Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Federal Money for Highway Roadblocks and Seizures
thenewspaper.com ^ | 8/15/2005 | thenewspaper.com staff

Posted on 08/16/2005 5:58:08 PM PDT by elkfersupper

The "SAFETEA-LU" federal transportation funding measure signed into law last Wednesday provides millions of dollars for controversial enforcement measures including sobriety checkpoint roadblocks and now automobile seizures.

The law adds automobile impoundment and seizure to the list of acceptable "alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures" eligible for federal grant money, which amounted to $40 million in 2003. This allows states to fund driving under the influence (DUI)-related confiscation efforts entirely with federal tax dollars.

The DUI grant program began in 1988 as a result of lobbying by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). The money is used to entice states to enact tough laws and conduct high-profile education campaigns against alcohol-impaired driving. In 1991, for example, the grants were used to compel states to reduce their legal intoxication standard from a blood alcohol level of 0.10 to 0.08.

Despite approval from the US Supreme Court, several state supreme courts including Michigan and Rhode Island have found drunk-driving roadblocks unconstitutional. An Albuquerque, New Mexico court recently found a DUI car seizure ordinance unconstitutional.

(Excerpt) Read more at thenewspaper.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government
KEYWORDS: 4thamendment; billofrights; constitutionlist; donutwatch; forfeiture; govwatch; jacjbootedthugs; libertarians; madd; nannystate; policestate; wodlist; yourtaxdollarsatwork
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last
Excerpts from the bill / article at the link.

Let me see if I can get this straight. The fedguv takes my money away at the point of a gun (if necessary), then sends it to my state and local governments, who then have an incentive to interfere with my right to travel, and then sniff around to find an excuse to confiscate my vehicle and other property.

Incidentally, it was the same mechanism that was used to mandate seat belts, .08 BAC for proof of intoxication, etc.

Whatever happened to Republicans being the party of small, limited federal government?

1 posted on 08/16/2005 5:58:13 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

This time it really is Bush's Fault!


2 posted on 08/16/2005 5:59:18 PM PDT by zzen01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zzen01

can they add a tobacco and cell phone amendment? As long as they're confiscating my stuff, I want as many as possible to go down with me.


3 posted on 08/16/2005 6:01:30 PM PDT by BipolarBob (Yes I backed over the vampire, but I swear I didn't see it in my rearview mirror.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

"Whatever happened to Republicans being the party of small, limited federal government?"

Surely you jest.


4 posted on 08/16/2005 6:02:41 PM PDT by agitator (...And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
The DUI grant program began in 1988 as a result of lobbying by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD).

I thought non-profits weren't supposed to "lobby".

5 posted on 08/16/2005 6:03:08 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
"Incidentally, it was the same mechanism that was used to mandate seat belts, .08 BAC for proof of intoxication, etc."

Do not think for a moment that they intend to stop at 0.08; they will chip away, 0.075... 0.07, etc until you basically can't drive after any number of drinks, no matter how acceptable your condition.

6 posted on 08/16/2005 6:03:54 PM PDT by SteveMcKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BipolarBob
can they add a tobacco and cell phone amendment? As long as they're confiscating my stuff, I want as many as possible to go down with me.

You forgot the hamburger ordinance.

7 posted on 08/16/2005 6:04:23 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: agitator
Surely you jest.

Forgot the sarcasm tag. Is this you?

theagitator.com

8 posted on 08/16/2005 6:06:54 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

You are sooo right. The evil hydrogenated trans-fat. Gotta a Big-Mac in your car, mister? Well it ain't your car no more. Hahahahah.


9 posted on 08/16/2005 6:07:13 PM PDT by BipolarBob (Yes I backed over the vampire, but I swear I didn't see it in my rearview mirror.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
The law adds automobile impoundment and seizure to the list of acceptable "alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures" eligible for federal grant money

Where does it say you have a right to drive drunk?

10 posted on 08/16/2005 6:07:54 PM PDT by konaice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing
they will chip away, 0.075... 0.07, etc until you basically can't drive after any number of drinks, no matter how acceptable your condition.

It's actually that now. Maine proposed .04 this week.

11 posted on 08/16/2005 6:08:42 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

no, that's not me, this is me:

http://taor.agitator.dynip.com/on_law.htm


12 posted on 08/16/2005 6:10:10 PM PDT by agitator (...And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: konaice
Where does it say you have a right to drive drunk?

Where does it say what "alcohol-impaired" is?

It appears to be whatever the LEO wants it to be.

13 posted on 08/16/2005 6:10:18 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: agitator

Bookmarked. Very exhaustive. I've run across that before.


14 posted on 08/16/2005 6:11:50 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
It appears to be whatever the LEO wants it to be.

Its what ever YOUR LEGISLATURE says it is...

You Voted for these guys, go down and sit in their office till they pay attention, or run for office yourself.

15 posted on 08/16/2005 6:13:46 PM PDT by konaice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: konaice
Its what ever YOUR LEGISLATURE says it is..

MADD lied to my legislature and got 'em all girly and emotional.

They have time to show up every time the doors open. I don't. I have to work in order to provide tax dollars to those who want to enslave me and steal my property.

16 posted on 08/16/2005 6:16:30 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

confiscation of automobiles for resale? now this has gone way too far! Travel documents in hand....... the Gestapo says these papers are NOT in order.
Surely this will get a court challenge...... but considering the courts allowing eminent domain confiscation I fear private property in America is going the way of the DoDo bird.


17 posted on 08/16/2005 6:17:15 PM PDT by o_zarkman44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
I think we fool ourselves with this republican small government thing. Every republican since Lincoln has increased the size and power of the federal government and every democrat throughout history has done the same thing. Governments grow because it is what they do. It is really horribly sad.
18 posted on 08/16/2005 6:18:26 PM PDT by satchmodog9 (Murder and weather are our only news)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: o_zarkman44
Surely this will get a court challenge

This is your fedguv bribing the states. There ain't gonna' be any court challenge that hasn't already taken place and gone (mostly) the wrong way.

19 posted on 08/16/2005 6:22:41 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

Well, getting rid of drunken truckers is a fine objective. We will quickly, however, get a racial profiling complaint as Mexican trucks are stopped, trucks too dangerous to driven on US roads, or uninsured or carrying cargos of Fox's drugs or loads of illegal aliens, including muslim terrorists.


20 posted on 08/16/2005 6:26:23 PM PDT by Tacis ("Democrats - The Party of Traitors, Treachery and Treason!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson