quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:

quote:

I won't argue the legality of DUI/DWI checkpoints. Here's why...

Which is just a way of saying "I will voluntarily give up my 4th Amendment rights, because it MAY prevent bad accidents."

I'm not trying to be a dick, because I get the emotion, and I am sure that the accident was terrifying, the injury extremely painful, and the recovery, as you say "a bitch", but this is essentially the argument of the gun control folks.

It's "I'm willing to give up my 2nd Amendment rights because giving them up MAY prevent a bad outcome."

We gun folk frequently argue that "shall not be infringed" is the operative clause of the 2nd Amendment, and we are puzzled that the "antis" can't seem to understand this simple truth.

The 4th Amendment reads:

quote:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Those of us arguing that the court has it wrong in the DUI stop matter are asserting the same simple truth. What part of the bolded bit above, don't people understand? Or more accurately, why are they willing to allow exceptions to the warrant and probable cause requirements as to the sanctity of to their persons, houses, papers and effects. It is inconsistent with a belief that the Constitution means what it says for these gaping exceptions to exist.

Note also that the DUI exception (and the immigration exception and the information exception) are determinations that owing to public policy, the severity of the issue, and a lack of other means of enforcing policy, these searches are effectively exception to the ENTIRE 4th Amendment, not simply an exception to the warrant requirement as are the exigency exception and the search incident to arrest exception.

Remember finally that the Constitution does not grant us rights. These are natural rights with which we are born as free beings. The Constitution, in this context is a document of limitation and not of grant. It limits the ability of the government to affect us as citizens. As a conservative and a constitutionalist, I argue that we should never accept exceptions to the government's power over us, particularly when an instrument of that government, namely the courts, argues that the exception is for an important public policy, and makes government's job easier. "For an important public policy" and "makes government's job easier" is one hell of a gaping exception to our rights as citizens and is the ultimate slippery slope to a meaningless Constitution.

We either have our rights secured by the constitution or we do not. When we start admitting exceptions to them, we admit exceptions to all of them. We should never give up, notwithstanding court decisions, and always argue for, and fight for the rights we are born with and which are guaranteed to us.

quote:

There is no warrant required by the 4th Amendment to search. Searches simply cannot be unreasonable .