Are DUI charges etc ethical and Constitutional ?

Currently IC appears to carry potentially more penalties that DUI, because a refusal results in both being charged with IC and DUI. Also I know was what I was told, again it was over ten years ago. If my facts were wrong the thrust of the meaning where I stated the original IC comment is just as valid because I was criticizing RISK. So get over it.
reva

 

This is an very old post and I haven't posted here at PF in a month or more I want to rebut you. The reason I think most methods used to convict citizens of DUI is unconstitutional at is not because of the implied consent law which has been found as unconstitutional in several states, its because the person suspected of DUI has no way to make a informed judgment. When a person consumes alcohol the FIRST area of the brain to be effected are the frontal lobes where judgment etc is located. How can an intoxicated person make a unimpaired judgment to consent to a police search or breath tests etc if his judgment is clouded by alcohol or drugs? I am not defending a drunks right to drive drunk Its simply a question etc.

DUI punishments are way out of scale to compared to the the crime anyway. There is a difference between being drunk and driving and being drunk and wrecking causing damage. But that's another thread, eh? Don't misunderstand, I was severely injured so severely I had a NDE and was in the hospital over a month when a drunk driver crossed the center line running my motorcycle off the road. He was later stopped and confessed but did not stop to help me. But just like the laughable war on drugs, the DUI law as its written is nothing but a huge easy to fleece cash cow for the states that prey on the most poor of our citizens. In fact this entire nation with its homeland (father land) security is becoming a something far different than our forefathers envisioned. I have no doubt they would rebel against the feds if brought back to life somehow! Our freedom loving USA has World's Highest Incarceration Rate ;

www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2012/us-incarceration.aspx
‎

Since 2002, the United States has had the world's highest incarceration rate. ...
Does not include inmates of city or county jails or other detention facilities. ...
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Prisoner Statistics Program and ...
were more likely to be in prison or jail (37 percent) on any given day in 2008 than
to be ...


If I were not a christian I might be inclined to practice necromancy and bring back those founding fathers, its evident that none of our current crop of leaders have the backbone to do anything but kiss PAC arse.

Sorry about the herkey jerkey, off tangent content of this post, but I have my reasons.

reva

 

Your girlfriend is right.

 

Granny says, "Dat's right...

... ya gonna have to pay the fine...

... or go to jail...

... no use cryin' over spilt beer now...

... next time call a cab to take ya home."

 

The limit is bizarrely low but it's certainly an important issue. It does need to be sternly policed.

but as I said, the limit is absurd.

 

It is Constitutional from the standpoint that it is not a Constitutional issue. When you are involved with any law pertaining to a drivers license you are dealing with contractual law, and not Constitutional law. You agreed to a contract when you applied for a drivers license. If you break the contract, then you forfeit your license by default on the contract. The real question that begs to be answered is why you need the drivers license to begin with. The right to travel is a natural right which government has no power to regulate under the Constitution. When the government says you need a license to drive they are basically saying that traveling by way of automobile is illegal. If this is so then what legal president makes traveling by automobile different than traveling by horse and buggy?

 

There is no question about ethics because all freedom ends where another's freedom is impaired. Your freedom of drinking endangers another's freedom of remaining bodily unharmed. That's all. Regarding consent: where I live, consent is valid until a blood alcohol level of 0.005%.Until that point you will be punished according to traffic regulations. Above it, a regular criminal court will take it, for an offense called "recklessly drinking". The punishment will be more severe. Above 0.03% it will be said that you have lost all self control. For that no punishment is possible. You will then loose your license forever and be obliged to have psychiatric consultation and treatment (on your own cost by the way and with bad luck for the rest of your life, because the psychiatrist decides, if it was enough). For all those reason people here normally don't complain being in front of a traffic court and don't ask about ethics. Sometimes the more ethical possibility is the worst possibility.

 

You do have a right to travel, which is why you can drive around on your property in a vehicle drunk out of your mind as long as you aren't endangering anyone. Taking your vehicle out on the road is another matter. You don't own the roads or the land the roads are on. In many places, those roads are built and maintained by the state. Part of the deal with being able to use your vehicles on public roads is you're not allowed to be doing so while under the influence. You can always find other means of travel if you can not meet those expectations or just don't want to.

 

You are avoiding the original issue which was the constitutionality of restricting travel. Like I said, it is not a constitutional issue, unless you have not applied for a drivers license. Once you do, it is a issue of contract law in which your constitutional rights are inconsequential because inalienable rights are able to be signed away. So far as your assertion that the people do not own the roads, you cannot be more wrong. The public pays for the roads with their taxes and the State itself is the property and the servants of the people.
The State as a governmental office, must protect the rights and the collective property of the citizens.
The "corporation" of the State however, has no fiduciary responsibility to the people, and that is the State you deal with. It is all a scam, and if the people understood the scam they would overthrow it.