Thursday, February 07, 2008

YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK


Allow us to introduce you all to Marvin E. Holmes, Jr. He's a state delegate from Prince Georges County and the latest graphic illustration that you don't have to actually know anything about federal and state law to be elected to craft those laws. To wit: Marv is pimping a bill, which presumably, he crafted with his own hands and brain, that, if adopted, would require anyone under the age of 21 seeking a driver's license in Maryland to first submit to drug and alcohol testing. ... Let's pause here for a moment to ponder Marv's grasp of constitutional law...
Okay, that's long enough.
Marv, Marv, Marv. Where do we begin with you. Oh, I know, how about the Fourth Amendment. You know, that's the one that prohibits search a search of a persons home, papers, effects and person Without A Freaking Warrant. Then let's proceed to the Fifth Amendment, preventing self incrimination..And let's not forget the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
I mean, holy Gawd, can the man really be this ignorant of basic law? We can only hope this piece of crap was written for him by a legislative aide. Then Marv can fire his ignorant ass. But if Marv actually wrote it.... woe is us.

4 comments:

Idiot! said...

Accept that driving is a privilege, not a right.

Its still a stupid law. However, if he capped it at those under 18 needing to pass a test, this could actually gain traction.

A real ballsy politician would be one that would put limitations on those that already have licenses, but leave you wondering how they passed the test in the first place. I would settle for drivers having to pass a written rules of the road test every 8 or so years, with an actual in-car driving test every 15 years.

ratturdinthecake said...

No, Idiot, you miss the point. Since drug use/possession is a crime, and the 5th Amendment protects us from being compelled to provide evidence against ourselves, any attempt to tie the right to apply for an operator's license to admitting to a crime would be prohibited..... You understand, I'm sure.

Shower Head said...

So I guess those mandatory random tests given to commercial drivers, and pilots are unconstitutional, becasue they force the drivers/pilots to incriminate themelves?

NOT!!

If a kid tries to get a license and tests positive, as long as the they don't persecute him in court, then the self incrimination becomes moot.

That is to say, that the gov't. can force you to incriminate yourself, they just cannot use the self incrimination against you if they prosecute you for a crime.

It is like the old proverbial "You did not read me my rights" defense.

They don't have to idiot, as long as they do NOT use what you said against you. Besides which, dopers know their rights anyway.

ratturdinthecake said...

;adfo