Classifieds Business Directory Jobs Real Estate Autos Legal Notices ePubs Subscribe Archives
Today is October 2, 2014
home news sports feature opinionfyi society obits multimedia

Front Page » December 27, 2011 » Opinion » Letters to the editor
Published 1,010 days ago

Letters to the editor


Print PageEmail PageShareGet Reprints

The right of movment

Editor:

I recently found myself caught in a state-wide sweep of ticketed citizens for "supposedly" not obeying the state law which requires a driver when approaching an officer on the side of the road with his lights on to move to the left lane or if not possible to slow down.

I refer to it as a sweep because so far this year there have been approximately 1,800 of these tickets issued amounting to approximately $207,000.

I was traveling below the speed limit when I saw the officer on the side of the road, I did immediately begin to slow down further, I did look in my mirror to check to see if I could move to the left. There were vehicles not only to the side of me, but directly behind me in my lane as well. I did the only safe thing I could do, I continued to slow down until I passed the parked officer. I followed the law and still got a ticket.

I did not know the complete law; the officer did not read me the complete law. He merely asked me if I didn't know the law required me to move to the left when approaching an officer with lights running". I, probably like many of us trusted the officer's statement.. I paid the ticket. Later, upon finding out what the law did say, I tried to get the ticket reversed but it was too late.

There however was another regulation requiring everyone who gets this ticket to take a defensive driving class to avoid getting their license suspended. One that I did not become aware of until they suspended my license. The officer didn't bother to tell me that. This class is primarily offered to shave points off of a ticket or reduce the cost, and is extremely limited in rural areas making it largely unavailable. Besides the windfall of money they are obviously making from this mass ticketing, how was such a minor offense ever allowed to evolve into mandating the suspension of our constitutional right to travel.

The issue that troubles me the most is that one of my most basic human rights as an American, one that as of April 1992 is a United Nations human right of which our congress ratified has been trivialized. A right and a liberty, not a privilege granted by our civil servants, but a right of travel, freedom of movement. It is a Constitutional right. There have been numerous court rulings which upheld this right and liberty as "absolutely fundamental," "a common right", "an inalienable natural right predating the constitution." US Supreme Court rulings stating in part "Where activities or enjoyment natural and often necessary to the well being of an American citizen, such as travel are involved, we will construe narrowly all delegated powers to curtail or dilute them."

Because I am the primary driver I find myself not being able to get groceries, medications for my wife and myself, doctor appointments or simply to drive to social engagements. I have been effectively jailed in my own home. And for what? I obeyed the law. I was aware of the officers and did my best to keep not only them safe, but the other drivers on the road as well. There was no crime committed, no injury. I did not interfere with other individuals rights while driving that day.

Our civil servants on a daily basis act with impunity, domination, and superiority. They patently disregard our rights as citizens, rights they are there to balance, uphold and protect instead of obstructing and oppressing.

Robert Miller, Price

Afterall, it is the law

Editor:

This letter is in response to the front page article in the Sun Advocate entitled "The Human Side Of Immigration Law" that appeared in the Dec. 13, 2011 issue.

To start off with, let's dismiss the emotional ploy that was intended with the title of this article. There is no other side to the law.

Ask yourself these questions, Who wrote the law? Humans. Who is the law intended to protect? Humans. Who is the law intended to be enforced upon? Humans. So you see the emotional dribble of "the human side" is just that; dribble.

While I do feel a bit bad about a family being separated, you have to ask yourself if making people feel good is as important as people adhering to the rule of law. Do we circumvent DUI laws when a person will be "separated from there family". We can't be breaking families up, right? No, I am sorry, but when laws are broken we can not allow our laws to be downplayed by the liberal media. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of men. We should never let anyone get away with crime, period! We do not turn drunken drivers loose when we find that they may be separated from their family. These folks have made a decision and must be held accountable for that decision.

The fellow in question was an admitted criminal. He had a fraudulent drivers license and a forged SS card. He is a repeat offender of immigration laws. This young man did not come over the border by mistake, and realize "Oh hey, it looks as if I have wandered a little too far north, opps!!" No, he calculated the journey, numerous times, and is now being held accountable for his decisions. It is time for people to knock off the mentality that it is cruel to send people back to their country of origin, based on touchy, feely mularchy! We need more people in charge such as the U.S. Consul that make decisions based on rational thought and not emotion.

A statement in the article was made about him "trying to live within the law". Again I am sorry, but if that statement were true we would not be having this discussion, now would we? He broke the law! He is not being penalized for "trying to do the right thing." He is being penalized for the previous decisions he made of not doing the right thing.

If I rob a liquor store and decide to turn myself in....will I still be held accountable for my previous misdeeds? Or would that be considered "breaking up a family"? This young man made a decision to come here. He made further decisions to lie to try and stay here. He made decisions to start a family which he knew may cause problems down the road.....and now we are expected to make exceptions for his crimes because it doesn't make us feel good?

If a homeless person decides to let himself in your home and set up shop in your basement to try and make a life for himself, has he broken the law?

It is time to join the ranks of rational thinkers and call people who come here illegally exactly what they are.....criminals!

I am pretty sure this letter will invoke a lot of fan mail for me.....so let the games begin, and a thank you to the Editor.

Keith Johnson, Green River

Print PageEmail PageShareGet Reprints


Top of Page


 
Opinion  
December 27, 2011
Recent Opinion
Quick Links
Subscribe via RSS
Related Articles  
Related Stories



Best viewed with Firefox
Get Firefox

© Sun Advocate, 2000-2013. All rights reserved. All material found on this website, unless otherwise specified, is copyright and may not be reproduced without the explicit written permission from the publisher of the Sun Advocate.
Legal Notices & Terms of Use    Privacy Policy    Advertising Info    FAQ    Contact Us
  RSS Feeds    News on Your Site    Staff Information    Submitting Content    About Us