent people, right? Being a sacrificial lamb to the alter is what we should all aspire to be, and in the name of "public safety". Thank-you for your willing - albeit hypothetical - sacrifice.
Right, this is why I cant talk to you. You are always looking down on everyone else who doesn't mindlessly agree with your interpretation of events and motives or indeed, the law itself.
Police said they had received what they called a “reliable” tip
“We didn’t have a description, didn’t know race or gender or anything,
Originally posted by babybunnies
Originally posted by mysterioustranger
Nope. Legal detention and public safety preceeds individual rights. They were released right? Then there was no offense on the part of legal detention.
Amen. You can bet if the police did NOT do this, and this guy hurt someone else, there would also be a lawsuit.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by hawkiye
The cases you are citing have nothing to do with freedom of movement inside or across state lines. They deal with the ability to travel unlicensed.
Defcon is correct and I agree with him. You have a constitutionally protected right to travel within and across state lines. The method of travel is not protected.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
Originally posted by HandyDandy
Originally posted by mysterioustranger
It is all legal...in the guise of..."We are conducting an investigation". Thats all they need. Judges will agree with their rights to detain you.
Just remember that all Hitler did while in power was "legal" too. You can cram your "it is legal" mumbo jumbo up your ass as far as I'm concerned.
Consent = legal...
you can jam your ignorance and refusal to acknowledge that fact up yours....
Originally posted by SyphonX
Can the horrid 'newspeak'.
It wasn't by "consent".
“Most of the adults were handcuffed, then were told what was going on and were asked for permission to search the car,” Fania said.
Originally posted by Thunderheart
And this is how we slowly succumb and lose our liberty, little by little.
Originally posted by mysterioustranger
Nope. Legal detention and public safety preceeds individual rights. They were released right? Then there was no offense on the part of legal detention.
This is the problem, out of control government, we have slowly allowed them to make acts such as this "lawful".
We are not headed towards a police state, we have arrived.
Originally posted by Dero
Sounds like a good idea to me. Just last week my family and I were stopped here in my town because some meth freaks also drive a white chevy corsica- who had just knocked over a shell gas station.
I for one applaud my local law enforcement. If you want to be safe, you have to pay the price! And if being delayed 3 minutes on my trip to the grocery store, I'll pay it gladly.
So keep cryin'!
If you want to be safe, you have to pay the price!
Originally posted by fleabit
Except that they were right - they apprehended the guy in the last car they searched, he had two firearms on him. While I don't exactly agree with their methods, they produced results, and did not simply conduct the search to further their "police state" agenda as people think.
Again.. perhaps not the best spur of the moment decision - but if they prevented this guy from robbing another bank, and perhaps shooting and killing an innocent, all good in the end imo. People get outraged so easily - they were putting their lives at risk to find an armed bank robber, and they are evil pig cops trying to force the nation to grovel under their steel-clad heel.
It's funny how quickly police get labeled, no matter what their intentions or results. Obviously this is part of the Americanized neo-nazi, facist rule, right? It couldn't possibly be exactly what it seems.
Originally posted by mysterioustranger
Nope. Legal detention and public safety preceeds individual rights. They were released right? Then there was no offense on the part of legal detention.