Fighter jets aren't public. They are owned by the military. Roads are public.

cell phones, makeup, and GPS do not cause nearly as many deaths as drunk driving even if you add them all up. I do think that the fines should be stiff for all of those things, but drunk driving is one of those things which everyone knows kills lots of people. You can't say that you were driving drunk and didn't think you could have killed someone.

First off, if I were you, I wouldn't keep dead hookers in my basement. Come summer that thing will really start to stink.

And secondly, I don't agree. (I am not stating law, I am stating opinion of what I believe the law ought to be) I feel that my hair and my blood are just as much a part of "me" as my words and taking them to use to prosecute me should be considered forcing me to testify against myself.

Now if I left that blood under the nails of the dead hooker in your basement, it wouldn't be a part of me any more than a tape of me admitting guilt would be considered self-incriminating.

If it's in me, on me, or comes out of me; it is me.

If it's on tape, on the floor, or inside a dead hooker, it's no longer part of me.

How can I not have the right to drive a vehicle though? (Yes, I know it's not a right. But thinking about it, it doesn't make sense.)

Our tax dollars pay for roads. Our tax dollars even pay to make the cars we drive (There is a Nissan plant in my town that was paid for by tax money from the state, NOT by Nissan.) How then can I be forced to have a license to use a public road? I do not need a license to use the swings at a public park or to watch a concert on public tv. I don't need a license to visit a public museum or ride public transportation.

Licensing something means that the state has the right to restrict something. If my license gets revoked, my tax money doesn't stop paying for that road upkeep. I don't have less of a tax burden if I chose not to drive.

If I pay for it, I feel that I have a right to use it. (I also believe that I have a right to drink alcohol as long as I'm over 21 and have the cash; but think driving drunk should be prosecuted as attempted murder.)

That brings up a better question. Why are states able to require licenses to drive on public roads? If my taxes pay for them, shouldn't I be able to use them freely? I do not need a license to use public parks or public transportation. I don't have to get a license to listen to public radio (but I need a labotomy for it). How can the state require me to be licensed for anything that taxpayers fund, as licensing it implies permission, and permission implies the right to revoke permission.

Yes, I'm playing devils advocate here; I do think people should need to prove ability to drive before allowing them to drive in public, but I don't see how it can be revoked (suspended) or charged for if my tax money pays for it.

Courts most certainly DO extend the right (not privilege) against self-incrimination to the collection of hair and blood samples. Unless the suspect volunteers these things, a court order must be produced for investigators to take either of them.

1) "No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"

Providing the police with evidence that can be used against you at trial is covered by the 5th amendment. That is why we have the right to remain silent under miranda rights. We can remain silent with our words OR with our actions so that we do not incriminate themselves.

2) A judge may NOT issue a warrant for any reason he pleases. A judge may only issue warrants if there is evidence supporting the belief that a crime has been committed. Simply asking drivers to take a breathalyzer because they come through a checkpoint does not come close to being enough to warrant a warrant.

If there is evidence of DUI present, (glazed eyes, red eyes, slurred speech, open containers, ect) then I do believe that breathalyzers may be used. But I still do not think that refusing one is enough to allow a needle to be placed in a driver's arm.

It's a waste of money. Not only do you have to have the police at the check points, but you also have to have a judge and medical personnel. That's more money being wasted than I am ok with.

1: I don't know where you are, but New Years isn't "days away" here... It's here now.

2: Doesn't Florida fall under the same constitution as the rest of the US? Refusing to take a brethalyzer test is a constitutional right under the 5th amendment, and as much as I'd like to see all drunk drivers charged with attempted murder, I don't see how a judge can issue a warrant without evidence simply because someone exercises their rights. Two wrongs do not make a right in this case for sure.

Dog isn't nearly as bad as you make it sound. Sure, it's not horse, but it's better than raccoon by a long shot!

Also, taking pictures of the insides of someone's home wouldn't pass the first legal review. It's not exactly legal for the TSA to do what they are doing, they just don't care.

At least this guy is brewing with it instead of just bottling it right from the "tap"

You're saying the solution to laws that could ruin your life in the short term is to sue after the fact? wow! You're what's wrong with this country, I'd just like to point that out.

How about instead of suing, we do something along the lines of not allow them to ruin our lives in the first place.

It's "by the people, for the people." not "by the government, to the people." I don't work for the government, the government works for me. Well, that's how it's supposed to work anyways.

brown hair being illegal: see holocaust...

"Someone" "decides" to pass a law: see health reform bill. (you know, the one the majority of americans said not to pass)

Thirs point: You don't have to be convicted of the crime to have your life wrecked by it. Just being accused of some things is enough to be fired from many places. Plus the fact that sitting in jail for a day or two, waiting on arrainment would cost most people their jobs.

Fourth point, lawyers have nothing to do with arrest warrants being issued. It's up to a judge and judging by this article, at least one of them is dumb as a sack full of turds. I wouldn't trust him not to sign off on one that shouldn't be issued.

But what happens when someone decides to pass a law making knives illegal. Or making brown hair illegal (It's happened before...) How about a law stating that associating with known terrorists is illegal? Then giving him the time may result in jail. Probably not a conviction, but you'd miss work for a few days and probably lose your job. Are you willing to go through all of that just to protect yourself from other people who might "associate" with terrorists?

Apparently that's the same thing Martin Niemöller thought right up until the point Hitler sent him to the camps. We have become so used to the government or other people doing everything for us in this country that now when we wish someone would stand up against the government's injustices we don't even think of doing it ourselves. It may be safer to allow others to fight our battles for us, but it's not healthy to rely on that.

How do you turn you asking about my penis into me being the one who's perverted here?

And what does my facial hair have to do with anything?