Yeah well see, the Commerce Clause was one of those few powers that was given 'specifically' to the federal government.


BTW, 'implied consent' works the opposite way. If you were to deny me a sample of your blood, breath, urine, or other bodily fluid then it is now 'Your' burden of proof to the court to show that you were not intoxicated. You're more than welcome to turn in your CDL and no longer engage in interstate commerce and then turn in your license and no longer drive on public highways.



Of course you can deny me anything because I stopped working as a cop in June (for now at least) Also, incase you were wondering; I am a democrat, I just happen to like guns. :twisted: :P

 

I for one look at post accident drug testing as a way to CYA. On june 27 1996 in Germantown HIlls IL near Peoria I was involved in a Fatal accident. A drunk driver BAC .019 speeding his speed from accident reconstruction 75 in a 45 zone not wearing his seat belt hit me with enough force to literaly make my 1973 transtar explode the cab separated from the frame the radiator was tilted 10 inches to the side ds fuel tank looked like someone took a can opener to it. He still had enough energy left after doing all that to the tractor the trailer I was pulling ended up with the driver side dolly leg bent 90 degrees to the bottom rail. I took the required post accident test and turned out the deceasced was the drinking buddy of the local stote police barricks commander. That guy wanted my A^& on a sliver platter. The D.A refused to charge me with anything since everything was legal in my logbook and my U/A came back clean as a whistle. The sad thing is now I am now disabled do to the fact that this accident caused a cloased head injury that a few years later gave me epilepsy and forced me off the road. there is nothing as a :dung: drug test. If I had not taken that one I would have more than likely gone to the PENETENTERY for 15 yrs or so.

 

"BAC .019" Don't think that BAC equals being under the influence.... unless a decimal point was misplaced (0.19). BOL

 

you are right I misplaced the decmial point he was .19

 

It's prefectly lawful. You really are having a problem with the concept of privilage aren't you? If the feds want to tell you that you have to drive standing on your head to hold a CDL, then you'd better get your legs in the air. It's that simple. The holding of a drivers license, and implied consent of the terms related to such have nothing to do with Constitutional law. As a point of fact, the whole of the agreement would be goverened by contract law, as your license is an implied contract with the issuing state and your CDL is an implied contract with the federal government. If it really bugs you that much, if your grasp of the law is really so limited that you will rant and rave about that which you have no knowledge of, then the DMV will gladly let you surrender your license. Then you won't have to worry about any of this anymore. Beyond that, you can rant all you want, and you can scream about things being unjust, and you can take all of that indignation and $1.50 and buy yourself a cup of coffee, because thats all it's worth. Don't believe me? Ask a lawyer.

 

The ICC is one of the Departments in our Government which has Full Constitutional authority.
Yeah it would suck and be humiliating to have to take a drug test after an accident but it would also, as stated above, clear you of any wrong doing,.

 

Thanks i take it you looked at my myspace. I got pipes and some other goodies on there now i should update it. These are some good opinion's here really did think this topic was going to take off like it did. I see both sides.

 

you can't be that simple. There is no right for the government to grant any privilege to its citizens, read what the constitution actually says, leave the lawyers with the rest of the bottom feeders and actually read the words as written. Privilege is granted to the government by the citizens, subjects are granted privilege by the crown. All rights not given to to the federal government or the state are reserved to the people. We gave the government the privilege of spending OUR money to enhance interstate commerce, and the movement of the military. There is no privilege to drive on roads built by our own money for our use.

Then this "implied" hog puke. What is an implied contract? There is no such thing as an implied contract in civil law, ask a lawyer. You can imply anything you want, that doesn't make it a contract. And what is implied consent? Nice words, sounds like a good thing, but what exactly is it? It is an a forced, unwarrented search by an armed offical of the State conducted under threat of arrest. Criminal arrest does not fall under contract law.

RCSO brought up the commerce clause(only one to have something to back his argument up with), a favorite of big government fans.
Did you know this was used to regulate a BBQ restaurant because some of the food items they sold had crossed state lines( Katzenbach v. McClung)
or that the government regulated a rec facility because 3 out of 4 items sold in their snack bar were purchased from outside their state( Daniel v. Paul)? OK I can see some limited interstate commerce here, but how about the Missouri farmer the feds told could not grow wheat on his own land, for his own consumption because that would effect interstate commerce(Wickard v. Filburn)?

oh but I am sorry, I see by many of your childish replies that because its the law I can't question that. Turn in my cdl, surrender my license to DMV, come on children, when did I lose my right to question the laws imposed on us? Some of you are true scholars, you tell me I am wrong but offer no rebuttal but telling me to turn in my cdl or some antidote on how being made to pee saved you from a life time on Devils Island.

And I am sorry, but how cowed by the government are you to write this?:
"You really are having a problem with the concept of privilege aren't you? If the feds want to tell you that you have to drive standing on your head to hold a CDL, then you'd better get your legs in the air. It's that simple."
Yes I do have a problem with the concept of the feds granting me a privilege, however if they tell you to drive standing on your head, and you don't question them on it, then you sir are an ass!

I question a law that forces a man, who no one believes has committed any crime, who shows no sign of impairment, who has done nothing even remotely suspicious, to give evidence against himself to prove his innocence of a crime that didn't happen. And if he refuses to give this evidence, he is then guilty of committing this crime that never occurred. Can you say you can't see a basic unfairness in this?
I didn't say to give the cop a hard time, I never said to refuse the test, and there is nothing wrong with CYA, but I did, still, and will continue to say the law is flawed, and no one has said anything to show me how I am wrong.

So many here cry and complain about the rules and regulations a Private employer forces you to work under, but oh my god, I question the legality of a law the government forces us to live under and suddenly I'm not worthy of holding my cdl. My dog has seen more miles than most of you, I have a pair of boots that have spent more time in a truck than a lot of you have been alive(MMMM hand made Tony Lamas, 25 yo) and I'll put my driving record and abilities up against any man, except Yooper, he drives thru hails of bullets and dodges grenades, that I can't compete with :lol:
so don't tell me I can't question the law without ripping up my cdl, maybe a little less blind obedience, and a little more questioning of authority will help us regain a few lost "privileges"

THE PRICE OF LIBERTY IS ETERNAL VIGILANCE T. Jefferson


DesertRat, that is a rant, where is my coffee? :lol: :lol:

 

So following your logic, any schmo with the inclination should be able to smoke a bunch of crack and hop behind the wheel of a propane tanker, after all the Constitution doesn't say he can't.

 

how is the drug test after the fact going to stop him from doing this?