some more food for thought about this whole idea of ****ing peoples rights for the good of public safety.
State Supreme Court: Local voters can’t ban red-light cameras | Seattle Times Newspaper
i love how these things can't even be gotten rid of even with the full use of democracy. If you don't think your rights are getting ****ed, think again.
after all your vote doesn't mean **** huh?
also please refer to my previous comment in this thread equating traffic lights to DUI check points, once you lose a right it is almost impossible to get it back.
also i'd like to say even though this doesn't necessarily set a precedent, (depends on the type of precedent your talking about) it's not going to stop it from being cited and used for justification of a unjust action , like our very own lawyer here did, the supreme court knew it was unconstitutional to begin with but allowed it anyways. the citing of that case will be used over and over again unconstitutional or not. it's just how the game is played.
this is the monkey reference i keep making. 5 monkeys behind a bench decide it's ok and the other 300 million just go along with it repeating the lie again and again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4ganger View Post
Ok just to chime in... I'm a licensed attorney. This is settled law, and I mean settled by the US Supreme Ct. DUI administrative checkpoint are not a violation of your 5th amendment rights. Period.
|
Quote:
|
Chief Justice Rehnquist began his majority opinion by admitting that DUI sobriety checkpoints do, in fact, constitute a "seizure" within the language of the Fourth Amendment. In other words, yes, it appears to be a blatant violation of the Constitution. However, he continued, it's only a little one, and something has to be done about the "carnage" on the highways caused by drunk drivers. The "minimal intrusion on individual liberties," Rehnquist wrote, must be "weighed" against the need for -- and effectiveness of -- DUI roadblocks. In other words, the ends justify the means.
|
the article only mentions 1-2 cities i believe but this was voted down by at least 5 cities i have heard of on the radio today.
what happens when the people can no longer even vote to effect change and make their state or country the way they want it?
this is all over money as usual and the citizens rights have no weight.
if i get a pm on this post i will start a thread on this subject alone if you guys feel like it deserves it.
