Drivers License Checkpoints are Unconstitutional

So Con has fully complied by the stipulations agreed too. Here is what Pro and Con agreed to at the beginning of the debate (I have modified the original wording into an interrogative sentence for VOTERS). Round 1: A) [did Pro] define "drivers license checkpoint" and it's purpose[?]: No, Pro did not define driver’s license checkpoints in round one. In fact, he pose a question to the reader and then proceeds with a subjective, unsubstantiated view of checkpoints, that ends by comparing it with the “Gestapo…tactics” [while this is a rhetorical device used to emphasize extreme overreach by governments the comparative difference between roadblock on a highway and the Nazi’s subjugation over western Europe is as delusional as a worm with visions of grandeur picking a fight with a giant. Or, no link whatsoever] B) [Did Con] define “drivers license checkpoint” and its purpose [?] Yes, there is a section labeled specifically addressing both. Round 2: ********************************************************************* B1) [Did Pro] show/interpret any laws that provide drivers license checkpoints are unconstitutional [?] No. Pro provided a misinterpretation of Texas case. Pro did show/interpret laws, but the Texas case Pro cited did not rule that checkpoints were unconstitutional but ruled on the state guidelines in Texas and how they were implemented, and nothing else. So, Pro did show/interpret a law in Round 2 but it had DID NOT show nor have anything to do with the constitutionality of checkpoints. ********************************************************************* B2) [Did Con] Show/interpret any laws that provide drivers license checkpoints are constitutional [?] Yes, Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990) [It is the current precedent of the Supreme Court] ******************************************************************* *Round 3 [Was about concluding statement, etc.] ________________________________________________________ I will take the time to also debunk claims made last round that are irrelevant, ancillary, or support Con’s position. Pro mentions Justice Brennan’s dissent. So what? Dissents have ZERO legal weight; and virtually every Supreme Court has a dissent or two or multiple dissents and concurrences not just on the majority opinion but parts. Personally dissents are fun to read for because they are not legally binding but rather allow the Justice to attack the stupidity of the majority or something like that. So, I don’t know why Pro brought up dissent opinions, they don’t mean anything other than the Justices did not agree with the majority. Pro’s quote last round does not even support his position: “However, where the police have a reasonable suspicion of illegal conduct, even though there is not actual violation of the law they may examine drivers' licenses or registration.” That supports Pro’s position, meaning that police with “a reasonable suspicion of illegal conduct, even though there is not actual violation of the law they may examine drivers’ licenses or registration.” [But again, this is an ancillary matter of no importance. I just wanted to point it out to voters]. Pro states that there is a contradiction in Con’s reasoning: “In realization that laws can flip back and forth is evidence that laws can change when philosophical views of office positions do, which contradicts Cons view that philosophy or personal viewpoints/interpretations aren't related to the argument of constitutionality past, future or present.” I accept the law evolves and changes. I do not dispute that. I think that is 100% true. By this reasoning then, because the law evolves then I can posit anything is constitutional. For instance, if this logic is followed then I could say gay marriage is both constitutional and unconstitutional if time is the variable; or I could say Obamacare is both constitutional and unconstitutional. This argument isn’t relevant. DISTINCTION BETWEEN IS/ARE and SHOULD/OUGHT DEBATES But the larger mistake seems to be that Pro misunderstand the nature of our debate, one that as the proposition clearly frames as a [is/are] legal matter It is not a [should/ought] debate Had the debate been a should/ought debate, where my personal reading of the constitution matters, then I would agree with Pro but that is not the debate, so my personal preference doesn’t matter. Here is how Pro concludes side: “I ask that voters who have read this debate [decide by voting for PRO if they feel that the practice of roadside blockades are unjust and unconstitutional], for it is you and me who ultimately decide how the constitution is interpreted by our involvement in voting for officials, and state/national legislators who directly control this interpretation.] I feel that a lot of practices are unjust and unconstitutional but you might be surprised to hear it doesn’t matter because my feelings, beliefs, and opinions are not given the responsibility of interpreting the Constitution. Personally me and a lot of other people “feel” that the NSA warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional, and “feel” that it is unconstitutional that police can arrest me for smoking marijuana in my front yard, and “feel” that the every war since WWII has been unconstitutional since they were not official declarations of war. George Carlin makes this point, in the clip below. The Japanese interned only because of their Japanese ancestry felt that it was constitutional to take their possessions and keep them in a camp against their will. But guess what? It didn’t matter. Why? Because the Supreme Court in Korematsu said, it was constitutional to intern Japanese Americans. https://youtu.be... And to put a finer point on it, it is not you and me who decide how the Constitution is interpreted, it is the Supreme Court of the United States [exceptions: Constitutional Amendments] I WILL CONCLUDE WITH PRO’S OWN WORDS Pro agrees with Con’s entire argument [SEE PRO’S FIRST SENTENCE OF ROUND 3]: “Even though I concede Con’s point that the Supreme Court ruled it was constitutional for checkpoints, two of the Supreme Justices dissented.” Voters just need to extract the main part: I concede Con’s point that the Supreme Court ruled it was constitutional Thanks for the debate. It was a good one.