So I was browsing my news feeds just now and I came across a story on The Consumerist about how the South Carolina Highway Patrol have undertaken a program where you can be awarded a Chick-Fil-A coupon if you're found to be wearing your seat belt if you're pulled over or stopped at a a sobriety checkpoint.
My first thought was that those dudes at Chick-Fil-A are pretty slick getting the government to pass out the coupons that drive people to their restaurants. Genius.
Then I wondered, "How is it that convictions that come as a result of these checkpoints are upheld in court? That's obviously a violation of the fourth amendment.
I did a bit of googling and found that the supreme court agrees... about the constitutionality, that is, but not the validity. WTF?
"The Constitution protects people from being stopped without a search warrant or at least “probable cause” that they have committed a crime.
The Michigan Supreme Court found sobriety checkpoints to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, in a split decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Michigan court. Although acknowledging that such roadblocks violate a fundamental constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that they are necessary in order to reduce drunk driving. That is, he argued that the end justifies the means.
WHAT?!
In effect, the court said "Yeah, we know it says that in that document that we swore to uphold and defend, but DUI is bad, mmkay?" When it comes to the government openly thumbing its nose at the rights of the citizens of this nation that are acknowledged by the constitution, the ends DO NOT justify the means. We have a process in place for changing the constitution. That's not it.
Did it ever occur to those judges that the document they openly chose to ignore is the VERY SAME document that establishes the court on which they sit and gives them the power to pass judgement in the first place? Do they not recognize that their position is only as valid as the Constitution itself? Which is to say, judging by decisions like this, not very valid.
When you take away the protection and rights but keep the authority and power then all you've got left is tyranny.
