[DesertRat]

It will sure as hell stop him from doing it a second time... which is kind of the point of the test when you get right down to it.

[rcso]

I don't 'have' to back up my arguement. You refuse a test and you can whine about it while you're license is stripped from you.


No sign of an impairment, I'd say a tractor trailer wreck is a pretty big sign. It's what we call 'a clue'

[yeti]

Originally Posted by rcso

I don't 'have' to back up my arguement. You refuse a test and you can wine about it while you're license is stripped from you.


No sign of an impairment, I'd say a tractor trailer wreck is a pretty big sign.

excuse me but are comprehension skills really that low around here?

when, or where have I ever said to refuse to take the test? Show me just one time where I said I wouldn't take the test. Just once where I said anyone should refuse to take it. I guess its comes down to you have nothing to use against my argument that the test is based on flawed law, so you are gonna just keep going back to the penalty for refusing the test.
And yes you do need to back yourself up, ya just can't.

and I will let that crack about the wreck being a sign of impairment go until you go back and read the first post over again, maybe sober up a little cause only the impaired could write something like that. It's what we call "a clue" :roll:

[yeti]

Originally Posted by yeti

its a shame you edited that line from your post, I kinda liked it, but yes there is one thing worse then that inadvertant anarchist, that is some one who would buy into drivil such as this:

Originally Posted by DesertRat

the Government can require what it deems appropriate, without fear of violating the Constitution.

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

woah does that make you an intentional despot?? :shock:

[One]

Originally Posted by Mtc_Is_Hell

its a good law. If the old lady takes him to court and the lawyer trys the driving under the influence card, he will have a legal document stating other wise, get over it.

what are you talking about? No lawyer would be stupid enough to base a case around the possibility that the driver might have been drinking without any proof :!:

[kc0iv]

Originally Posted by yeti

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.

THE PRICE OF LIBERTY IS ETERNAL VIGILANCE T. Jefferson

Well I did look at "Implied & Oral Contracts" and I found they DO exist. See: http://www.discriminationattorney.co...imp_cont.shtml

Quoting from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract

"Express and implied contracts

A contract can be either an express contract or an implied contract. An express contract is one in which the terms are expressed verbally, either orally or in writing. An implied contract is one in which some of the terms are not expressed in words."

Quoting from: http://employment-law.freeadvice.com..._contracts.htm

"What about ?implied? contracts?
Where there is no written contract, the courts in most states are willing to find an "implied" contract arising out of the terms set forth in an employment application, employee handbook, employer policies and procedures manual, verbal representations by management and/or regular personnel practices. Whether there is an "implied" contract depends upon the particular facts of any given employment relationship."

Another one: http://www.eandi.org/ThePulse/Commentary/ImpliedC.html

"The Montana Annotated Code says it best (MAC 28-2-103):

A contract is either express or implied. An express contract is one the terms of which are stated in words. An implied contract is one the existence and terms of which are manifested by conduct.

Thus, a party cannot claim that the party never intended to be bound if it is shown that the party?s conduct indicated acceptance of the agreement. Signing of a contract is one way a party may show assent. Alternatively, if there is an offer and an act of acceptance, that conduct implies the assent instead of a signed promise. The performance of the requested act indicates assent to the terms of the offer.

Thus, an implied contract is an agreement where the parties do not expressly state one or more of the main provisions of the agreement. But if a contractual agreement is implied by action, and it contains the elements of a binding agreement?offer, acceptance and consideration?it is, indeed, a binding contract."

So there is in fact such a thing as Implied Contract in civil law.

Now looking at the question of "Is there a Implied Contract in respect to a Driving License?" This can be clearly shown by case law. One of many cases can be sited. One such example is: http://www.oscn.net/applications/osc...p?CiteID=15691

One of many Implied Contracts a driver agrees to is -- To submit to testing --. All states plus the federal government require drug and alcohol testing. And the driver agrees to perform these test as a condition of their right to drive.

If a person doesn't want to agree then the state does not have to issue that person a license.

kc0iv

[DesertRat]

Originally Posted by yeti

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

woah does that make you an intentional despot?? :shock:

No, just someone who realizes the limitations of the Constitution. This isn't exactly a big news flash. There are numerous court cases where it has been established that "implied consent" is valid and legal. It just occurs to me that ranting and raving about it is pointless. There have been plenty of court cases on this issue, mostly involving DUI stops and random police checkpoints, and none have been successful (had any case been successful, we would not have "implied consent" laws in all 50 states, which we do.) It's hard to make a claim that something violates the Constitution when there is a stack of case law saying you are wrong.

Furthermore, in this case I am inclined to agree with Government policy, which is rare for me. I'm no fan of Government, as a rule I believe most of what the Government does could be done more efficiently and to better ends by the private sector. But, in matters of public safety (and drivers licensing, certainly CDL licensing, would qualify) I believe some Government regulation is necessary. My reasoning is quite simple, the world is full of boneheads. We let any schmo who wants to hit the road in any vehicle they want to, we have a receipe for disaster. It is in the best interest of the commonweal to have a system in place to regulate such activities. Mind you, I don't believe that system should be excessive or overly obtrusive. But I don't believe a simple drug test is either of those things.

[Malaki86]

What started his rant was the fact that he didn't get paid for the time needed to take the drug test.

Hmmm - let's see, you don't get paid for sitting at the dock, for sitting in a truck stop waiting for a load, etc etc etc.

I would have no problems about taking a drug test if I was involved in an accident, my fault or not. Reason? Because it's the law.

[Mackman]

Originally Posted by Malaki86

Hmmm - let's see, you don't get paid for sitting at the dock, for sitting in a truck stop waiting for a load, etc etc.

He has a dump truck mostly does work by the HR. All i was saying is the person who was at fault didn't even get a drug test. Her husband came and she went home. But all because you have a CDL you need a drug test. He had no problem with the test because he doesn't do any drugs it ain't the point he was afraid he was going to fail it. It was the point that the other lady just went home. Drug test her shes the one that didn't stop at the stop sign. I see both sides but i still think its alittle B.S.

[Mackman]

Originally Posted by Malaki86

Because it's the law.

well just because its a law doesn't make it right.