Whats worse? Newly born again christians or reformed dry drunks?

I really cannot tell them apart...they just love to dish out the torture and punishment.

ununcle: Silly Jesus: Do you face a different fine for blowing through a red light based on the number of seconds you do it after it turned red? Are reckless driving charges different based upon how reckless it is? There are many laws, and specifically traffic laws, that don't have a sliding scale of fines. You either committed the crime, or you didn't. Does this mean that all of those crimes are set up that way to be cash cows?

Blowing through a red light isn't marginal. Intoxication is.

I'd argue that going through the light .01 (before cross traffic has a chance to get a green light) second after it changes is less severe than 10 seconds after (when the cars that have the green have already entered the intersection). Why not put that on a sliding scale?

I'm not opposed to putting DUI on a sliding scale, but your argument made it out to be a rarity in that it wasn't already adjudicated in that fashion.

Silly Jesus: Oxygen_Thief: In my experiences you guys are arguing the Law vs Morality. Sorry your morality loses. The laws, in most states, have gone too far. No one is arguing that we let a drunk guy go drive around and get off. The difference is they are not catching"drunk drivers" they are jamming up people who have broken no law as written, how is that immoral? I think one must ask themselves how convicting innocent people advances your cause.

Innocent of what? What are you referring to?

Being drunk.

Mock26: Nrokreffefp: Mock26: Nrokreffefp: Mock26: Nrokreffefp: it was never Constitutional according to the letter of the law itself.

According to the letter of the law? The decisions are backed by the Constitution of the United States of America, the ultimate "letter of the law" in this country. Therefore all rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States are Constitutional according to the letter of the law itself.

An issue cannot be both Constitutional and not Constitutional depending on only the convenience and composition of the court. Otherwise, what is the point? The Constitution says whatever we say it does? Why even discuss the concept of Constitutionality if its moot? There is no point in you asserting that something is or is not Constitutional, because it is dependent on the current political beliefs of the justices.

All rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States are Constitutional until they are overturned by a subsequent ruling or legislation. That is a fact of law.

As for the Constitution saying whatever we say it does, what it says is open to interpretation. If not then why did the founding fathers create the Supreme Court?

Judicial review is a concept created by the Supreme Court, not the Constitution. Keep going, buttercup.

Actually, judicial review is inherent in the very nature of the Supreme Court's functions as defined by the Constitution. But, that is beside the point because I was not talking about judicial review. I swear, your reading comprehension really sucks, richardhead. Or are you still intentionally making shiat up?

Marbury v Madison. Jefferson disagreed because of the crap it led to you believing, ironically enough.

And the point of judicial review is what allows for the SCOTUS to reverse its own opinions and the actions of the legislative branch. Feel free to re-read Article 3. It doesn't say anything you think it does, and the Supreme Court had no power until it gave it to itself and was permitted because it was politically useful to established parties.

Silly Jesus: Oxygen_Thief: In my experiences you guys are arguing the Law vs Morality. Sorry your morality loses. The laws, in most states, have gone too far. No one is arguing that we let a drunk guy go drive around and get off. The difference is they are not catching"drunk drivers" they are jamming up people who have broken no law as written, how is that immoral? I think one must ask themselves how convicting innocent people advances your cause.

Innocent of what? What are you referring to?

I am referring to most state laws being so broad (whether through statutory or common law) being ridiculous. Which is a direct result of lobbying by MADD that really is a neo-temprance movement and is beholden to the legally irrelevant charges of its members. Not everyone charged is guilty but the laws sure do try.

So the question is: Is the police officer Judge and Jury? Many Jurisdictions have tried to make it so.

Silly Jesus: I'm not opposed to putting DUI on a sliding scale, but your argument made it out to be a rarity in that it wasn't already adjudicated in that fashion.

Really? Your going to argue this? Going through a red light is nothing more nothing less. Sure they can say you stopped first, or were tring to race a yellow, but my point is i'ts not the same as nor should it be treated as DWI nor should DWI be treated as such. Should I have thought of a better example? Is this one to close to call? WTF?

ununcle: Silly Jesus: I'm not opposed to putting DUI on a sliding scale, but your argument made it out to be a rarity in that it wasn't already adjudicated in that fashion.

Really? Your going to argue this? Going through a red light is nothing more nothing less. Sure they can say you stopped first, or were tring to race a yellow, but my point is i'ts not the same as nor should it be treated as DWI nor should DWI be treated as such. Should I have thought of a better example? Is this one to close to call? WTF?

He won't argue anything. He makes unbacked assertions, refuses to substantiate them, and instead of addressing actual points he will simply ask you incredibly stupid questions.

It's jerks like this who make me nervous when I drive by the bar and THINK, gee, an ice-cold beer will be tasty when I get home. Or FSM forbid, I have a wreck on the way home with a 12-pack in the back seat and have to convince a cop that no, I haven't been drinking. Yet. Not until I get home. How else shall I transport beer home? Have it flown in? It's gotten WAAAAY out of hand.

Expanding on my last post, it's pretty simple to trick the device without jumpers, or farking with the unit at all. If it has a coupler that the devices plugs into (assuming most do) and isn't just one hard wire, unplug the coupler and put your key in the ignition and turned as if you were starting your car. With your other hand plug the device in just enough so a connection is made and then quickly disconnect when vehicle fires up.

If you're not currently using a device and just want to drive drunk I suggest stashing a bottle of jack or whatever your poison is under the seat, in it's bag, unopened. If you get pulled over and know you are wasted, open the door and in clear view of the dash cam, crack bottle and start chugging. They can't prove time of intoxication. Yes you may get failure to comply if the cop is telling you to stay in the vehicle, but it's better than a DUI. (Told to me by my lawyer).

You can take my license, but you can't take mah freedom!

/I sincerely empathize with those who have lost someone to drunk driving and am sorry for your loss

Ray_Peranus: Expanding on my last post, it's pretty simple to trick the device without jumpers, or farking with the unit at all. If it has a coupler that the devices plugs into (assuming most do) and isn't just one hard wire, unplug the coupler and put your key in the ignition and turned as if you were starting your car. With your other hand plug the device in just enough so a connection is made and then quickly disconnect when vehicle fires up.

If you're not currently using a device and just want to drive drunk I suggest stashing a bottle of jack or whatever your poison is under the seat, in it's bag, unopened. If you get pulled over and know you are wasted, open the door and in clear view of the dash cam, crack bottle and start chugging. They can't prove time of intoxication. Yes you may get failure to comply if the cop is telling you to stay in the vehicle, but it's better than a DUI. (Told to me by my lawyer).

You can take my license, but you can't take mah freedom!

/I sincerely empathize with those who have lost someone to drunk driving and am sorry for your loss

Dangerous misinformation for you to spread...what state are you in? That is a very old and very not true strategy. It even has a name - The Glovebox Defense, and I haven't heard of it being used since early 1990s when it failed.

My name is Ray Peranus, do you really think anything I post is going to be taken seriously without a huge grain of salt if at all?

/I live in Wyoming

Nrokreffefp: Ray_Peranus: Expanding on my last post, it's pretty simple to trick the device without jumpers, or farking with the unit at all. If it has a coupler that the devices plugs into (assuming most do) and isn't just one hard wire, unplug the coupler and put your key in the ignition and turned as if you were starting your car. With your other hand plug the device in just enough so a connection is made and then quickly disconnect when vehicle fires up.

If you're not currently using a device and just want to drive drunk I suggest stashing a bottle of jack or whatever your poison is under the seat, in it's bag, unopened. If you get pulled over and know you are wasted, open the door and in clear view of the dash cam, crack bottle and start chugging. They can't prove time of intoxication. Yes you may get failure to comply if the cop is telling you to stay in the vehicle, but it's better than a DUI. (Told to me by my lawyer).

You can take my license, but you can't take mah freedom!

/I sincerely empathize with those who have lost someone to drunk driving and am sorry for your loss

Dangerous misinformation for you to spread...what state are you in? That is a very old and very not true strategy. It even has a name - The Glovebox Defense, and I haven't heard of it being used since early 1990s when it failed.

yeah that will get you about as far as you can throw your attorney for trying to use it.

ununcle: Silly Jesus: Oxygen_Thief: In my experiences you guys are arguing the Law vs Morality. Sorry your morality loses. The laws, in most states, have gone too far. No one is arguing that we let a drunk guy go drive around and get off. The difference is they are not catching"drunk drivers" they are jamming up people who have broken no law as written, how is that immoral? I think one must ask themselves how convicting innocent people advances your cause.

Innocent of what? What are you referring to?

Being drunk.

There's an epidemic of sober drivers being arrested for DUI?

Oxygen_Thief: Silly Jesus: Oxygen_Thief: In my experiences you guys are arguing the Law vs Morality. Sorry your morality loses. The laws, in most states, have gone too far. No one is arguing that we let a drunk guy go drive around and get off. The difference is they are not catching"drunk drivers" they are jamming up people who have broken no law as written, how is that immoral? I think one must ask themselves how convicting innocent people advances your cause.

Innocent of what? What are you referring to?

I am referring to most state laws being so broad (whether through statutory or common law) being ridiculous. Which is a direct result of lobbying by MADD that really is a neo-temprance movement and is beholden to the legally irrelevant charges of its members. Not everyone charged is guilty but the laws sure do try.

So the question is: Is the police officer Judge and Jury? Many Jurisdictions have tried to make it so.

I'm not following your vague assertions...

this is why we all need to get behind self-driving cars. we're not going to escape car culture in my lifetime. people outside of NY, DC, and SF will simply not agree to pay the necessary taxes to make public transportation a reality and the federal gov't shows no signs of making public transportation a priority.

the only hope we have is enough lawyers, judges, and insurance executives wanting self driving cars enough that they figure out how to make car companies not liable for the fender benders (and occasional tragedies) of self driving cars.

ununcle: Silly Jesus: I'm not opposed to putting DUI on a sliding scale, but your argument made it out to be a rarity in that it wasn't already adjudicated in that fashion.

Really? Your going to argue this? Going through a red light is nothing more nothing less. Sure they can say you stopped first, or were tring to race a yellow, but my point is i'ts not the same as nor should it be treated as DWI nor should DWI be treated as such. Should I have thought of a better example? Is this one to close to call? WTF?

Huh?

Nrokreffefp isn't going to have anyone left to say stupid shiat too if he continues to put everyone that disagrees with him on ignore.

Silly Jesus: ununcle: Silly Jesus: I'm not opposed to putting DUI on a sliding scale, but your argument made it out to be a rarity in that it wasn't already adjudicated in that fashion.

Really? Your going to argue this? Going through a red light is nothing more nothing less. Sure they can say you stopped first, or were tring to race a yellow, but my point is i'ts not the same as nor should it be treated as DWI nor should DWI be treated as such. Should I have thought of a better example? Is this one to close to call? WTF?

Huh?

I'm not taking to you so you can't just pretend you didn't hear.

Silly Jesus: ununcle: Silly Jesus: Oxygen_Thief: In my experiences you guys are arguing the Law vs Morality. Sorry your morality loses. The laws, in most states, have gone too far. No one is arguing that we let a drunk guy go drive around and get off. The difference is they are not catching"drunk drivers" they are jamming up people who have broken no law as written, how is that immoral? I think one must ask themselves how convicting innocent people advances your cause.

Innocent of what? What are you referring to?

Being drunk.

There's an epidemic of sober drivers being arrested for DUI?

Your argument is invalid. At least in most states you have to be imparied AND a danger on the highways...this allows you to have a drink or two at the bar (I just had two officer!) so there are two elements impaired and drunk because after a drink or two you are at least somewhat impaired, but are you a danger? So then MADD came along and asked the American Medical Association at what BAC is someone impaired enough to not drive. AMA said .15...then there was an uproar and AMA said ohh we really meant .10-,12 and then MADD said how about ..08 and the AMA said "man we totes meant .08 the whole time" So in all jurisdictions .08 is defacto danger on the public highways, even though there is zero evidence to back that up. Eating a piece of white bread will register on the machine.

Silly Jesus: There's an epidemic of sober drivers being arrested for DUI?

There is an epidemic of drivers not being arrested if we use the same meaningless standard. Silvertops with no glasses, SS med addicts, and teens on cellphones all pose greater threats then Joe Sixpack..

fusillade762: If only there were some device that could prevent you from driving if you're intoxicated...

[winbackyourlife.org image 300x346]

Or if you ate a really greasy slice of pizza. That thing actually gave me a fail after a slice of pizza. And a warning after finishing a bottle of V8. I hadn't had a drop of alcohol for 3 weeks when I got the warning

Silly Jesus: ununcle: Silly Jesus: I'm not opposed to putting DUI on a sliding scale, but your argument made it out to be a rarity in that it wasn't already adjudicated in that fashion.

Really? Your going to argue this? Going through a red light is nothing more nothing less. Sure they can say you stopped first, or were tring to race a yellow, but my point is i'ts not the same as nor should it be treated as DWI nor should DWI be treated as such. Should I have thought of a better example? Is this one to close to call? WTF?

Huh?

I'm not "talking" to you so you can't say you didn't hear.

ununcle: Silly Jesus: There's an epidemic of sober drivers being arrested for DUI?

There is an epidemic of drivers not being arrested if we use the same meaningless standard. Silvertops with no glasses, SS med addicts, and teens on cellphones all pose greater threats then Joe Sixpack..

They pose largely equal risks to Joe Sixpack. I wouldn't always say greater. Sometimes, but sometimes not.

Oxygen_Thief: Silly Jesus: ununcle: Silly Jesus: Oxygen_Thief: In my experiences you guys are arguing the Law vs Morality. Sorry your morality loses. The laws, in most states, have gone too far. No one is arguing that we let a drunk guy go drive around and get off. The difference is they are not catching"drunk drivers" they are jamming up people who have broken no law as written, how is that immoral? I think one must ask themselves how convicting innocent people advances your cause.

Innocent of what? What are you referring to?

Being drunk.

There's an epidemic of sober drivers being arrested for DUI?

Your argument is invalid. At least in most states you have to be imparied AND a danger on the highways...this allows you to have a drink or two at the bar (I just had two officer!) so there are two elements impaired and drunk because after a drink or two you are at least somewhat impaired, but are you a danger? So then MADD came along and asked the American Medical Association at what BAC is someone impaired enough to not drive. AMA said .15...then there was an uproar and AMA said ohh we really meant .10-,12 and then MADD said how about ..08 and the AMA said "man we totes meant .08 the whole time" So in all jurisdictions .08 is defacto danger on the public highways, even though there is zero evidence to back that up. Eating a piece of white bread will register on the machine.

So the AMA is NHTSA now?

This isn't a MADD conspiracy. The studies were done by numerous entities in numerous states, none of which acted at the behest of MADD. MADD is nuts, but they aren't at the helm of some sort of worldwide conspiracy to get BAC limits lowered. (in most of the world limits are lower than .08)

White bread registers on the machine after the required 20 minute wait time following the consumption of food? Um, no.

If I'm going out and planning on getting shiathammered, how am I supposed to get my car the next day for work? Suck on that, MADDfags. A taxi doesn't also tow my car home so I can get to my job at eight in the morning.

/shiathammered
//posting safely behind a keyboard with 8+ hours before work
///drunk driving is only detectable in hardened alkies who CANNOT stop and people who are bad drivers anyway

ununcle: Silly Jesus: ununcle: Silly Jesus: I'm not opposed to putting DUI on a sliding scale, but your argument made it out to be a rarity in that it wasn't already adjudicated in that fashion.

Really? Your going to argue this? Going through a red light is nothing more nothing less. Sure they can say you stopped first, or were tring to race a yellow, but my point is i'ts not the same as nor should it be treated as DWI nor should DWI be treated as such. Should I have thought of a better example? Is this one to close to call? WTF?

Huh?

I'm not "talking" to you so you can't say you didn't hear.

I didn't comprehend what you were saying (typing)...

Ray_Peranus: If you're not currently using a device and just want to drive drunk I suggest stashing a bottle of jack or whatever your poison is under the seat, in it's bag, unopened. If you get pulled over and know you are wasted, open the door and in clear view of the dash cam, crack bottle and start chugging. They can't prove time of intoxication. Yes you may get failure to comply if the cop is telling you to stay in the vehicle, but it's better than a DUI. (Told to me by my lawyer).

This is very good advice for anyone who wants to drive drunk.

Because nobody should be driving drunk, and doing this will get them in even more trouble then just a DUI.

Silly Jesus: Oxygen_Thief: Silly Jesus: ununcle: Silly Jesus: Oxygen_Thief: In my experiences you guys are arguing the Law vs Morality. Sorry your morality loses. The laws, in most states, have gone too far. No one is arguing that we let a drunk guy go drive around and get off. The difference is they are not catching"drunk drivers" they are jamming up people who have broken no law as written, how is that immoral? I think one must ask themselves how convicting innocent people advances your cause.

Innocent of what? What are you referring to?

Being drunk.

There's an epidemic of sober drivers being arrested for DUI?

Your argument is invalid. At least in most states you have to be imparied AND a danger on the highways...this allows you to have a drink or two at the bar (I just had two officer!) so there are two elements impaired and drunk because after a drink or two you are at least somewhat impaired, but are you a danger? So then MADD came along and asked the American Medical Association at what BAC is someone impaired enough to not drive. AMA said .15...then there was an uproar and AMA said ohh we really meant .10-,12 and then MADD said how about ..08 and the AMA said "man we totes meant .08 the whole time" So in all jurisdictions .08 is defacto danger on the public highways, even though there is zero evidence to back that up. Eating a piece of white bread will register on the machine.

So the AMA is NHTSA now?

This isn't a MADD conspiracy. The studies were done by numerous entities in numerous states, none of which acted at the behest of MADD. MADD is nuts, but they aren't at the helm of some sort of worldwide conspiracy to get BAC limits lowered. (in most of the world limits are lower than .08)

White bread registers on the machine after the required 20 minute wait time following the consumption of food? Um, no.

What planet do you live on that you think police officers actually wait? I mean they are never punished for not waiting. Especially, since in my jurisdiction and most I am familiar with 1/3 of the fine goes into their pension fund by statute?

Nrokreffefp: Mock26: Nrokreffefp: Mock26: Nrokreffefp: Mock26: Nrokreffefp: it was never Constitutional according to the letter of the law itself.

According to the letter of the law? The decisions are backed by the Constitution of the United States of America, the ultimate "letter of the law" in this country. Therefore all rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States are Constitutional according to the letter of the law itself.

An issue cannot be both Constitutional and not Constitutional depending on only the convenience and composition of the court. Otherwise, what is the point? The Constitution says whatever we say it does? Why even discuss the concept of Constitutionality if its moot? There is no point in you asserting that something is or is not Constitutional, because it is dependent on the current political beliefs of the justices.

All rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States are Constitutional until they are overturned by a subsequent ruling or legislation. That is a fact of law.

As for the Constitution saying whatever we say it does, what it says is open to interpretation. If not then why did the founding fathers create the Supreme Court?

Judicial review is a concept created by the Supreme Court, not the Constitution. Keep going, buttercup.

Actually, judicial review is inherent in the very nature of the Supreme Court's functions as defined by the Constitution. But, that is beside the point because I was not talking about judicial review. I swear, your reading comprehension really sucks, richardhead. Or are you still intentionally making shiat up?

Marbury v Madison. Jefferson disagreed because of the crap it led to you believing, ironically enough.

Funny, because judicial review was mentioned numerous times during the Constitutional Convention. It was also discussed in the Federalist Papers. And, it was discussed by many of the states during their ratification debates. In fact, 8 states actually declared that under the Constitution the courts would have the power to declare statutes unconstitutional. So while Marbury v. Madison is the first case in which the Supreme Court exercised judicial review, it certainly did not originate with that case.

"Judges would have a sufficient check against encroachments on their own department by their exposition of the laws, which involved a power of deciding on their constitutionality. In some states the judges had actually set aside laws, as being against the constitution. This was done too with general approbation." - Elbridge Gerry.

"If a law should be made inconsistent with those powers vested by this instrument in Congress, the judges, as a consequence of their independence, and the particular powers of government being defined, will declare such law to be null and void. For the power of the Constitution predominates. Anything, therefore, that shall be enacted by Congress contrary thereto will not have the force of law." - James Wilson

"This Constitution defines the extent of the powers of the general government. If the general legislature should at any time overleap their limits, the judicial department is a constitutional check. If the United States go beyond their powers, if they make a law which the Constitution does not authorize, it is void; and the judicial power, the national judges, who, to secure their impartiality, are to be made independent, will declare it to be void." -Oliver Ellsworth

Mock26: Nrokreffefp: Mock26: Nrokreffefp: Mock26: Nrokreffefp: Mock26: Nrokreffefp: it was never Constitutional according to the letter of the law itself.

According to the letter of the law? The decisions are backed by the Constitution of the United States of America, the ultimate "letter of the law" in this country. Therefore all rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States are Constitutional according to the letter of the law itself.

An issue cannot be both Constitutional and not Constitutional depending on only the convenience and composition of the court. Otherwise, what is the point? The Constitution says whatever we say it does? Why even discuss the concept of Constitutionality if its moot? There is no point in you asserting that something is or is not Constitutional, because it is dependent on the current political beliefs of the justices.

All rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States are Constitutional until they are overturned by a subsequent ruling or legislation. That is a fact of law.

As for the Constitution saying whatever we say it does, what it says is open to interpretation. If not then why did the founding fathers create the Supreme Court?

Judicial review is a concept created by the Supreme Court, not the Constitution. Keep going, buttercup.

Actually, judicial review is inherent in the very nature of the Supreme Court's functions as defined by the Constitution. But, that is beside the point because I was not talking about judicial review. I swear, your reading comprehension really sucks, richardhead. Or are you still intentionally making shiat up?

Marbury v Madison. Jefferson disagreed because of the crap it led to you believing, ironically enough.

Funny, because judicial review was mentioned numerous times during the Constitutional Convention. It was also discussed in the Federalist Papers. And, it was discussed by many of the states during their ratification debates. In fact, 8 states actually declared that under the Constit ...

Ok, I get it. You want the final protection of citizens rights to come down to 9 unelected and politically motivated appointees of presidents. We are simply never going to agree.

Silly Jesus: ununcle: Silly Jesus: There's an epidemic of sober drivers being arrested for DUI?

There is an epidemic of drivers not being arrested if we use the same meaningless standard. Silvertops with no glasses, SS med addicts, and teens on cellphones all pose greater threats then Joe Sixpack..

They pose largely equal risks to Joe Sixpack. I wouldn't always say greater. Sometimes, but sometimes not.

Ok,, Well then we're making progress. Would you then agree that no mater what meds the SS person is taking, no mater what the farking teen was texting, no mater why someone over 60 is driving, they should, in the event they get pulled over,, face a judge to decide whether or not they should bunk with murderers and rapist just like a person who had a few beers? Now, keep in mind we're taliking about someone that had a couple of beers not someone who downed a 5th after PCP and took out a school bus.

Nrokreffefp: Mock26: Nrokreffefp: Mock26: Nrokreffefp: Mock26: Nrokreffefp: Mock26: Nrokreffefp: it was never Constitutional according to the letter of the law itself.

According to the letter of the law? The decisions are backed by the Constitution of the United States of America, the ultimate "letter of the law" in this country. Therefore all rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States are Constitutional according to the letter of the law itself.

An issue cannot be both Constitutional and not Constitutional depending on only the convenience and composition of the court. Otherwise, what is the point? The Constitution says whatever we say it does? Why even discuss the concept of Constitutionality if its moot? There is no point in you asserting that something is or is not Constitutional, because it is dependent on the current political beliefs of the justices.

All rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States are Constitutional until they are overturned by a subsequent ruling or legislation. That is a fact of law.

As for the Constitution saying whatever we say it does, what it says is open to interpretation. If not then why did the founding fathers create the Supreme Court?

Judicial review is a concept created by the Supreme Court, not the Constitution. Keep going, buttercup.

Actually, judicial review is inherent in the very nature of the Supreme Court's functions as defined by the Constitution. But, that is beside the point because I was not talking about judicial review. I swear, your reading comprehension really sucks, richardhead. Or are you still intentionally making shiat up?

Marbury v Madison. Jefferson disagreed because of the crap it led to you believing, ironically enough.

Funny, because judicial review was mentioned numerous times during the Constitutional Convention. It was also discussed in the Federalist Papers. And, it was discussed by many of the states during their ratification debates. In fact, 8 states actually declared that under the ...

I dunno but it has to be better than the Mob. There all poor and cannot donate.

Nrokreffefp: Mock26: Nrokreffefp: Mock26: Nrokreffefp: Mock26: Nrokreffefp: Mock26: Nrokreffefp: it was never Constitutional according to the letter of the law itself.

According to the letter of the law? The decisions are backed by the Constitution of the United States of America, the ultimate "letter of the law" in this country. Therefore all rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States are Constitutional according to the letter of the law itself.

An issue cannot be both Constitutional and not Constitutional depending on only the convenience and composition of the court. Otherwise, what is the point? The Constitution says whatever we say it does? Why even discuss the concept of Constitutionality if its moot? There is no point in you asserting that something is or is not Constitutional, because it is dependent on the current political beliefs of the justices.

All rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States are Constitutional until they are overturned by a subsequent ruling or legislation. That is a fact of law.

As for the Constitution saying whatever we say it does, what it says is open to interpretation. If not then why did the founding fathers create the Supreme Court?

Judicial review is a concept created by the Supreme Court, not the Constitution. Keep going, buttercup.

Actually, judicial review is inherent in the very nature of the Supreme Court's functions as defined by the Constitution. But, that is beside the point because I was not talking about judicial review. I swear, your reading comprehension really sucks, richardhead. Or are you still intentionally making shiat up?

Marbury v Madison. Jefferson disagreed because of the crap it led to you believing, ironically enough.

Funny, because judicial review was mentioned numerous times during the Constitutional Convention. It was also discussed in the Federalist Papers. And, it was discussed by many of the states during their ratification debates. In fact, 8 states actually declared that under the Constit ...

Ok, I get it. You want the final protection of citizens rights to come down to 9 unelected and politically motivated appointees of presidents. We are simply never going to agree.

It is not a matter of want. It is a matter of FACT. Argue against it all you want, but the Supreme Court of the United States is the final protection of the rights of citizens in this country.

Oxygen_Thief: Silly Jesus: Oxygen_Thief: Silly Jesus: ununcle: Silly Jesus: Oxygen_Thief: In my experiences you guys are arguing the Law vs Morality. Sorry your morality loses. The laws, in most states, have gone too far. No one is arguing that we let a drunk guy go drive around and get off. The difference is they are not catching"drunk drivers" they are jamming up people who have broken no law as written, how is that immoral? I think one must ask themselves how convicting innocent people advances your cause.

Innocent of what? What are you referring to?

Being drunk.

There's an epidemic of sober drivers being arrested for DUI?

Your argument is invalid. At least in most states you have to be imparied AND a danger on the highways...this allows you to have a drink or two at the bar (I just had two officer!) so there are two elements impaired and drunk because after a drink or two you are at least somewhat impaired, but are you a danger? So then MADD came along and asked the American Medical Association at what BAC is someone impaired enough to not drive. AMA said .15...then there was an uproar and AMA said ohh we really meant .10-,12 and then MADD said how about ..08 and the AMA said "man we totes meant .08 the whole time" So in all jurisdictions .08 is defacto danger on the public highways, even though there is zero evidence to back that up. Eating a piece of white bread will register on the machine.

So the AMA is NHTSA now?

This isn't a MADD conspiracy. The studies were done by numerous entities in numerous states, none of which acted at the behest of MADD. MADD is nuts, but they aren't at the helm of some sort of worldwide conspiracy to get BAC limits lowered. (in most of the world limits are lower than .08)

White bread registers on the machine after the required 20 minute wait time following the consumption of food? Um, no.

What planet do you live on that you think police officers actually wait? I mean they are never punished for not waiting. Especially, ...

1. Is there an epidemic of innocent people eating white bread immediately before blowing?
2. In my jurisdiction everything is recorded audio/video and none of the funds go to the department either directly or indirectly.

This guy is an alcoholic. Perhaps some proper treatment on his 2nd or 3rd could have stopped it there instead of just locking him up.

Silly Jesus: ununcle: Silly Jesus: ununcle: Silly Jesus: I'm not opposed to putting DUI on a sliding scale, but your argument made it out to be a rarity in that it wasn't already adjudicated in that fashion.

Really? Your going to argue this? Going through a red light is nothing more nothing less. Sure they can say you stopped first, or were tring to race a yellow, but my point is i'ts not the same as nor should it be treated as DWI nor should DWI be treated as such. Should I have thought of a better example? Is this one to close to call? WTF?

Huh?

I'm not "talking" to you so you can't say you didn't hear.

I didn't comprehend what you were saying (typing)...

I was pointing out that going through a red like is an open and shut case. You can't just kinda go through by mistake.. I don't feel they should treat DWI the same absolute because there is no way someone who had a sixpack over a couple hours is the same threat as someone who drank a fifth in an hour.

ununcle: Silly Jesus: ununcle: Silly Jesus: There's an epidemic of sober drivers being arrested for DUI?

There is an epidemic of drivers not being arrested if we use the same meaningless standard. Silvertops with no glasses, SS med addicts, and teens on cellphones all pose greater threats then Joe Sixpack..

They pose largely equal risks to Joe Sixpack. I wouldn't always say greater. Sometimes, but sometimes not.

Ok,, Well then we're making progress. Would you then agree that no mater what meds the SS person is taking, no mater what the farking teen was texting, no mater why someone over 60 is driving, they should, in the event they get pulled over,, face a judge to decide whether or not they should bunk with murderers and rapist just like a person who had a few beers? Now, keep in mind we're taliking about someone that had a couple of beers not someone who downed a 5th after PCP and took out a school bus.

If someone is drunk then they are drunk the entire time that they are driving. If someone is texting while stopped at a red light (illegal in my state) or texts two words during the course of their 30 minute drive, that is substantially from being impaired for the entire drive.

I would say that a starting point would be to make the charges in the instance of a wreck the same and go from there.

Silly Jesus: Oxygen_Thief: Silly Jesus: Oxygen_Thief: Silly Jesus: ununcle: Silly Jesus: Oxygen_Thief: In my experiences you guys are arguing the Law vs Morality. Sorry your morality loses. The laws, in most states, have gone too far. No one is arguing that we let a drunk guy go drive around and get off. The difference is they are not catching"drunk drivers" they are jamming up people who have broken no law as written, how is that immoral? I think one must ask themselves how convicting innocent people advances your cause.

Innocent of what? What are you referring to?

Being drunk.

There's an epidemic of sober drivers being arrested for DUI?

Your argument is invalid. At least in most states you have to be imparied AND a danger on the highways...this allows you to have a drink or two at the bar (I just had two officer!) so there are two elements impaired and drunk because after a drink or two you are at least somewhat impaired, but are you a danger? So then MADD came along and asked the American Medical Association at what BAC is someone impaired enough to not drive. AMA said .15...then there was an uproar and AMA said ohh we really meant .10-,12 and then MADD said how about ..08 and the AMA said "man we totes meant .08 the whole time" So in all jurisdictions .08 is defacto danger on the public highways, even though there is zero evidence to back that up. Eating a piece of white bread will register on the machine.

So the AMA is NHTSA now?

This isn't a MADD conspiracy. The studies were done by numerous entities in numerous states, none of which acted at the behest of MADD. MADD is nuts, but they aren't at the helm of some sort of worldwide conspiracy to get BAC limits lowered. (in most of the world limits are lower than .08)

White bread registers on the machine after the required 20 minute wait time following the consumption of food? Um, no.

What planet do you live on that you think police officers actually wait? I mean they are never punished for not waiting. ...

Well that is just not true in most of the country..especially the south. Is their an epidemic of people getting arrested when they have broken no law? Well yes yes there is.

I think you should answer my question should someone who is impaired but not a danger on the highways have their life thrown into turmoil because of stupid laws? Because that is what is happening.

Mock26: It is not a matter of want. It is a matter of FACT. Argue against it all you want, but the Supreme Court of the United States is the final protection of the rights of citizens in this country.

You reference the Federalist papers and then say something that stupid? The Supreme Court has lacked actual enforcement power for a long time. They have been ignored and flouted as recently as the ending of the totally Constitutional doctrine of "Separate But Equal". I suggest you go re-read the papers, and the Second Amendment. Good talk.

flamingboard: This guy is an alcoholic. Perhaps some proper treatment on his 2nd or 3rd could have stopped it there instead of just locking him up.

We have the tech to bracelet farks like this. The only reason crap like this make the press is to make money of the small fries. I have never had a dui but most people I know have. Almost all my freinds we're stupid enough and at 3000- 5000 bucks a pop that's a lot of money for the state.

ununcle: Silly Jesus: ununcle: Silly Jesus: ununcle: Silly Jesus: I'm not opposed to putting DUI on a sliding scale, but your argument made it out to be a rarity in that it wasn't already adjudicated in that fashion.

Really? Your going to argue this? Going through a red light is nothing more nothing less. Sure they can say you stopped first, or were tring to race a yellow, but my point is i'ts not the same as nor should it be treated as DWI nor should DWI be treated as such. Should I have thought of a better example? Is this one to close to call? WTF?

Huh?

I'm not "talking" to you so you can't say you didn't hear.

I didn't comprehend what you were saying (typing)...

I was pointing out that going through a red like is an open and shut case. You can't just kinda go through by mistake.. I don't feel they should treat DWI the same absolute because there is no way someone who had a sixpack over a couple hours is the same threat as someone who drank a fifth in an hour.

There's no way that someone who goes through a red light before the light for the cross traffic even comes close to turning green (what red light cameras will get you for) is the same danger as someone who blows through a red light 10 seconds after it has turned red and the cross traffic is filling the intersection.

I agree though that it would be fine to put DUI on a sliding scale. Barely able to stand up drunks should get a more severe punishment.

I don't think that DUI is a mistake, which you are implying, I believe. If you are in doubt, don't drive.

Oxygen_Thief: Silly Jesus: Oxygen_Thief: Silly Jesus: Oxygen_Thief: Silly Jesus: ununcle: Silly Jesus: Oxygen_Thief: In my experiences you guys are arguing the Law vs Morality. Sorry your morality loses. The laws, in most states, have gone too far. No one is arguing that we let a drunk guy go drive around and get off. The difference is they are not catching"drunk drivers" they are jamming up people who have broken no law as written, how is that immoral? I think one must ask themselves how convicting innocent people advances your cause.

Innocent of what? What are you referring to?

Being drunk.

There's an epidemic of sober drivers being arrested for DUI?

Your argument is invalid. At least in most states you have to be imparied AND a danger on the highways...this allows you to have a drink or two at the bar (I just had two officer!) so there are two elements impaired and drunk because after a drink or two you are at least somewhat impaired, but are you a danger? So then MADD came along and asked the American Medical Association at what BAC is someone impaired enough to not drive. AMA said .15...then there was an uproar and AMA said ohh we really meant .10-,12 and then MADD said how about ..08 and the AMA said "man we totes meant .08 the whole time" So in all jurisdictions .08 is defacto danger on the public highways, even though there is zero evidence to back that up. Eating a piece of white bread will register on the machine.

So the AMA is NHTSA now?

This isn't a MADD conspiracy. The studies were done by numerous entities in numerous states, none of which acted at the behest of MADD. MADD is nuts, but they aren't at the helm of some sort of worldwide conspiracy to get BAC limits lowered. (in most of the world limits are lower than .08)

White bread registers on the machine after the required 20 minute wait time following the consumption of food? Um, no.

What planet do you live on that you think police officers actually wait? I mean they are never punished for ...

My jurisdiction is in the south.

Do you have any evidence of this epidemic of innocent people being arrested? What are they being arrested for?

Impaired means dangerous. What stupid law is making dangerous drivers lives be thrown into turmoil?

Nrokreffefp: Mock26: It is not a matter of want. It is a matter of FACT. Argue against it all you want, but the Supreme Court of the United States is the final protection of the rights of citizens in this country.

You reference the Federalist papers and then say something that stupid? The Supreme Court has lacked actual enforcement power for a long time. They have been ignored and flouted as recently as the ending of the totally Constitutional doctrine of "Separate But Equal". I suggest you go re-read the papers, and the Second Amendment. Good talk.

Fellars you guys are getting all technical on the constitution...the real problem is MADD..narrow your issue. (or don't and continue the rather fascinating argument.)

flamingboard: This guy is an alcoholic. Perhaps some proper treatment on his 2nd or 3rd could have stopped it there instead of just locking him up.

Treatment only works if he wants it to. Likely needs treatment in order to physically sober up. The rest is typically addiction counseling, and a 12 step like AA, which again only works if you want it to. Alcohol permeates our society everywhere one looks, so it does take a sincere desire to quit drinking for good. And as a free man, he'll drink if he wants to.

There are drugs like antabuse which make one physically sick by introduction of alcohol into the system. I think they may be monthly?

There are intensive (and very expensive) treatment programs like Schick Shadel Hospital which do things akin to the Clockwork Orange "treatment" wherein the patient is made sick for a series of days in various ways. I think shock therapy might also be in their treatment...pretty interesting stuff.

But as a free man, an alcoholic must decide he's done with the stuff, or he'll drink.

Silly Jesus: Oxygen_Thief: Silly Jesus: Oxygen_Thief: Silly Jesus: Oxygen_Thief: Silly Jesus: ununcle: Silly Jesus: Oxygen_Thief: In my experiences you guys are arguing the Law vs Morality. Sorry your morality loses. The laws, in most states, have gone too far. No one is arguing that we let a drunk guy go drive around and get off. The difference is they are not catching"drunk drivers" they are jamming up people who have broken no law as written, how is that immoral? I think one must ask themselves how convicting innocent people advances your cause.

Innocent of what? What are you referring to?

Being drunk.

There's an epidemic of sober drivers being arrested for DUI?

Your argument is invalid. At least in most states you have to be imparied AND a danger on the highways...this allows you to have a drink or two at the bar (I just had two officer!) so there are two elements impaired and drunk because after a drink or two you are at least somewhat impaired, but are you a danger? So then MADD came along and asked the American Medical Association at what BAC is someone impaired enough to not drive. AMA said .15...then there was an uproar and AMA said ohh we really meant .10-,12 and then MADD said how about ..08 and the AMA said "man we totes meant .08 the whole time" So in all jurisdictions .08 is defacto danger on the public highways, even though there is zero evidence to back that up. Eating a piece of white bread will register on the machine.

So the AMA is NHTSA now?

This isn't a MADD conspiracy. The studies were done by numerous entities in numerous states, none of which acted at the behest of MADD. MADD is nuts, but they aren't at the helm of some sort of worldwide conspiracy to get BAC limits lowered. (in most of the world limits are lower than .08)

White bread registers on the machine after the required 20 minute wait time following the consumption of food? Um, no.

What planet do you live on that you think police officers actually wait? I mean they are neve ...

impaired = dangerous..no it does not the law actually distinguishes between the two. Because your impaired at some level after one drink.

Silly Jesus: If someone is drunk then they are drunk the entire time that they are driving. If someone is texting while stopped at a red light (illegal in my state) or texts two words during the course of their 30 minute drive, that is substantially from being impaired for the entire drive.

That's the thing you Silly Jesus, the person having a couple of beers isn't impaired.

So You Just Got A DWI Dumbass: What to (and what not to do)

This is my own personal experience with the fine state of New Jersey. I am not an attorney and might be partially talking out of my ass. Still, I have to advice to give that I hope some heed.

0. Don't drink and drive. It's seriously a bad idea kids.

1. TAKE THE GODDAMN BREATH TEST: Slurring, "I GOT MY RIGHTS" and thinking that the 4th amendment really means a damn anymore to law enforcement agencies will not fly. You'll get slapped with a refusal charge and ratfarked at sentencing. If you're one of the farkers who also enjoys popping downers/opiates or blowing lines of coke...the cops WILL get your blood if they want it. That goes for the stoners as well. If your ride reeks like weed and you get into an accident, you might get your blood taken by the police. Literally and figuratively.

2. LAWYER UP: An attorney can make the difference from between being slapped with the minimum suspension and fines, or getting the max. Do not farking mouth off at the judge, insist that you are deeply sorry for your crime and will considering getting psychological help. You might even get lucky and plead the suspension down. It can depend on the municipality or county you got changed in. Talk to your lawyer if options are available.

3. DO NOT DRIVE: If you are caught on a DWI suspension, that embarrassing motor vehicle charge gets upped to a criminal offense. It's not worth it dude! Learn the mass transit schedules and try to get rides from friends if needed.

4. WHAT TO DO AT THE IRDC CLASS
You will be sentenced to twelve hours of a painfully boring "educational" class designed to discourage you from getting behind of the wheel loaded again. You will enjoy the company of everyone who either blew just over the legal limit, or the true fark-ups who are either two time losers or blew something insane (Over 1.5 is the magic number...I think) on the Breathalyzer. Not to mention the dipshiats already on probation.

You will watch some terrible films, mine were the illustrious film Clean and Sober (hilarious to see Batman's Micheal Keaton playing a coke/booze addled real estate salesman/asshole) and Sandra Bullock's 28 Days. Resist the urge to crack Speed jokes at the inevitable DWI scene and wonder why Dominic West (TV's McNulty!) is always typecast as a drunk. Also marvel at the poor bastard who killed his friend during his DWI episode and is now forced to speak at these stupid classes while only serving a year for a DWI that farking killed someone. He does tend to cry a lot during this process and is a serious buzzkill.

Do not drink or toke up before the classes. The dipshiat bureaucrats don't care for it and can tell immediately. Do not think about sneaking out. They will know and your ass will be back in front of a judge for noncompliance.

Most important; You will get a Scantron questionnaire and a #2 pencil. Try to lie on as many of the questions as humanly possible. Do not admit to ANY other recreational drug use whatsoever. You are not under any legal obligation to be honest! (probation cases might be different, but don't quote me on it) Keep the description of your bust vague or falsify it completely (I did the latter). When you are pulled out of 28 Days or Clean and Sober and interviewed, be polite, respectful and remorseful. A good trick to beating the interview is to visit a shrink before the class a few times and save the receipts. You are deeply sorry and are getting help damnit! The flunkies who run the class can force you to receive "additional evaluation" if you bomb the Scantron class or fit the criteria for it (Prior arrests, your bust requires an Interlock). Motor Vehicle cards from 12-step meetings might also work as well as a substitute from notes from the shrink's office.

5. LEARN FROM YOUR MISTAKE
All kidding aside, I made a terrible mistake. I honestly hated myself for a while after I got busted, like a real piece of human garbage. However, I'm picking myself up and trying to lead a normal life like anyone wants to. I'm still going to school while holding down a part-time job and I'm looking to put this unfortunate episode behind me. I will do my damnest not to end up like the two-time losers who can easily end up unemployable because of making a bad choice.

6. IF YOU NEED HELP, REACH OUT
There is no shame in asking for help if you have a legitimate problem with alcohol. See a therapist, talk to your loved ones or seek further treatment if it's become too big to manage. Most people who get busted for DWI are not alcoholics, but there is a percentage that are. This is a time to do a little soul searching.

/four down three to go
//yeah the account name is stupid, made it years ago and fark didn't let me make another one.

Silly Jesus: I don't think that DUI is a mistake, which you are implying, I believe. If you are in doubt, don't drive.

I don't think it's a mistake. I just don't think it should be illigal to a point.