That's an interesting example at the end of your post. didn't the Supreme Court just this year say that traffic stops such as that described are unconstitutional, if so Justice White as the sole dissenter in the case you mention may have been correct in that dissent.
In any case taking an exit ramp off a freeway hardly seems like justification for a traffic stop to me, a Democrat, which brings up another point; why is it that Republicans, who reportedly champion smaller government and strict adherence to the Constitution, generally support such police actions or as another example think the government should control a woman's reproductive organs, and Democrats, who supposedly favor big government at the expense of individual liberty, generally see these things as violations of individual rights ?
Edit, the case I was thinking of is Indianapolis vs Edmond decided November 2000, case number 99-1030, if anyone wants to look for it.
Do the "civil rights of the unborn" supercede the rights of the woman ? If so then women are some kind of sub-citizen in your ideal society.(or maybe only pregnant women are sub-citizens ? I can see the marketing people gearing up now, the new Civil Rights Protector by Trojan.)
If the believers in this society of men and the unborn as super-citizens and women as sub-citizens ever succeeds in getting state control of a woman's nooks and crannies it won't stop abortions from happening. It will just revert to the back alleys and coat hangers again, and real women, real daughters, real wives, will die as they used to.
BTW, I'm anti-abortion, I'm never going to have one myself. (pretty easy position for us fellows to take isn't it?)
I'm just opposed to the government telling a woman what she can and can't do with her own body.
Listen im from missouri and i'm sick of you minority groups bitiching about ashcroft. Unlike our currenct crooked Attorney General Ashcroft has MORALS and will uphold the law to everyone. I'm 17 and i just finished my first poly-sci class and everything you read about how he votes against minorities is completely one sided. The man has a good reason for everything he does and when it comes down to it you libral freaks us dont want someone with morals in office.
<< I'm just opposed to the government telling a woman what she can and can't do with her own body. >>
Ive never understood this line of thinking and i am one of the most open minded people in the world. The government isnt telling a woman she cant do what she wants with her body, they are telling her they cant do anyhing that will KILL the child. Woman can cut themselves, go anerexic, become crack addicts, have sex all day for money, or whatever they want with their bodies, but when the touch the child in them that is no longer their body.
Asscrack might be a wonderful guy. He probably is. How could you fault a guy that doesn't dance and has himself anointed with crisco before taking office. It will be quite appropriate if he is rejected though because he rejected so many himself for reasons that they were outside the normal spectrum and is himself singularly extreme.
<< How could you fault a guy that doesn't dance and has himself anointed with crisco before taking office >>
IS that all you got against the man? Sure have a couple low blows about his personal and religous life, does that make you feel better? HE denied that black judge with good reason, i was watching CNN and they were showing that judges record and apparently he had some controversial issues in his record. Do you honestly think Ashcroft said no just because he is black? Grow up
Thanks I'm Typing, just signed it and sent it out to 5 friends. This is what we have to be doing more of. Try to make sure all the Democrats see this and sign it. You did good,although it wasn't a direct hit, nobody called you a commie, but close enough.