- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Commerce GA cop suspended after making multiple false arrests for DUI
Posted on 2/16/24 at 5:20 pm to lsuconnman
Posted on 2/16/24 at 5:20 pm to lsuconnman
quote:
The guy had bloodshot eyes, erratic behavior, and there was a lingering scent of alcohol present…. Posting a zero.zero just means he had another substance in his system that would prohibit the legal operation of a vehicle.
You know, there's nothing in the Constitution proper or the Bill of Rights that says "unless you're drunk." Drunk people have the rights to be secure in their homes, assemble freely, speak their minds, and bear arms.
I would interpret "assemble freely" to include driving a car, in our era. A drunk driver who doesn't damage anything or break some other law ought to be protected from criminal charges by any reasonable interpretation of the Constitution.
Similarly, I believe registration and insurance requirements, driving tests, etc. are unconstitutional. The question to ask is, "would the founders have found it acceptable to forbid a man from riding on horseback on such a basis?" and the answer is a resounding "no."
2
Posted on 2/17/24 at 6:36 am to Porpus
quote:
there's nothing in the Constitution proper or the Bill of Rights that says "unless you're drunk." Drunk people have the rights to be secure in their homes, assemble freely, speak their minds, and bear arms. I would interpret "assemble freely" to include driving a car, in our era. A drunk driver who doesn't damage anything or break some other law ought to be protected from criminal charges by any reasonable interpretation of the Constitution. Similarly, I believe registration and insurance requirements, driving tests, etc. are unconstitutional. The question to ask is, "would the founders have found it acceptable to forbid a man from riding on horseback on such a basis?" and the answer is a resounding "no.
the IQ around here Posted on 2/17/24 at 6:14 pm to Porpus
quote:
You know, there's nothing in the Constitution proper or the Bill of Rights that says "unless you're drunk." Drunk people have the rights to be secure in their homes, assemble freely, speak their minds, and bear arms.
I would interpret "assemble freely" to include driving a car, in our era. A drunk driver who doesn't damage anything or break some other law ought to be protected from criminal charges by any reasonable interpretation of the Constitution.
Similarly, I believe registration and insurance requirements, driving tests, etc. are unconstitutional. The question to ask is, "would the founders have found it acceptable to forbid a man from riding on horseback on such a basis?" and the answer is a resounding "no."
JFC man.
And I'm about as pro constitution as anyone.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News