Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Usury starts over 10%. That's Mosaic law. So the concept of Usury is EXCESSIVE interest. We got rid of usury laws about 100 years ago unfortunately. And a Jubilee would be nice too. every seven years, all debts are cancelled? Awesome.by law, what they do, if not for the fact they were ordered to by the government would be some class sexual assault, or at least assault.
and if i charged interest on a loan at the rate banks do, it would be usury.
that's life.
i always object at road blocks...i always get my car searched at road blocks....seems asserting my rights....or lack of rights...causes this
Usury starts over 10%. That's Mosaic law. So the concept of Usury is EXCESSIVE interest. We got rid of usury laws about 100 years ago unfortunately. And a Jubilee would be nice too. every seven years, all debts are cancelled? Awesome.by law, what they do, if not for the fact they were ordered to by the government would be some class sexual assault, or at least assault.
and if i charged interest on a loan at the rate banks do, it would be usury.
that's life.
Roadblocks are LEGAL Counselor, which you know full well. Check points are also legal, as a lawyer you know this or should. Once stopped the cops have the right and duty to inspect the driver. If they suspect that driver is driving impaired they have a legal obligation to test them.
In florida there trying to pass a new bill at D.U.I. check points that if i person now says no to blowing into a breathalyzer to check the persons alcohol levels to see if they are driving drunk. They will now have on site judges to order a warrant for the person to blow right then and there..As someone who lost someone from a drunk driver hitting them i like this idea but many find it unconstitutional to there rights...why
Yes they can. You do not have a RIGHT to drive. As soon as you take your vehicle on a public roadway you no longer have the same protection as if you were in your home or on your property. And that is Constitutional.
Using your logic I could speed all I wanted , fail to stop and drive into my garage, close the door and go in my house and the cops would need a judge to come get me.
i have no problem with random stops at checkpoints so long as they meet the constitutional requirements already established by the court.
sorry. i figure my right not to get hit by a drunk imbecile on the highway wins.
The "constitutional requirements already established by the court" are political court decisions. Sobriety checkpoints clearly violate the 4th Amendment. All the courts did was to create an "exception" in the case of DUI enforcement.
Whether or not you feel the exception is justified depends largely upon how far you are willing to go to compromise the Constitution in favor of apprehending drunk drivers. As such, the checkpoint decisions are, as I said, political decisions.
And let's not forget - there is quite often much bigger game afoot than merely an imbibing driver, when a vehicle is pulled over at a sobriety checkpoint. Also on the line, for the sober driver caught in a checkpoint, are (1) possible citation for driving without a license or with a suspended license, (2) possible citation for no insurance, (3) possible citation for vehicle equipment violation and (4) probably most significant of all - possible arrest for contraband found in the vehicle or on the person of the driver or a passenger.
In this latter regard, let's not forget that, in California, and I would assume most other states, people on probation or parole are subject to search and seizure without probable cause. As such, police ALWAYS ask if anyone in the vehicle is on probation or parole. If anyone is, here comes a search - a search that never would have been initiated in the first place, but for the random stop of the car in a sobriety checkpoint.
And even if no one in the car is on probation or parole, officers at a checkpoint always make a judgment call with regard to the occupants of the vehicle. If it's a middle aged couple and the guy hasn't been drinking, it's "have a nice evening, sir," and they drive away feeling good about the nice policeman. On the other hand, if the car is full of young, male Hispanics with shaved heads and tattoos, it's, "Anyone here on probation or parole? No? Well, do any of you boys have anything illegal on your person? No? Mind if we check?"
Once again, without the random stopping of the vehicle, none of this could have ever happened.
So what?, I hear you cry. If it gets bad guys, then where's the harm? If you don't want to get in trouble, don't ride around in cars with dope in your pocket. To those who would take this approach, I would say simply, we do not live in a police state in this country, thank God. We have a Constitution, that protects all citizens (ALL citizens, not just the innocent ones) from illegal search and seizure. If you want to get bad guys without benefit of the Constitution, then just do away with the Constitution and give the police free reign.
After all, why not? WE aren't the bad guys, are we?
Take it to the Supreme Court. Ohh wait, that has been done.
Sorry Counselor if I can not argue that Abortion is murder because the Supreme Court said so, neither can you argue that legal road blocks are illegal after the Supreme Court said so.
You know I agree that driving is a previlege, but there is one truly bad outcome from that.
The roads are part of the commons.
But the only way to use them in most cases is if you're driving.
That means that pedestrians non motorized travel is rather limited, thus putting most of us under scrutiny whenever we attempt to use the common lands that we all share.
There's not solution to this except to create common roads for pedestrians and non-motorized transport.
And, sadly, there's as yet no political movement advancing that notion.
One ought to be able to SAFELY anywhere in the USA without having to get into a car or motorized vehicle.
There should be a national system of non mechanized roads and paths equal or superior to the national system of roads built for cars and trucks.
Because otherwise it becomes a "privelge" to travel.
And that really does smack right into our constitutional rights, doesn't it?
There is NO WAY, for example that I could walk to FLA or CA without having to cross or walk alongside public highways,
Ergo, all traveler are ultimately overseen by police scrutiny.
Land of the FREE?
Hardly.
DUI laws are a clear violation of the US Costititution.4th amendment said:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.
4ht amendment said:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.
What could be more unreasonable than some pig stopping you and searching you at a checkpoint, and perhaps even arresting you, solely on the suspicion that you may cause unspecified harm to an unspecified persons body or property at some unspecified location at some unspecified point in the future?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M8vei3L0L8]Fuck Tha Police![/ame]
)
I don't think that is a good comparison....your vehicle is used on public roads.
It most certainly is. Your car is your property, the cops can look in the windows but can't come in w/o probable cause, nor can they ask you to step out or force you to take any test w/o cause.
Yes they can. You do not have a RIGHT to drive. As soon as you take your vehicle on a public roadway you no longer have the same protection as if you were in your home or on your property. And that is Constitutional.
Using your logic I could speed all I wanted , fail to stop and drive into my garage, close the door and go in my house and the cops would need a judge to come get me.
