They can't force you to blow into a breathalyzer, but if you refuse, you get charged with refusing to provide a breath sample when requested. Enjoy your prison stay on that charge. I dunno about you, but jail's jail.

Talking out of my hat, i doubt it has anything to do with bank drafts, which are really very different instruments in practice.

The whole concept of rights existing naturally is a silly assertion. What about the right of the government to censor your speech?

No right can 'create' more value than was there originally. That is, every right must take from the greater whole some small, and possibly insignificant, element. Your right not to be murdered in the street takes away from the right of those around you to murder you in the street if they so choose.

The problem is, perhaps ironically, that prosecutors and judges often know each other much better than people expect simply because prosecutors come before the same judges on a regular, continuous basis. A city of millions might have seventy or eighty trial court judges. If you, as a prosecutor, spend every day in Court for a decade, or two decades, it's not at all surprising that you'd be familiar with all the judges and know at least a bit about them.

There's nothing you can do about that unless you'd like to ensure judges and prosecutors never serve terms of any reasonable duration.

Even that doesn't make him a denier (in no pejorative sense, mind) of anthropogenic climate change- it just makes him unsure. (which is what a good scientist should be, without another, better theory to support).

Then nobody will ever be prosecuted for any crime.

In some ways, yes, it probably would be worse. I'd rather be ruled by the malicious than the ignorant.

Why would you have a decent defense? You were violating the law. You are not being prosecuted for something you didn't do.

The police selectively enforce all laws, and the prosecutors selectively prosecute them. Discretion is what makes the enforcement of laws possible. Where discretion crosses the line into malicious prosecution, it is generally unlawful. But it's not malicious for the cops to repeatedly enforce the law against you (as opposed to anyone else) if you are, in fact, breaking the law.

You said it yourself- they have to do something, but that something could be showing up, shrugging, and leaving again. They don't have to arrest anyone or charge them with any crime.

A true democracy is not 'for' the people. It is by the people, which is an entirely different concept.

Put yourself in a room with ninety-nine other people, and then ask yourself if you'd like to be forced to obey what any fifty-one of them decide they'd like you to do. I'd wager you don't.

Can you argue that you shouldn't pay your speeding ticket because not everyone who was speeding got a speeding ticket?

Law enforcement has the discretion not to arrest and charge and prosecutors have the discretion not to prosecute.

I love it when people like you, who have absolutely no justification for your beliefs, start spouting out laughable statements about constitutional law.

Why wouldn't you want any coverage at all? What would happen were you to be caught in an accident? Someone would have to pay for that coverage, and, chances are, it wouldn't be you.

Basically, you don't want to pay for coverage. The coverage is still there, and will always be there. You just want other people to pay for it.

No. Everyone's choices should be constrained based on what is best for society. That has nothing to do with how I think they ought to behave.

I don't like guns; if it were up to me, I would ban them. However, this is, statistically, not optimal for society. I therefore do not advocate it as a public policy.