No, I don't think you have the right to drive under the influence, and that was not inferred in any of my comments. I don't agree with checkpoints that subject law abiding citizens to unfounded suspicions and intrusive questioning. I believe you should not have prove your innocence when no there is no reasonable cause that a crime has been comitted.

__________________
Question Authority before it Questions you.

Everytime I walk into the local courthouse I have to go through a security screening. If the scanner beeps, then I get wanded.

Nine times out of ten the scanner beeps, so I have to get wanded...sometimes I am standing right next tothe people that i will be prosecuting and we are both getting wanded.

Do I mind? Not really, it is a minor inconvenience and it is mildly aggravating to be standing next to the people that I am prosecuting--both of us getting wanded. But I put up with it for the greater good of avoiding an "incident" in a crowded courthouse.

Planes carrying passengers were long a target before anything that bush ever did. Have you forgotten all the hijackings and planes getting blown up in the air (Scotland) and on the tarmac (numerous incidents).

I too hate the fact that I can't walk right up into the terminal and see my kids board a plane when they go in a flight and hug them before they go off. But that is the price we have to pay for living in a world where evil people want to kill and maim innocent people just to advance their ideology.

GD, we are the victims here. Do not condemn our government (regardless of whether it is Dems or Reps in power). Place the blame exactly where it belongs...on the evil idealogues who are engaged in a crusade to destroy you and me.

GD, it would be nice to live ina color-blind world. Maybe someday we will. but for now, it is not little old blue-haired Protestant ladies who are blowing up planes. It is people of ME descent who are committing those crimes. I want the TSA to profile ALL of them, even if it means that occassionally I or one of my kids would be taken aside for an extra search.

I am willing to pay that price until we get rid of all the Islamistas and any other fanatic hellbent in killing me because I carry an American passport.

__________________
Current Benzes

1989 300TE "Alice"
1990 300CE "Sam Spade"
1991 300CE "Beowulf" RIP (06.1991 - 10.10.2007)
1998 E320 "Orson"
2002 C320 Wagon "Molly Fox"

Res non semper sunt quae esse videntur

My Gallery

Not in this weather!

The point is that this particular freedom is eroding and it's perfectly okay with some as long as it can be justified.

To answer your point, I don't believe that the second amendment is the only thing. I believe it is the first of many components which guarantee our rights and the last method of forcing them.

Isn't it interesting how opponents of purist 2nd amendment ideology invariably cite criminal behavior to illustrate their position? Same tactic used by the libs to seize my rights in '93.......

You are missing the point.

The police cannot stop you unless they have a reasonable suspicion, based on their training and experience, that you are driving under the influence.

At a checkpoint all they do is briefly stop you, look at you, maybe ask a question or two and then wave you through--unless you demonstrate objective signs of beinf DUI (or if you are carrying a mutilated corpse in the back seat in plain view).

As I said, there are flags announcing the checkpoint. You can always turn around.

I have been in checkpoints where a driver was so drunk that he plowed into the back of the last car in the line.

Even the most liberal members of the California already liberal bench, have approved of checkpoints.

Incidentally, I have to repeat this, there is no right of privacy when you are in public.

__________________
Current Benzes

1989 300TE "Alice"
1990 300CE "Sam Spade"
1991 300CE "Beowulf" RIP (06.1991 - 10.10.2007)
1998 E320 "Orson"
2002 C320 Wagon "Molly Fox"

Res non semper sunt quae esse videntur

My Gallery

Not in this weather!

I am far from being a liberal...at least none of my associates would ever call me that to my face.

I just don't see the need for certain kinds of weapons.

And as firing on our citizens, as Bot asked, it already happened once. At Kent State. Imagine how much worse it would have been if the students had been armed and had fired back on the National Guard.

__________________
Current Benzes

1989 300TE "Alice"
1990 300CE "Sam Spade"
1991 300CE "Beowulf" RIP (06.1991 - 10.10.2007)
1998 E320 "Orson"
2002 C320 Wagon "Molly Fox"

Res non semper sunt quae esse videntur

My Gallery

Not in this weather!

Fred, this is a very loaded question.

Most of us (all?) have not personally been involved with the loss of rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It's a well known fact, however, that American citizens have been held without charges because the government was suspicious of their intent or activities and chose to bring out the "terrorist" label.

The rights of these people were absolutely violated.

There are American citizens that have had wiretaps placed upon their phones due to the capabilities of the Patriot Act. No court order was required.

The rights of these people were absolutely violated.


So, the question I have for you is whether the fact that other people, who you may not know personally, can have their Constitutional rights violated by the government and that such behavior is acceptable to you? Your comments seem to indicate that you're OK with it.

Becasue, if this is the situation, it would be quite simple for me to drop a dime and let the Feds know that I observed Fred Konchan constructing a bomb in his garage and I suspect the he's planning to put it on his high powered boat and ram it into a building full of people.

I guarantee you that your rights will be violated within 24 hours of my telephone call. I can be quite convincing.

Do you honestly believe that the government would see through my story and refrain from doing a cavity search on you because you're honestly not a terrorist?

I sure did feel like a criminal about 2 months ago when I got pulled over for my "LEGAL" tinted windows. The cop made me assume the position and patted down my genitals. (Bet he enjoyed that!) Then he searched my hole car, knocking on body panels and asking me if I had any drugs in the air filter. He dumped out all the contents of my briefcase and looked at all my documents. He was looking under my car with mirrors and a flashlight. All in all wasting more than an hour of my time on the side of the road. Of course he came up with NOTHING! Well, he did find a leaky pen wrapped in tin foil in which he was so proud to show me as if it was some kind of drug parafanilia. I told him "OOO... You got me now! Thats my crack pipe!" I don't think he liked my humor. Anyway, I was very cooperative and he sent me on my way. "Just doing my job" Feels a lot like harassment.

That's just one of my stories. The police have been f@$^ing with me for years. I must look like some badass gangsta criminal or something hiding under my clean cut appearance and no tattoos or piercings.

__________________
Current Stable:
01 ML55 AMG
92 500E (a few mods)
87 300E (lots of mods)
00 Chevy 3500HD Diesel Box Truck
68 18' Donzi Marine
06 GT i-Drive7 1.0 Mountain Bike (with GPS!)

PREVIOUSLY OWNED:83 300SD, 87 420SEL, 88 420SEL, 90 420SEL, 86 560SEL, 86 190E 2.3-16V AMG, 94 E320

my right of way...

__________________
"It's normal for these things to empty your wallet and break your heart in the process."
2012 SLK 350
1987 420 SEL

That story is repeated 100's maybe 1000's of times a day in this "free country". It's called abuse of power and illegal search. That's the result when your constitutional rights are subjected to "probable cause" abuses which many times amounts to nothing more than the officer doesn't approve of your appearance, age, gender,race, the time of day, random reasoning, ect.....

I can agree with the principle in which the law was intended, but all to often there is no reason other than unjustified suspicions based personal opinions, not reasonable evidence.

In your case what was the probable cause to search your vehicle? Are tinted windows probable cause enough to suspect a crime is/has been commited and therfore search you and your vehicle? How can this be justified as reasonable? What would happen if you lodged a complaint or lawsuit citing the officer for abuse of your civil liberties?

I know there some people who feel if you have nothing to hide why question it. There are other people who would say that's disrespect for the law. I say whatever happened to protecting and respecting your right as a citizen and tax payer in this country. when no crime has been commited or cause to suspect that one has been.

__________________
Question Authority before it Questions you.

I am going to go on a limb here and call BS on your story.

I just don't believe it.

I am Hispanic. My wife is Hispanic, My kids are Hispanic. My parents are Hispanic. My wife's family are Hispanic. You get the point.

We have all driven Chevys, Fords and other not so nice cars.

Not once, not once...I repat myself NOT ONCE in all the cumulative years of driving that my family and my wife's family have done in California have we ever been stopped by a cop or cops and subjected to the kind of treatment you describe.

Yours sounds like a made-up story.

Sorry, but I have to call BS.

__________________
Current Benzes

1989 300TE "Alice"
1990 300CE "Sam Spade"
1991 300CE "Beowulf" RIP (06.1991 - 10.10.2007)
1998 E320 "Orson"
2002 C320 Wagon "Molly Fox"

Res non semper sunt quae esse videntur

My Gallery

Not in this weather!

I guess my position is the Constitution was crafted way too many years ago for me to even consider the relevance of those times. Likewise, it appears the crafters knew they could not possibly know what the future had in store for the country hundreds of years later. They ceratinly had no incling there would be a threat such as the terrorists are providing. The way I read the Constitution, and the way the government was set up, the Constitution was written to gel the country with a set of guidelines, with those guidelines then being interpreted by the courts and the other two branches of government.

If in fact US citizens were held without charges (Who?), then I suspect there will be a constitutional law suit filed (probably not the correct legal mumbo-jumbo), and hoping the Supreme Court will either take the case or not, and then interpret whatever sentence or group of sentences, in the Constitution is challenged. I do believe that powers may over-step their bounds; after all, they are human. But that is why there are courts. Criminal and Tort.

Pre Bush times, Bush times, and post Bush times all have/will human beings doing dumb things, constitution or not. Nobody can tell me otherwise. Democrats in charge, Republicans in charge, a mixture of the two, and maybe even third parties, but all will preside over human beings that make mistakes, or, do dumb things on purpose. Whatever. But again, that's what the courts are for.

My point is - all I seem to hear about is how our rights are being eroded.

Most of my life, I have been racing, and have been in management. In both cases, if a specific item is not detailed in the rule book, union contract, or labor law, than it is fair game.

An example - back when Richard Petty was racing, there was a rule about fuel tank size. There was NOT a rule on fuel line size. So, he had the proper size fuel tank, but he installed huge fuel lines, giving him an advantage. Of course, that was discovered in tech, and a new rule was enacted. He complied, but did not lose the race because he broke no rules. (the other racers all felt cheated, but they were not - there was no rule to cheat on) So, he complied by using the proper size fuel line, running the shortest distance from the fuel tank to the carburetor. But he ran two lines. One to the roll cage (something like 2" ID, probably holding an extra 10 gallons of fuel), and the other from the roll cage to the carburetor. The lines were the shortest they could be. He again won the race, and again discovered in tech, and then modified it again to fit the new rule. Somewhere in there, he made his car a 15/16 sized replica of the original. Again, no specific rule, but that is why you now see templates being used to check body dimensions. If you haven't guessed - I have a soft spot for Richard. He clearly understood rules and laws. The terrosists are somewhat like him, thus, new laws need to be made.

Not sure if I am making my point clear.

This is all my own opinion.

I see no rights specifically saying that as an American, I do NOT have to carry an ID. So, a new rule can be made to do so. AND, even if the Constitution specifically stated that we were exempt from carrying IDs, and Congress passes a law saying we now have to carry an ID, the law MAY be unconstitutional, but it is still law until challenged in court where it may be affirmed or declared unconstitutional. YOU may believe the law to be unconstitutional, but YOU are not the government. YOU do have the right to challenge the law. People do it every day. By the thousands.

The Patriot Act states wire taps are permissible. Until the courts say otherwise, it is permissible. Let due process run its course. Nobody's rights were violated until the law has been struck down, and then only after the law has been struck down.

As for my boat, I would be dumbfounded how anybody could accuse me of such a thing, but, if Homeland Security want to detain and question me, inspect my boat, etc, so be it. Would I feel violated? Maybe, maybe not. It has never happened to me, so I won't know till you call them up and place false blame. I would not like the cavity search, that I am certan. Of course, if I could prove in court you were doing this just to damage me, then I would be awarded damages by the court. BUT, you still had the ability to put the thing in motion, even if your actions were illegal.

Did I feel violated at sobriety check points - hell no. Glad they did it. Helps keep me from drinking too much Casta Passion tequila and possibly hurting/killing somebody. There should be more check points.

As far as I am concerned, all my rights are intact right now. And getting stronger by the day. The more this government does to curtail terrorist and criminal behavior, the stronger my ability to exercise my right to peace and liberty become.

If a new law says I can't run my boat over 100 MPH, then I will get busted, but it was not within my right at that time to go over 100 MPH. It may have been legal in the past, but not after the new law was passed. In the past, no law stated I can or can not go over 100, so I interpret the oclusion as I can go over 100MPH. Even if the there was no law about going over 100MPH, a law enforcement agent could bust me and arrest me. BUT, in both cases, I DO have a right to challenge the ticket or the law in court.

Anybody complaining of losing their rights should go to court. Prove you have lost a CURRENT right, win your case, and get whatever right back that was taken from you. Do something about it if it bothers you so much. But certainly stop whining about it. This is America - go to court!

__________________
Thank You!
Fred
2009 ML350
2004 SL600
2004 SL500
1996 SL600
2002 SLK32
2005 CLK320 cabrio
2003 ML350
1997 C280 Sport

300EVIL

My kid has friends like you. Like his friends, my kid has tinted windows, huge JL subwoofers, an amp that needs a size "0" wire going to it, etc. He's lowered the car, but no goofy wing or fart can. He has fun with his car when it is appropriate and in a safe place, like at sanctioned meets.

His friends are always getting busted. My kid does not. The cops here all know my kid hangs around with the ricers. But my kid is respectful, does not say underhanded dumb things to infuriate and test the cops, and is careful not to get caught. He is diplomatic. His friends on the other hand, are always getting in trouble because they are always challenging the cops.

His friends just don't get it. They complain to me about the trouble they get in, but do not follow my kid's example. They continually do things that force the cops to react. My kid's friends all think the cops are jerks and are cops just to pick on 18 year old ricers.

Do you fit into that category? Before you answer, think about it real hard.

__________________
Thank You!
Fred
2009 ML350
2004 SL600
2004 SL500
1996 SL600
2002 SLK32
2005 CLK320 cabrio
2003 ML350
1997 C280 Sport

Hmmmm

I learn something every day:

WHO REALLY WAS THE FIRST PRESIDENT???

Interesting! It was never discussed in any history class that I took, at least that I can remember. Who Was The First President? I'm sure that George Washington was your best guess. After all, no one else comes to mind. But think back to your history books - The United States declared its independence in 1776, yet Washington did not take office until April 30,1789

So who was running the country during these initial years of this young country? It was the first eight U. S. Presidents. In fact the first President of the United States was one John Hanson

The new country was actually formed on March 1, 1781 with the adoption of The Articles of Confederation. This document was actually proposed on June 11, 1776, but not agreed upon by Congress until November 15, 1777. Maryland refused to sign this document until Virginia and New York ceded their western lands (Maryland was afraid that these states would gain too much power in the new government from such large amounts of land).

Once the signing took place in 1781, a President was needed to run the country. John Hanson was chosen unanimously by Congress (which included George Washington). In fact, all the other potential candidates refused to run against him, as he was a major player in the revolution and an extremely influential member of Congress. As the first President, Hanson had quite the shoes to fill. No one had ever been President and the role was poorly defined. His actions in office would set precedent for all future Presidents. He took office just as the Revolutionary War ended. Almost immediately, the troops demanded to be paid. As would be expected after any long war, there were no funds to meet the salaries. As a result, the soldiers threatened to overthrow the new government and put Washington on the throne as a Monarch. All the members of Congress ran for their lives, leaving Hanson as the only guy left running the government. He somehow managed to calm the troops down and hold the country together. If he had failed, the Government would have fallen almost immediately and everyone would have been bowing to King Washington. Hanson, as President, ordered all foreign troops off American soil,as well as the removal of all foreign flags. This was quite the feat, considering the fact that so many European countries had a stake in the United States since the days following Columbus.

Hanson established the Great Seal of the United States, which all presidents have since been required to use on all official documents. President Hanson also established the first Treasury Department, the first Secretary of War, and the first Foreign Affairs Department. Lastly, he declared that the fourth Thursday of every November was to be Thanksgiving Day, which is still true today.The Articles of Confederation only allowed a President to serve a one year term during any three year period, so Hanson actually accomplished quite a bit in such little time.

Seven other presidents were elected after him:
Elias Boudinot (1782-83),
Thomas Mifflin (1783-84),
Richard Henry Lee (1784-85),
John Hancock (1785-86),
Nathan Gorman (1786-87),
Arthur St. Clair (1787-88), and
Cyrus Griffin (1788-89)

All prior to Washington taking office. So what happened? Why don't we hear about the first eight presidents? It's quite simple - The Articles of Confederation didn't work well. The individual states had too much power and nothing could be agreed upon. A new doctrine needed to be written - something we know as the Constitution. And that leads us to the end of our story.

George Washington was definitely not the first President of the United States. He was the first President of the United States under the Constitution we follow today. And the first eight Presidents are forgotten in history.

__________________
Thank You!
Fred
2009 ML350
2004 SL600
2004 SL500
1996 SL600
2002 SLK32
2005 CLK320 cabrio
2003 ML350
1997 C280 Sport

Unfortunatly, the Supreme Court has been chipping away at our rights over the years all in the name of a 'Living Constitution'. Congress has been federalizing more and more crimes, in direct contradition to the 10th Amendment and in the name of the Commerce clause.

Remeber the Kelo decision? How about our 5th Amendment rights?

When will it end?

__________________
Regards

Warren

Currently 1965 220Sb, 2002 FORD Crown Vic Police Interceptor

Had 1965 220SEb, 1967 230S, 280SE 4.5, 300SE (W126), 420SEL

ENTER > = (HP RPN)

Not part of the in-crowd since 1952.

Fred,

I think you've ignored that the crafters of the Constitution were very apt students of human nature which doesn't really seem to change. As a result they crafted a government with various checks and balances that was able to deal with new things as they occured.

Regarding your original question. Would this be an accurate re-phrasing of what your question:

What rights have you lost under GWB that you had before he was elected?

Concerning wire taps of "your" phone. Is there a difference between wire tapping the actual phone of an American and tapping the phone line going to a suspected source in another country?

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone