Is there a right to travel without a driver's license in the United States?
Right to Travel vs. Freedom of Movement
The phrase "right to travel" should be clarified because it's commonly confused.
Many cases, documents, etc. using the phrase "right to travel" are in fact about Freedom of Movement, which is the Constitutional right to travel between States at will. If anyone speaks of a "Constitutional right to travel" Freedom of Movement is the only valid thing they could be referring to, as we'll show.
In pseudo-legal circles, "right to travel" means the supposed right to "travel freely in your private property / automobile / conveyance on the public roads / highways without a driver's license, insurance or registration and exempt from regulation or interruption provided one does not engage in commerce / earn profit or cause harm to people or property."
Absolute freedom! Could it be true? How does the law work?
Tenth Amendment, State Codes
Traffic regulation isn't mentioned in the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, therefore the power generally falls to the States pursuant to the 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
States are free to enact whatever traffic regulations they want provided they do not violate federal law, as determined by the federal courts, pursuant to their police power.
All 50+ States, through their legislatures consisting of the people's elected representatives, have seen fit to devise and enact their own traffic codes and police them.
Was it always this way?
There wasn't always legislation displacing the common law. Automobile regulation began in the early 1900's. Here is an excellent paper that thoroughly explores the transitional period when decisions could go either way: The Orphaned Right: The Right to Travel by Automobile, 1890-1950.
Bicycles were regulated decades before automobiles were invented and activists of the day faced many of the same questions and challenges modern right to travel proponents do. An analysis of that period can be found in this publication: The Impact of the Sport of Bicycle Riding on Safety Law.
Constitutionality
The States have all enacted traffic regulations, but do they violate federal law or the Constitution?
Judging constitutionality is ultimately up to the Supreme Court pursuant to Article 3:
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Appeals are more-often-than-not declined by the Supreme Court so adjudication may stop at the federal United States Courts of Appeals (circuit courts) or District Courts and those are a good place to look for precedent, too. We prefer citations from these federal courts to avoid presumptions of bias that might arise by the State judging its own regulations and because federal decisions are superior to State decisions pursuant to the Supremacy Clause.
Federal Court Decisions
Let's have a look at some federal cases on the right of States to regulate traffic.
Hendrick v. Maryland 235 US 610 (1915)
The movement of motor vehicles over the highways is attended by constant and serious dangers to the public, and is also abnormally destructive to the ways themselves . . . In the absence of national legislation covering the subject a State may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles — those moving in interstate commerce as well as others. And to this end it may require the registration of such vehicles and the licensing of their drivers . . . This is but an exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the States and essential to the preservation of the health, safety and comfort of their citizens.
Hess v. Pawloski 274 US 352 (1927)
Motor vehicles are dangerous machines; and, even when skillfully and carefully operated, their use is attended by serious dangers to persons and property. In the public interest the State may make and enforce regulations reasonably calculated to promote care on the part of all, residents and non-residents alike, who use its highways.
Reitz v. Mealey 314 US 33 (1941)
The use of the public highways by motor vehicles, with its consequent dangers, renders the reasonableness and necessity of regulation apparent. The universal practice is to register ownership of automobiles and to license their drivers. Any appropriate means adopted by the states to insure competence and care on the part of its licensees and to protect others using the highway is consonant with due process.
There we have three solid federal Supreme Court decisions that set nationwide precedent that cannot be ignored. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of law in the United States. Unless "right to travel" proponents can come up with a later Supreme Court ruling that states otherwise, their claims are busted.
And we have one less-impressive but telling quote from a lower federal district court:
Wells v. Malloy 402 F. Supp. 856 (1975)
Although a driver's license is an important property right in this age of the automobile, it does not follow that the right to drive is fundamental in the constitutional sense.
A few of the above cases were found in a somewhat inflammatory and dated but comprehensive publication, Idiot Legal Arguments. We picked out the relevant federal cases, but many more high-level State cases can be found there, too, if you're interested.
There actually isn't a whole lot at the federal level because appeals beyond State courts are often denied as it has long been accepted by the federal government that traffic regulation is a proper exercise of State police power. Federal courts uphold the ability of States to regulate road traffic provided it is done so with equality, reasonableness and for public safety and doesn't violate any federal laws or rights.
But I don't "drive" or use a "motor vehicle"! Those are legal terms used to enslave me and I'm smarter than that!
I'm afraid the State and its courts dictate how things are viewed under its law. You don't get to decide what's considered driving or a motor vehicle, they do. You can't simply switch out a few words to avoid responsibility. If you're in territory controlled by the US and/or a State then its laws may be applied to you and you have no lawful recourse (see Law Basics).
I've heard of people being ignored or let go by police, even without a license or insurance!
Police have discretion. The world is a very dynamic place. There are any number of reasons why you might be passed by or allowed to proceed at any given time. The cop might be a scared rookie, not care, not want to fight, have a date, have to pee, be on lunch break, be at the end of their shift and going home – think about it – they're human, not machines. The priorities of police and prosecuting attorneys vary. The law is what it is, though, and when you understand it you know in the long run you're looking for trouble if you don't obey it.
I don't like traffic regulations. What can I do?
Your lawful remedy is to convince the majority of people in your State to put pressure on your elected representatives in the State legislature to change the law. That or you could move to another State or country where there are less regulations (and perhaps more fatalities).
Study hard, verify claims, think for yourself, question this, comment.
What you are saying is absolutely correct. However, you failed to even mention the specific law definitions of words like "motor vehicle", "driving", and "license." All three terms are commercial in every sense. But you fail to mention that anywhere in the article. Black's and Bouvier's Law books have the same definitions. No, you cannot "drive" without a "license" because it is by definition a commercial practice that can be regulated by states. But to "travel", which by definition has nothing to do with "driving", CANNOT be regulated by the states. Also, in the case of Thompson vs. Smith, it was ruled that " the right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." So technically you are correct, and hold the right to stand by your information. But to not give BOTH sides of the argument, and not give the proper definitions by which the COURTS make their decisions, you are just as misleading as the geniuses that came up with the idea to dupe the American People out of their basic rights. Thanks for the misinformation.
Hi Jermaine, Thanks for your comments. I'll try to address everything you mentioned.
1) It is incorrect to say the terms quoted are always "commercial". How words are defined depends on the jurisdiction (state or federal) and the Act at hand. When a charge is brought in a State court under a State traffic code, for example, the court first looks to the definitions in the State traffic code. In a State court, federal definitions, dictionary definitions – none of those necessarily apply. Where a definition in the immediate Act at hand is absent the courts can look to any number of sources and dictionaries before dictating what a word means. Courts are not bound by dictionaries and have the power to define words and interpret law within their jurisdiction. A relevant article I like is http://blog.oup.com/2013/06/scotus-marriage-definition-dictionary/
2) It is incorrect to say "travel" cannot be regulated by the States. The Supreme Court decisions quoted in the article above make it clear that residents and non-residents, whether operating commercially or not, may be regulated, and this is part of the long-recognized police power of the State, permitted for maintaining order and public safety.
In reality there is no "free society". Every society has rules, and every society has a government that can make any rules needed to maintain order and the society. The municipal, county, state and federal governments are entirely within the law provided they create laws in accordance with the laws of the local sovereign nation-state, i.e. the US based on the Constitution of 1788, that's recognized globally pursuant to Public International Law. When entities within the nation-state make laws that violate fundamental principles, it is up for an injured party to come forward and appeal as high as necessary to have them struck down and sent back to the legislature for revision, after which time the process may begin again if there are still violations. Nations are sovereign and the highest law on earth. If the national government becomes corrupt, there is no lawful remedy — where would you bring a claim? Surely not in that very same nation's courts — unless perhaps you ally with foreign nations and use economic and military pressure to provoke a change. The only option at that point is forceful overthrow. I don't think that's necessary in the US quite yet where the people still hold a significant amount of power, more than most other countries on earth.
3) Pseudolegal proponents often take case quotes out of context. Let's have a look at Thompson v Smith for ourselves. We can read it at https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3467100988685921366.
Scroll down to the actual decision of the court and we find:
"The power of a city to control and regulate the use of its streets is a continuing power to be exercised as often and whenever the city may think proper. Washington, etc., Ry. Co. City Council of Alexandria, 98 Va. 344, 36 S.E. 385. The issuance and revocation of such permits by a city is merely a means of exercising the police power of the State delegated to the city to regulate the use of the public highways in the interest of the public safety and welfare. The Constitution of Virginia expressly provides that "the exercise of the police power of the State shall never be abridged." (Constitution Virginia, section 159.)"
Then, along with what you quoted, and this is what attracted the conspiracists, it says:
" . . . [Traveling on the roads by automobile] is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at will."
But immediately after that, it says this:
"The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it."
and
"The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions."
So you see, the court is not ruling that regulation is unlawful, but that arbitrary, unequally-applied, regulation is unlawful.
We see the same mentioned in a highly-relevant case citing Thompson at https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10131702901035759855
"The city driver's license revocation ordinance at issue in Thompson was upheld except to the extent it granted broad discretion to the city's chief of police to revoke licenses."
Read carefully and investigate, lest you fall into a pit of misinformation yourself. 🙂
I'm not part of the movement, just a reader. All I see is that private automobile travel is a right, not a privelage and a lot of crappy wording that doesn't determine anything about whether a license is required. Am I wrong or is it left a bit open ended? I'm still wondering about the definitions as well. My best summary of what I'm reading is that someone broke a safety law and was trying to not have it taken. Also,this movement wouldn't be around without the over regulations that we have today. How many laws are needed to go to and from work?
You have been defending the right of states to regulate commerce. The U.S. Constitution only allowed for the government to regulate commerce not the private rights of the people. All State Constitutions were required in order to be part of these united States of America had to follow the same language as the federal or their constitution and state would be void and not existent! So if the Federal government does not allow it….neither can states be allowed to regulate private rights….ONLY COMMERCE! All the cases you are reading…..is talking about they can put up street signs, lights, speeds to provide a standard that all may follow equally. But they can only regulate commercial conduct in each state, because the Constitutions in every state must follow the original Constitution of these united State of America. Once you under stand this, then you would understand, that no state may pass a law abridging private rights of the people. That is why they call it all codes….codes are administrative…NOT LAW! Law is the Statutes at Large in each state, and you will find in the original language of the original statutes their codes did not violate the Constitutions…but over time, they convoluted them with newer and more convoluted versions. That is why they need your signature on anything and everything from licences, tickets, waiver of rights in court…..all of it violates Constitutional limits. Remember the Constitutions limit government not the people. You have lost sight of this. If you hurt another Citizen, then the other Citizen can bring the Law under the Constitution of every state upon the violator by a proper Affidavit, supported complaint, then it can describe you and the violation that a judge can issue a warrant based on it…which follows the real law of the land. All other codes requires you to give up your right to these properly followed due process rights under strict Constitutional direction which every state is bound by. The only reason they get away with what they do……is you sign away…sign away your rights…..then under the rule of Equity Law is one of three actual lawful ways the courts must function…..which must follow the terms of the agreement….regardless of rights…unless fraud can be proven……which everything the government has done is under constructive fraud on every one. They call it statutory law….but it is neither Common Law, Equity Law or Maritime Law…..there is only 3 in Law! You are pledgurizing a fictional imitation of codes masqueraded as laws which only work under contract not LAW! The Judge showed me a copy of a old license in court and said "See this Mr….I can do anything I want with you, so shut up and sit down or I will sanction you or jail if you mention the Constitution in my court room again. So I will say it again……contract away! That is the only way they get away with what they do! And all of the court cases you are reading is just restating their right to regulate commercial conduct. And only commercial conduct…all definitions in those cases and the rights of the states to regulate commerce is all throughout all those cases. I have cases where the courts have specifically stated that even going through a Red lights does not give a state the right to regulate a person who operates a car for personal reasons. Even stated therefor no operators license can apply to them. Say all you want….you nor they will take the inalienable Rights of the People from us.
i have not heard it said any better thank you so much iso wanted to say the exact thing .. you are absolutely correct …
what is a traffic ticket .. is that not some form of attainer .. i heard some one say , that in its self is unconstitutional in at least two differnt pkaces in the constitution ?? .. and what about giving jurisdiction over yourself in a court .. never have i heard it said any better than carl miller stated in his youtube video ,, RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT A LICENCE PLATE ,, …..ANOTHER , man i just heard of is KARL LENTZ is another who is a straight shooter , i like that ,,, and lets not forget a EX SHERRIFF , EDDIE CRAIG , TAOOFLAW.COM ….. AND HUNDREDS OF OTHERS ,,, also from the research i have done personally and not being of any law education at all except for what i have read and listened to i found a case here where i am from i ohio actually the very city of dayton ,,,, City Of Dayton vs. DeBrosse , 23 NE. 2d 647 ; 62 Ohio App. 232 .. " the term MOTOR VEHICLE is different and broader than the word AUTOMOBILE ,, and title 18 USC 31 the destinction is very clear ,,, MOTOR VEHICLE means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highway in transportation of passenger or passengers and property …
Psueudolaw 1 Jermaine 0
Thanks for a great article. Eagerly awaiting more law articles debunking all those crank claims you see on YT videos. When are you going to update the blog?
Maybe you enjoy masturbating in front of an NSA-monitored camera.
Pingback: Do You Need a License to Drive? — Of Course You Do! | Philip Marks – philipem1000
This article is nonsense. The right to travel by the ways and means of the times is clear and even the corporate courts have ruled time after time on this. We own the roads, not a foreign, private, bankrupt corporation called UNITED STATES, which is located on the District of New Columbia, under U.N./I.M.F. organization, owned outright by the CROWN/VATICAN/SWISS banking cabal. All they need is for you to be stupid enough to claim U.S. citizen status, get a license, and be surety for the BOND for that PERSON, JOHN P. DOE. They need you to bow down to them. If you don't know what to do to them when they mess with you, you aren't doing your homework, period.
I have offered 3 cases where the Supreme Court, the highest court and final decider of constitutionality in the US, has ruled that regulating highways for residents and non-residents, commercial and non-commercial purposes, is entirely within the purview of State police power. I have not seen any rulings that say these 3 decisions can be ignored under any circumstances. You have provided no sources or evidence for your claims, which appear to be copy-pasted without scrutiny from pseudolegal armchair lawyers around the internet. Stateless people, i.e. people with no citizenship, are held under the laws of the local nation-state too. You can't just renounce your citizenship and go on a killing spree and expect to be left alone. Law doesn't work that way. Sovereign states enjoy immunity throughout their claimed territory in accordance with public international law. When they decide to enforce their law you have no lawful remedy outside of their law short of declaring war on the whole nation. There is no higher lawful power on earth than a sovereign nation-state. If you want the US to stop enforcing its law you will have to defeat it militarily, and that could involve also defeating all of its allies across the globe that recognize and support it as a sovereign power.
This is only about "Administrative Courts, which are traffic and Probate mainly. I have not seen anyone claim you can opt-out of criminal court, which is Constitutional with a jury trail and full due process. Not the bum rush of traffic court to collect fees for governement salaries. The Administrative Courts are not Constitutional Courts.
The U.S Supreme Court recognizes "State National" and "Sovereign Citizens" as different. As I understand it they are essentially rolling back the law to pre 14th Amendment times (by personal election and option) when all courts were Constitutional courts and you had to do harm to someone to be dragged into court at all, never mind arrested. You could never be dragged into court for running a stop sign. There is no anarchy in this scenario, it is just holding the government to the original Constitutional standards.Some say the 14th Amendment was never properly ratified by the require majority of states too. That would make all traffic and Probate courts illegal.
Very pervasive article you wrote here sir. It seems that you have some law training so please give BOTH sides here. All the examples you gave were regarding "motor vehicles". But fail to mention that the LEGAL definition of a "motor vehicle", is strictly commercial. Black's Law, Bouvier's Law, and all other law dictionaries describe it the same. An "automobile" on the other hand, is a private conveyance. Personal property, of which cannot be legislated. Also you fail to mention how EVERY state and even the FEDERAL motor vehicle code is written to legislate the commercial act of transportation. But I digress. If you are out to "debunk" anything, you might want to do proper research sir. Not spew a few cases that clearly describe commercial activity that can be regulated by the states, but leave out the fact that use of a private "automobile", which is LEGALLY considered part of household goods, is something that the government can't regulate.
At least use common sense here. If you have cash in hand, you can buy a car without a driver's license. This is a fact. So if it is legal to BUY a car with no license, what grounds do the state have to tell me I cannot USE the car I just bought? You do not need a license to use the car until you register it with the state. Because when you register the car, you are declaring to the state that you will be using the car (which then is officially and legally considered a "motor vehicle") for commercial purposes. Essentially saying that you will be using the highways for personal gain. The crazy thing in all of this is that the people never question or look into anything like this. Thus making it easier for folks such as yourself to get by with heaping such bs on the masses. You are not part of the solution. You only serve to perpetuate the issue.
Thanks for your input, but I'm afraid you are completely misinformed. Courts aren't bound by Black's or any dictionary. Say a charge is brought against you in a State court under the State traffic code. When dealing with that charge the only definition of "motor vehicle" the court will use is that found in the "Definitions" section at the top of that particular State's traffic code. Most or all of these State definitions do not define "motor vehicle" as a strictly commercial device. Attempting to bring any other definition into the court is pointless because it doesn't apply. Where a word is not defined explicitly in the legislation at hand, the court decides. See e.g. https://illinois.edu/blog/view/25/93323. Black's follows the courts, not the other way around.
The cases provided clearly validate the regulation of the highways generally, and the requiring of licenses for those operating on it, whether resident or non-resident, operating commercially or non-commercially. If you further continue to the links provided you will find about a hundred other cases speaking about highway regulation. Some say in even more clear terms that "private automobiles" can indeed be regulated. For example:
"The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets" Thompson v Smith (1930) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3467100988685921366 (Ironically, this case is often falsely cited as proof-positive that we have a right to travel unregulated by automobile.)
The courts aren't simply going to ignore the danger or demands of the people for efficient highways because you decide your own personal definitions apply. As holders of the constitutional legislative and judicial power the state assembly and courts decide and dictate the law and what words mean. If they say whatever you were traveling in is a motor vehicle, it is.
So basically what you are saying is that states don't have to follow anything but what THEY deem is appropriate? So because the STATE doesn't define "motor vehicle" as a commercial device, they reserve the right to make up definitions as they go along? They don't have to follow the Federal vehicle code? Private automobiles can be classified under household goods. Meaning that the government, State or Federal cannot regulate the use of private property. As is stated in one of the hundreds of cases that you pointed out. From what I gather, if cars can be classified as household goods or private property, how can the states regulate the "private" use of said property? Seems awful shady my friend. So now also you are telling me that the state can also determine what it is I am traveling in? They no longer have the burden of PROVING that I am indeed operating or driving a motor vehicle, Which by definition is inherently commercial and under their jurisdiction, not traveling in my private conveyance? Which they cannot regulate by requiring licensing or permits. In a nutshell, your reply basically told me that no matter what the actual LEGAL definition of what I'm doing is, the state and court hold the right to change the definition to fit what they are attempting to charge me with? Sorry, that's not going to fly. Especially when there is case law that states that the courts cannot do such a thing. I appreciate your replies even though my comments were tainted with sarcasm and a dash of rudeness. You were very professional and even minded when you responded. Thanks for doing your best to give me the info.
State and federal jurisdictions are entirely separate (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_States ). "Motor vehicle" is defined three or more times in the federal USC alone (18 USC 31, 18 USC 2311, 49 USC 30102). The definition that applies on a particular charge depends on the legislation that the charge is brought under. The USC definitions would only be used in a federal court in a charge brought under that chapter. For a state traffic charge, the definition in the state traffic code will apply. Yes, the federal and state governments dictate the law and what words mean, in their arguable roles as representatives of the people. They don't just arbitrarily change definitions on a whim, per se – they follow the state constitutional process to enact them, post them publicly and apply them equally to everybody. Courts can only define words that the legislature has failed to explicitly define. Once a legislature defines a word a court can't modify it in dealing with charges under the specific Act, section, chapter, etc. where the definition appears and applies.
Ok thanks for all the info. With everything floating around about this, you can't tell what's real and what isn't.
Oh yes, can you please explain this from American Jurisprudence 1st Ed, Highways 163 6.2- A citizen's Right to travel upon public highways includes the right to use the usual conveyances of the time, including horse-drawn carriage, or automobile, for ordinary purposes of life and business… Certainly not pervasive language here. Very to the point. Which makes everything you said invalid. I'm not trying to rock the boat by any means. Just trying to get to the bottom of this rabbit hole.
Again, this is from Thompson v Smith, linked in my comment above, which when read in full goes on to say that a city may indeed require permits for private automobiles. The issue resolved by the court was not whether highway regulation was permissible, but whether or not the revoking of such a permit could be done arbitrarily, without equality.
"such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to others of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions"
There IS a right to travel, or right to movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law ), but it is not an unlimited right. It is still subject to reasonable limitation for public safety, just as nuclear arms are excluded from the second amendment.
At least one judge calls highway regulation an "enhancement" rather than an infringement on the right to travel:
"The motor vehicle code was promulgated to increase the safety and efficiency of our public roads. It enhances rather than infringes upon the right to travel." https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10872398176234123252
I'm just finding out about all of this and still researching it so forgive me if I'm wrong. In my research, I found that a bill passed in Georgia allowing this 'right to travel' that you call pseudo-law:
"Free people have a common law and constitutional right to travel on the roads and highways that are provided by their government for that purpose. Licensing of drivers cannot be required of free people because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of an inalienable right"
So if it is up to the state to decide what takes place on their roadways, how does the right to travel constitute pseudo-law? And also, is there any case of anyone (18+ years of age, not insane/reckless, and never being issued a license) getting arrested or suffering any legal consequences purely for the reason of driving with no license?
Hi Andrew, To create laws in Georgia the legislature must act in accordance with Article III of the state constitution (http://www.senate.ga.gov/Documents/gaconstitution.pdf ). In Section V we find that in order for a bill to become a law it must be read three times in both the House and Senate, receive a majority vote in each, and be signed by the governor unless overridden by a 2/3 majority in both houses. Looking at the status of the bill at http://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/en-US/display/31971 it seems the bill got a second reading in the House and hasn't been considered at all in the Senate. I can therefore confidently say that this bill has not come into force. Kudos to the guy who brought it, though, because this is exactly how people who want to travel without a license are supposed to go about getting what they want.
I recommend searching the web or Scholar to find an answer to your second question:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=arrested+driving+without+license&btnG=&as_sdt=400006. In general, any breach of state or municipal law is arrestable at the officer's discretion pursuant to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atwater_v._City_of_Lago_Vista
You mentioned the Tenth Amendment, but what about the Ninth Amendment? The "Unenumerated Rights" Clause, which this right would fall under. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In Thompson v. Smith (as well as every other court cases I have read on this issue) they say traveling on the public roadways is a right. They them go on to say that right can be regulated "by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets." However, by requiring a license/permit for the exercise of a right, they are converting a right into a privilege. Isn't converting a right into a privilege, in and of itself, a violation of that right?
There are few to no "unlimited rights." Thompson v Smith says travel is a right that may not be prohibited at will, i.e. arbitrarily. The right may still be prohibited reasonably by due process of law. "The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it." https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3467100988685921366
The only limit to a right is where it infringes on someone else's rights, e.g. I have the right to provide food for myself, but I can't steal that food from someone else. Traveling on the public roadways, without a license, does not infringe on anyone's rights. However, requiring a license to exercise that right does. It is no less of a violation of a right, than if the State required anyone who wants to publicly voice their opinion to obtain a license to do so. Requiring a license to exercise a right is a violation of that right, even if they equally require everyone to have the license. They are simply violating everyone's rights equally. As for the public safety argument, if the States were really concerned with public safety, they would make driver safety a required course, starting in middle school. Of course, they wouldn't be able to profit off of that.
If you can get the Supreme Court to agree with your reasoning it might change the country. As it stands most highway regulation is deemed to fall under state police power and each state has its own legislation and common law. If you want things to change, the proper way to go about it is to pressure your representatives in the state legislature to change the law, and/or bring a constitutional or other defense/appeal when you're charged, and tell others to do the same. Before you can truly declare the system corrupt you need the support of the majority of your fellow citizens and for the collective will to be ignored… So where are the polls showing millions supporting the abolishment of state driver's license requirements?
What gives the legislature, the courts, or public opinion the authority to limit our rights, or convert them into privileges? I don't have a problem with "most highway regulation". Traffic lights, speed limits, D.U.I laws, etc. are all reasonable and legitimate regulations that (for the most part) keep traffic flowing in an orderly fashion, and increases the safety of the roadways. My problem is with requiring a license for something I already have the right to do. Also, I didn't say the system is corrupt, I was implying there is a conflict of interest.
Pursuant to international law, nation-states enjoy sovereignty over their recognized territory. The authority of state and federal constitutions and legislatures to dictate the law and the people's rights is inherent in that. They simply rule by force, given an air of legitimacy by theories of social contract and popular sovereignty. The US was designed to be dynamic and able to evolve. If Congress or the States wanted they could completely amend the Constitution, changing it or replacing it completely. It is not for the individual to decide what is lawful or not. It never has been. The US has always embraced principles of constitutional, representative democracy, with one Supreme Court holding the ultimate power of judicial interpretation.
Federal constitutions and legislatures do not dictate what people's rights are, other than the rights that only come into existence once a government is established, like the right to vote. The Constitution does not grant us our rights, it simply acknowledges them, and says the government to protect them and not violate them. If Congress or the States amended the Constitution, and eliminated the First Amendment, that would not mean we no longer have the right to freely express our views and opinions. That right would still exist, it just would not be recognized by the government. If the government passes a law that violates my rights, I am under no obligation to follow that law. It was once lawful to own slaves, yet it was still a violation of those people's rights to enslave them. Those slaves who ran away were not violating the law, because those slavery laws were a violation of there natural rights, and therefore null and void.
If the local sovereign national or state government doesn't recognize a so-called right it may as well not exist, because you can't enforce it anywhere on earth. No court cares about your personal interpretation of law. The courts exist to interpret and enforce constitutions and legislation and fill in the grey areas those documents don't yet address.
"The common law is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky but the articulate voice of some sovereign or quasi-sovereign that can be identified" Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen (1917) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4862321298494306975
The US and States, via their constitutions and legislatures, enjoy nare-undisputed sovereignty over the territory in accordance with public international law.
I don't care that the courts, a branch of the government, say the legislature, another branch of the government, can limit people's rights. I do not take their opinions into consideration when deciding whether or not to exercise my rights. I'm not going to stop exercising a right because the government and/or the courts do not recognize it. Nor will I stop exercising that right because the government uses the threat of violence and/or imprisonment to intimidate me into not exercising that right. If we stop fighting for our rights, and allow the government to limit them or take them away, THEN those rights may as well not exist.
You may not care but they will enforce their law and there is no lawful remedy you can use to free yourself or win damages. Lawful rights come from government and are only as effective as your ability to enforce them with the power of the state. As soon as a government limits or takes away rights of persons in their recognized territorial jurisdiction, barring a successful appeal, they're gone. In the US, a representative democracy based on popular sovereignty, your remedy is to petition your fellow man, your municipal, county, state and federal representatives, to get enough support to convince the legislature(s) to change the law. It's either that or military overthrow, and good luck with that considering the US has one of the most effective militaries and many allies around the globe.
The problem with that remedy is that most of my fellow man have been convinced, as you have, that our rights come from the government, even though the U.S was founded on the idea that rights do not come from government. Governments are instituted to secure our rights, not to decide which rights we are allowed to have. Then there are those people who, for the most part, agree with my view point but will not fight for their rights, "and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, then to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." So, what is the remedy when the people themselves would rather allow governments to convert their right into a privilege then to fight to restore that right, or believe that we only have the rights that governments allow us to have?
–
"The common law is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky but the articulate voice of some sovereign or quasi-sovereign that can be identified" Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen (1917).
Nation-states and the treaties they voluntarily ratify are the highest law on earth. No court shares the interpretation that enforceable lawful rights exist outside nation-states. The supreme law of the land is not individual interpretation but the Constitution per the Supremacy Clause. Government does decide rights. If we don't let a sovereign, e.g. government, a king, decide then it's left up to individual interpretation, i.e. anarchy. The latter is not conducive to long-term cooperation but is the law of the jungle, a free for all where might makes right. At this point in human civilization only nation-states enjoy that freedom. Arguably from time to time states become overbearing and out of control and the people have to storm the capitol and start it all over again. I personally don't think we're quite there yet in the west. I'm not saying it's the right system or best system, just how it is.
"The common law is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky but the articulate voice of some sovereign or quasi-sovereign that can be identified" Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen (1917).
Nation-states and the treaties they voluntarily ratify are the highest law on earth. No court shares the interpretation that enforceable lawful rights exist outside nation-states. The supreme law of the land is not individual interpretation but the Constitution per the Supremacy Clause. Government does decide rights. If we don't let a sovereign, e.g. government, a king, decide then it's left up to individual interpretation, i.e. anarchy. The latter is not conducive to long-term cooperation but is the law of the jungle, a free for all where might makes right. At this point in human civilization only nation-states enjoy that freedom. Arguably from time to time states become overbearing and out of control and the people have to storm the capitol and start it all over again. I personally don't think we're quite there yet in the west. I'm not saying it's the right system or best system, just how it is.
You keep saying it isn't up to individual interpretation, but that is all court decisions are, three out of five individuals agreeing on an interpretation. Also, as I have already pointed out, the courts agree that traveling on the public roadways is a right. They just immediately contradict themselves by saying the government can require a license and a fee to exercise that right. A right is something that does not require any kind of permission to do. If it is a right then governments cannot require a license or a fee to do it. If they can require a license and a fee, then it is not a right, it is a privilege. I, also, do not think we are near the point of needing to overthrow the government. I consider the drivers license issue to be a relatively minor violation. If they start locking people up, and/or executing them for things like speaking out against the government, that would be a different story. Since I have been voicing my opinion on this issue for over two years now, and no one from the government has shown up at my door, I think we're good.
Do you not see any danger in the idea of inflexible, unlimited rights? What about children or the mentally-challenged? Should people be able to drive tanks on the freeway or fly airplanes over the White House whenever they want? No, things should be reasonably and fairly, not arbitrarily, regulated, with due process of law. A good government can adapt to changing times and technologies as needed to stop the whole thing from crashing down and the fruits of society being exploited by those who don't serve the public interest. Types of government within nation-states vary, but in the US and other common law countries the courts enjoy a broad power of judicial review. A strong separation of powers is said to be a benefit, not a curse. Some countries don't place as much weight on the decisions of the courts – two-thirds of the world follow a civil law structure, where the legislature simply dictates the law. It is arguably a more simple and effective system, but I still wonder if there might be some benefit to judicial review.
It is not an inflexible, unlimited right. As I said before, I agree that the state can have "rules of the road", regulating how to act while using the roadways. You can't drive 100 mph through a residential neighborhood; you can't drive drunk; and no your 12 year old can't drive, I don't care how good they are at Mario Kart. If you drive drunk, you are endangering every other driver on the road and, therefore, violating their rights. The same applies to kids, and the mentally-challenged. Driving a tank on the roads would damage the roads and violate the rights of every tax payer who's tax dollars were used to pay for that road. I haven't said anything about flying planes, that is a completely different issue. My problem isn't with regulation of travel, it is with the driver's license, and only the driver's license. By requiring a license to drive, the State is taking away your right to use the public roadways and saying they will not return that right unless you pay them a fee. That is a violation of that right. I'm not saying that right can never be taken away, either. If you get caught driving drunk, the State absolutely has the authority to take away your right to use the roadways. Do you honestly believe our society would come crashing down without driver's licenses, and what "fruits of society" would be exploited? Also, I agree that there are definitely benefits to judicial review. My earlier statement that "I don't care what the courts say" was a bit of hyperbole. I just don't put courts on a pedestal, because "the opinion of the court" is really just the opinion of, at least, three of the current judges, and their interpretation. That is why there are almost always dissenting opinions, and why cases are often overturned. On the issue of rights, I would recommend reading (if you haven't already) 'The Social Contract and Constitutional Republics' http://www.constitution.org/soclcont.htm and 'Presumption of Nonauthority and Unenumerated Rights' http://www.constitution.org/9ll/schol/pnur.htm
You need to separate the act of using the roadways and the act of driving a car. You don't have to pay a fee to be allowed to use the roadways. You can ride a bus, ride a bike, walk, hitchhike, ride with a friend, ride in a motorcycle sidecar, and so on, without having a license. You can cross borders and even leave the country without having to pay or ask for permission. You can use other methods, too. You can take a flight, you can ride a train, you can sail in a boat, you can crawl, and you can swim, all without needing a license.
Hurling more than a ton of steel around is significantly different. Much like pilots, drivers have the ability to do a great deal of damage and hurt a lot of people if they aren't held to a standard of training, safety, and periodically verified competence. The right to travel does not create blanket protection for every activity that could be connected to travel. Licensing has been found to be an effective way of ensuring that drivers are familiar with the rules of the road, have a minimum level of driving proficiency, have the ability to see and hear what's around them, and that they have a form of identification that verifies that they have passed these necessary tests.
Until somebody (maybe you?) can popularize an alternative that ensures public safety and positive identification of qualified drivers, licensing is the best scheme we've got. I'm not sure how great the costs are where you are, but here, they're fairly low and the proceeds go toward administrative costs and road maintenance.
Personally, I hope that self driving cars become the main mode of travel relatively soon. That would solve this, and many other, issues.
Horses were as dangerous as cars. In fact, horses are more dangerous than a car is. A car never gets spooked and takes off on its own. A car does not refuse to accept what its owner tells it to do (except for Toyotas that suddenly go full throttle).
People were injured and killed on a regular basis when horses, buggies, and carts ruled the roads. Horses had blinders put on them which could get them to not realize they were ready to walk off a cliff.
Taking a test to prove competency using a road based vehicle can make sense. However, paying every year for a registration and every few years to update the expiration date on a license make no one safer. Those actions only impoverish those who legally have to have those items.
Assume I am in a wheelchair or old and unable to walk much. Why should I lose my ability to travel locally because I can not afford to pay a license fee?
If I live in the country public transportation may not exist for 20 miles or more from my house. It could literally be a 100 mile walk to find public transportation.
We have freedom to choose where we live. We have freedom of movement. Yet somehow having an iron horse instead of a flesh and blood horse suddenly removes those rights? Logically, those concepts do not work in real life. Either we have freedom, or we do not.
Interestingly, a drivers license and registration are not the result of a legal contract. Contracts can not be revoked by just one party. Licenses can be revoked by just the consent of one party.
You're saying horses were more dangerous, but that's a complete crock. Your entire supporting argument is hypothetical arguments about cartoon gaffes like riding off a cliff or the risk of low-energy collisions and failures. Let's do the same thing for cars, shall we? A tire can blow out on the highway and send a car careening into an overpass at 70mph. Brakes can fail as a child runs across the street, leaving him crushed under two tons of American Pride™. A windshield that suddenly fogs up on a two-lane road can suddenly put a driver in the opposing lane, resulting in a head-on collision at the equivalent of highway speeds. A distracted driver on a snowy road can take their attention off the road and wind up falling down the same cliff as that horse. A driver who misinterprets a traffic light can make a premature left turn and get smashed by oncoming traffic. A drunk driver can hurl a ton and a half of automobile over a barricade because he overestimated his driving ability. A fatigued driver can wind up half-dozing at the wheel one moment, and halfway through a bus the next. Automobiles generate far greater energies than horses, weigh far more than horses, travel far faster than horses, fail more suddenly and spectacularly than horses, and have no instinct to make them avoid smashing into each other, into people, or into structures. They're apples and oranges. Not to mention, it's entirely within the states' powers to regulate the use of horses on public roads, as well. Many of them do, I believe, since horses are not appropriate on all roads.
pseudolaw.com i just wanted to tell you something are rights do not come from another man telling another they can't drive a car they own that is not right the bible is the true laws of the land and all man are created equal genisis chapter-1 26:28.. say all man are created equal and shall have dominion over the earth and the sea and everything on it and it did't say that another man supposed to be telling another man what to do that lives and dies like the next one man is not god..and the are travelers by nature that god instilled in everyone of us and once god puts something in you thats what you naturally are.and travelers are one thing we are and thats why i 100% agree with scott dont let them courts and cops which is nothing but trying to steal your money to do things with that you need brainwash you like they have done most people its all propaganda..the roads are public roads the land is created by god for use to use and the roads are built for use to travel down and are tax dollar is for the state to keep the roads up thats all people wavied there rights not know when they get a drivers license..a driver means hired in blacks law that dont apply to private..before long the state will say all people who has a swimming pool on there property will have to have a license from the state to swim in there own damn pool..BS..lol"
Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)
Held:
2. Since the Constitution guarantees the right of interstate movement, the purpose of deterring the migration of indigents into a State is impermissible, and cannot serve to justify the classification created by the one-year waiting period. Pp. 394 U. S. 629-631.
This is within the case:
This Court long ago recognized that the nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement. That
Page 394 U. S. 630
proposition was early stated by Chief Justice Taney in the Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283, 48 U. S. 492 (1849):
I own one car that hasn't been registered, and I want to move that property to another place or state, but the state has threatened(deterring me from moving) or do 'tow, or impound' my property without due process just because its not "registered". They have encroached on my right, unreasonably burdened me plain and simple, no ifs and or buts about it. It is a clear infringement, a deprivation of rights and property. To use a vehicle to travel is using rights in common ways, and vehicles are the #1 mode of travel just like they were in 1969.
They continued:
"For all the great purposes for which the Federal government was formed, we are one people, with one common country. We are all citizens of the United States; and, as members of the same community, must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own States."
We have no occasion to ascribe the source of this right to travel interstate to a particular constitutional provision. [Footnote 8] It suffices that, as MR. JUSTICE STEWART said for the Court in United States v. Guest, 383 U. S. 745, 383 U. S. 757-758 (166):
"The constitutional right to travel from one State to another . . . occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized."
". . . [T]he right finds no explicit mention in the Constitution. The reason, it has been suggested, is
Page 394 U. S. 631
that a right so elementary was conceived from the beginning to be a necessary concomitant of the stronger Union the Constitution created. In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution."
Thus, the purpose of deterring the in-migration of indigents cannot serve as justification for the classification created by the one-year waiting period, since that purpose is constitutionally impermissible. If a law has
"no other purpose . . . than to chill the assertion of constitutional rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them, then it [is] patently unconstitutional."
The key is in the phrase which unreasonably burden or restrict. State traffic codes in general aren't seen to be unreasonable, as shown in this article. There IS certainly a right to travel, and Shapiro v Thompson was instrumental in clarifying it, but it is not an unlimited right – it never has been, and that case doesn't say it is, either.
Do you honestly think that being licenced and registered makes one a better driver? I have no problem with traffic laws regulating how people drive but really. It's only the STATE collecting money on what one owns as their own. If the STATE can take my car for not paying then they own it. That is an unconstitutional infringment on the right to use what one owns. When property rights go so do other rights. This sounds like a progressive concept. It's also a plank of the communist party
for the STATE to take ownership of property. The courts are corrupted so who has a right anymore? The constitution is laughed at. The President doesn't even care about the law of the land any more.
It wasn't suggested anywhere in the article that being licensed and registered makes one a better driver. The intent is to reveal how the state views highway regulation in light of the right of freedom of movement. All 50+ state legislatures seem to feel licensing and registration are helpful in keeping the highways safe and efficient. Yes, in accordance with international law the local sovereign nation-state enjoys the ability to lawfully control all property within its recognized territory. Private home ownership, for example, can only be had in fee simple, subject to "taxation, compulsory purchase, police power, and escheat." [1]. I am not sure the government is so corrupted that it's time for violent overthrow, the only real option when that happens, just yet. I think by understanding the law better we will know why the courts rule as they do and see they do in fact guard the people from unconstitutional excesses of the legislature(s). The President is only supposed to do what Congress allows. Those in office do things wrong from time to time but I think we generally learn and improve the system as we go forward.
You didn't do all your homework. You should have looked up the "LEGAL" definitions for 'Motor Vehicle', 'operator' (or any derivation of), 'driver' (or any derivation of) and 'license'. before you used them in your post. You are under the mistaken impression that they mean what YOU think they do, but they all have very different meanings 'in law'. It's all about commerce, and if you are not involved in commerce then it doesn't normally apply to you, going about your daily life.
18 USC § 31 – Definitions(a) Definitions.— In this chapter,the following definitions apply:
(6) Motor vehicle.— The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers,
passengers and property, or property or cargo.
(10) Used for commercial purposes.— The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate,charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any
business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
DRIVER: One >>>employed<<< in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle,with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. See Davis v. Petrinovich, 112 Ala. 654, 21 South. 344, 36 L. R. A.615; Gen. St. Conn. 1902,
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969) "The word 'operator' shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation."
License: “The permission, by competent authority, to do an act which, without permission, would be illegal, a trespass, or a tort.” People vs. Henderson, 218 NW.2d 2, 4. “Leave to do a thing which licensor could prevent.” Western Electric Co. vs. Pacent Reproducer Corp., 42 F.2d 116, 118. “A license fee is a charge made primarily for regulation, with the fee to cover costs and expenses of supervision or regulation.” State vs. Jackson, 60 Wisc.2d 700; 211 NW.2d 480, 487.
Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence,Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 "The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel,includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business."
Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 "… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference is a fundamental constitutional right"
People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo.210. "No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting his vehicles and person property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances."
Any questions?? keep it civil and site your references,
Most of what you said has already been debunked in other comments…
Hi Chris, Most of what you said has already been addressed in other comments.
The definitions that apply on a traffic charge are found in the State traffic code and common law of the State traffic court. State courts are not bound by Black's or the legislation or common law of other States or jurisdictions. A definition in the federal USC has no bearing on a case in a State court. If you tell me what State you're in I'd be happy to interpret the traffic code.
I cannot verify the quote you referenced in Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4301182542008304422 ). The case appears to be an appeal from the Alabama Supreme Court. How words are defined in that case would be specific to the jurisdiction and legislation under which the charge originated, i.e. in/of the State or City.
Thompson v Smith expresses the right of travel / movement but then goes on to say the right may be limited by due process of law, provided it is not limited unreasonably, arbitrarily or unequally:
"The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions." (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3467100988685921366 )
People v Nothaus again fully supports the right of the State to reasonably regulate the highways:
"The regulation and control of traffic upon the public highways is a matter which has a definite relationship to the public safety, and no one questions the authority of the General Assembly to establish reasonable standards of fitness and competence to drive a motor vehicle which a citizen must possess before he drives a car upon the public highway." (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12450888330073927478 )
Courts have upheld driver licensing as a reasonable intrusion on the right to travel for some time now, as seen in the Supreme Court decisions quoted in the article above and by other sources, e.g.: "No court after 1920 found the right to travel sufficient to strike down a driver license requirement." http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1772042
The right to locomotion using any commonly available means of transportation is not an activity which can be regulated by the state, sorry. Now if you're simply arguing that drivers need licenses to carry passengers, well sure that's true.
The state can regulate whatever it wants provided it follows the state and federal constitution in the eyes of the state and federal courts. Can you show an example of a federal court agreeing with your statement? I have provided and linked to numerous decisions stating the contrary in the article.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 6. Slavery is prohibited. Involuntary servitude is prohibited except to punish crime.
Black's Law Dictionary 9th ed.
license, n. (15c) 1. A permission, usu. revocable, to commit some act that would otherwise be unlawful; … See SERVITUDE (1).
So I guess now you're going to try and tell me that this isn't really what it means, right?
This has already been covered once or twice. Black's is not binding in any, way, shape or form in US or state courts. On a state traffic charge in a state court the definitions provided in the state traffic act and, where a definition is not legislated, by the common law of the traffic court are all that matter.
Again you are way off bases watch CARL Millers Videos.and again look up the Supreme Court cases Marbury v Madison and Murdock v Pennsylvania and Shuttlesworth v Alabama, and lets not forget article 6, paragraph 2. Time for you to do some real ready and stop spewing crap you no nothing about,because you are so so off bases.
1) The definition of "involuntary servitude" in the context of the 13th Amendment is found in case law, not in Black's Law Dictionary.
2) The phrase "involuntary servitude" is distinct from simple "servitude" which may be voluntary and not prohibited. Driving is not compulsory.
2b) The terms "driving," "driver," "drive," "motor vehicle," "car," "motorcycle," "truck," &c., are defined in state transportation codes. These are the definitions which apply if you are cited for a violation of a provision of the transportation code. UCC and Black's Law Dictionary definitions are irrelevant. Just repeating that for the record.
3) The question of defining "involuntary servitude" has come up before and been dealt with rigorously in The Slaughter-House Cases (1916), Bailey v. Alabama (1911), and United States v. Kozminski (1988), which all describe "involuntary servitude" as compulsory service and/or severe restrictions on freedom to move, contract, own property, or work which resemble the state of slavery before the 13th Amendment was adopted. Being required to go through a licensing process to operate a fast, heavy machine in public places is not "service," it does not resemble the state of slavery, and it does not prohibit you from moving as a passenger with a licensed driver, using common carriers, walking, bicycling, or otherwise moving.
I don't know where you get your info but you are so far off track,I can't believe you have not crashed and burned yet. you really need to do more research before you actually start to speak.
traffic law does not apply if u r not in traffic or driving … lets just keep it simple stupid ,,, does the farmer travel down the road on his tractor ?? does he have tags on it ?? does it not have a motor … here is the key ,, everyone has the right till u give it away and say u subject urself to the traffic law ,, if no contract can be shown apon my request ,,, where is their jurisdiction when did I subject myself to them I did not ever so therefore the number one thing prove you have jurisdiction over me I'm doing the same thing the farmer is doing my all to mobile as described in city of Dayton vs Debrosse 23 NE 2d 647 650 ; 62 ohio app. 232 says that there is a difference between the two a motor vehicle and an automobile depending on how you use it you have no rights until you claim them is basically what it boils down to once you claim them it is their responsibility to prove you wrong under United States Code deprivation of Rights I dare anyone to say I don't have a right that is what you are trying to get them to do understand the goal claim the right dare them to say you don't have it because every Supreme Court case says you do not only United States law title 18 USC 31
Very good congratulations you have now claimed the right now here is what I will give you a little tidbit look up United States Code deprivation of Rights you will find that very interesting if you read the third paragraph it says once a judge or cop or federal officer state officer act outside of their jurisdiction which with that information in hand and print it up you are correct you have the right to travel and use your automobile as personal property without a license without a tag now the deprivation of Rights print that off too because that is now the replenishment for saying you don't have the right claim the right dare them to say you don't have it and buy them arresting you giving you ticket or whatever accusing you of not having it they just took that right away from you which is deprivation they are doing it illegally because they have been made aware and now you also print up another page ignorance of the law is no excuse especially by a law enforcement officer with that being said it senses everything besides the civil lawsuit that follows thereafter thank you I rest my case
You don't know what you're talking about. Cya
I'M POSTING IT ANYWAY, I DO WHAT I WANT!!
Here are some excerpts to debunk commonly copy-pasted whackjob theories.
CASE #1: "Many cases have been decided respecting the validity and construction of statutes and ordinances regulating their use upon public highways, and it has been uniformly held that the State, in the exercise of the police power, may regulate their speed and provide other reasonable rules and restrictions as to their use." Chicago Motor Coach v. City of Chicago 169 NE 221 (1929)
CASE #2: "The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions." Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579 (1930)
CASE #3: "And, as we have seen, the right of exit is a personal right included within the word "liberty" as used in the Fifth Amendment. If that "liberty" is to be regulated, it must be pursuant to the lawmaking functions of the Congress." Kent v. Dulles 357 US 116, 125 (1958)
CASE #4: "The right to travel, to go from place to place as the means of transportation permit, is a natural right subject to the rights of others and to reasonable regulation under law." Shachtman v. Dulles 225 F.2d 938 (1955)
Again your quotes reveil the answer to the quandary but you can not see it for some dam reason… here it is notice the key "Terms" which indicate not engaged in any form of transportation (transporting of passengers or property for compensation)
"Motor -Coach-" "right to -drive-" "permits to -drive- an automobile -on- its streets" "as the -means- of -transportation- permit"
These as the others do not lie they speak precisely as they say and never reference without some Term defined in the Statutes which constitutes a regulated activity.
They carefully do not use the term "people" "unalienable right" and even when appearing to use the term "travel" they define what form of travel they are referring to "as a means of transportation" and then deceptively again sue the "natural right" true, an "subject to the rights of others" true.. we are not to trespass upon others Rights in our activities but cross the line "and to reasonable regulation under law" notice it does not stop at "regulation" but gives their out both by "as a means of transportation" and "under law" which refers back to the Code which then does not regulate any activity other than that which is specified and only after reading the whole damn thing can one discover that it regulates only various forms of "transportation" and "transportation" is defined in various ways as "transporting property or passengers for compensation"
So even IF you were a "person" as defined (some entity or creation of the State) what really matters is the "activity" which you are engaged in at the time.. period!!
This goes for property taxes, income taxes and every other law, Statutes, Codes etc out there!!! Again even they who are "persons" are not subject to 241 IF they are not engaged in the "injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate" any "inhabitant" (it used to say "person" but was corrected for obvious reasons, because "persons" must use the "administrative law" to which they are an agent of for their remedy. (I have actually represented someone in an administrative action who worked for Homeland Security and let me tell you that was a kangaroo bullshit activity if you ever saw one. I literally impeached every witness and got them to admit on the stand that they had not done their duty, had no first hand knowledge and actually lied on the stand.
The appeals board said she had a civil case but she gave up like so many do… sad but true… 99% of people will give up… That is why they use the District BS non court of record to discourage people and simply pay the damn fine and get on with their lives.. it is extortion under threat, intimidation, and constitutes oppression and injury… but who knows of 18 USC 241, 242 never the less how to bring an action??
Well we do and we are now willing to share it with others who are dooers, not cry babies who will fight us tooth and nail and cause disruption but those who are thankful to have an opportunity to finally succeed and make a difference.. Ameri-cans not "Ameri-cant's" Either you are part of the solution or you ARE the problem. Just because you and others may have lost before does not demand that I will loose too. Many have succeeded and will continue.. the more we succeed the easier it will be for others… notice too that most of the wins are hidden from view. I even found a case whish is blocked from every search engine. It is still there at the http which fortunately my student did as he was taught and copied the ural address on the copy and past of the case so that we could find it again…. perseverance my friend preserver.
Great response my friend! I am currently trying to find information on what "rights" we sign away when we engage in a contract with DMV or BMV. It baffles me why US Citizens enjoy being entangled in a bunch of entangled red tape designed to steal and frustrate from the "people". It concerns me when folks, like the author of this blog, uses fear to attempt to get his point across to the masses… I believe he mentioned "more fatalities" towards the end of his argument. The folks who desire total control of the masses use fear as their biggest weapon…. So it's only natural for the sheeple to use it as well. I'm going a bit off subject but it still all ties together. I enjoyed reading your response though… Eyes wide open!
State legislation that hasn't been struck down by a court as violating higher law is considered enforceable against everyone in the generally-recognized territory of the State. The application of State law is not a contract – you don't have to apply for a license for it to apply to you. See e.g. City of Salina v. Wisden, wherein:
Where does the national drivers registry fit into all of this?
Try http://www.nhtsa.gov/Data/National+Driver+Register+(NDR)
I recently started learning about this topic and I'm not an expert and I have a couple questions.
City of Salina v Wisden says
"The right to travel granted by the state and federal constitutions"
I was told that our rights are natural and the constitutions are written to restrain government. Does U.S. law view this as a right granted by the constitution? I'm a little confused.
Also a friend that knows more about the topic showed me this
"A soverign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal Right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends"
-Kawananakoa v. Polybank
U.S. (1907)
Would this apply and would later Supreme Court opinions supersede? Thanks and great article!
The perception is that this is all "Constitutional", but it is NOT. All of the policing, at the state level and municipality level is unconstitutional, as, it is the system of Admiralty, or Maritime law, the law of the high seas, or High C. International commerce regulation. Back when the Organic Constitution was rewritten for corporate purposes, the traitors in Congress 'deemed' every state border to be a waterway. Thus facilitating the misapplication of Maritime Admiralty, or, commerce regulation, for interstate trade. Admiralty, as utilized by D.C. views EVERYTHING, as commerce, every agreement as a contract, ALL PARTIES AS CORPORATE FICTIONS. Admiralty, is law, small L, the Constitution, is Law, capital L. They placed Admiralty between us people, and our Constitution, and, then reclassified us humans as legal fictions, creating, registering, and, operating for their own profit, corporations in our names, that look like this, JOHN SMITH, with all caps, or, Mr, John Smith, with a 'legal' title, both diminish your legal status, to that of a 'person', which ALL of their laws, statutes regulations, codes, etcetera, actually pertain to. Not one law on any book in the US, has any authority over any living breathing, human being, or 'natural person'…Every lawyer becoming a member of the BAR association, the British Accredited Registry, takes an oath to a foreign power, even those joining the American branch of the British Accredited Registry… Your lawyer/attorney, is NOT going to tell you the truth, but he just might make loads of cash representing you.
Under the false fraudulent authority of Admiralty, everything is considered contractual, and all words in a contract, are defined, not with an English dictionary, but, with a law dictionary. In Black's Law dictionary, English words and terms, have VERY DIFFERENT definitions…
Hi, pretty much all of that is easily refuted. You should try debunking it sometime.
I'll address a few…
1. There is only one hand-written federal Constitution everyone still follows that can be viewed in high-res here. No corporation created under any country or state's laws can replace or overrule the sovereign nation-state of the United States based on this Constitution. It was never "re-written."
2. Constitutionality in the US and States is determined by the courts pursuant to Article III of the federal constitution and related articles in the State constitutions. It is not for random individuals on the internet to decide. So where has a court agreed with your view that "all policing at the municipal and state level" is unconstitutional? This is an anarchist fantasy.
3. You can see exactly how Laws (capital L) are created in the federal US by reading the Constitution, Article 1. Clearly Congress is allowed to make Laws. In the States, their legislatures are similarly established by the State constitution.
4. In law, all "living men and women" are natural persons. You can't appear as a man or woman without being a natural person. You can't appear in law at all without a person, because a person is needed to hold the rights and duties. Yes, technically laws only apply to persons, but governments impose their law by force. If you don't provide a person they will make one for you, e.g. John Doe, so that laws can be enforced and order can be maintained. Society wouldn't last long if you could go on a killing spree and simply opt-out of the law, now would it?
5. Caps are nonsense – no court anywhere recognizes a separate class of rights based on capitalization alone. Whether a man appears in all caps, mixed caps or no caps, he's a natural person at law. See e.g. this extensive list of related cases.
6. The various BAR associations are created by the state and federal legislatures. They don't make the law, and they are not all-powerful. They can be abolished any time the legislatures want.
7. Laws made by sovereign nation-states recognized under international law, and sub-states, are not considered contractual in any law or court on earth. Courts will readily admit this. See e.g. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10872398176234123252 wherein "Consent to laws is not a prerequisite to their enforceability against individuals."
8. Black's law dictionary follows the numerous legislatures and courts, not the other way around. No court is bound to obey Black's law dictionary. The legislatures define words and where legislatures don't define them the courts may. If you want the proper definitions to use on a traffic charge, for example, you need to look at the top of the state traffic code, in the Definitions section.
Every word of that is complete crap. You can't provide a shred of credible evidence for any of it. The U.S. Constitution was not secretly rewritten. Congress never deemed every state border to be a waterway, and it wouldn't matter if they were. Admiralty law isn't the same thing as the law of contracts, and not everything in admiralty law is about contracts. Capitalization of names has no legal significance. There's no such thing as the "British Accredited Registry," and that's why your lawyer/attorney isn't going to tell you there is. Black's Law Dictionary is not a source of Law or law. It's a reference book published by a private company that's been updated nine times to keep up with the courts.
You have no idea what you're talking about, but you're desperate to feel like you're in on the big secret. All you've done is blindly take scammers, liars, idiots, and pranksters at their word. If you honestly examined any of these claims instead of deciding that they must be true because somebody said so, you'd find that they're all bogus. But you won't examine them, because you're too excited about being so incredibly clever that you've figured out the conspiracy that doesn't exist.
EDIT: If you're talking about the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, I've got news for you. That act did not replace the U.S. Constitution. All it did was organize the District of Columbia's city government, as Congress is empowered to do by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution. They weren't replacing the U.S. Constitution — they were acting on it.
Why are ignorant people so hesitant to actually look up facts, as they first learn about them? I assume psuedolaw is just plain dishonest, as, most of what they post is skewed inaccurate and misleading, mainly in support of the entire system of fraud being used to enslave us. This is being done by agreement between the King of England and the Pope, when the Constitution was indeed rewritten for corporate purposes. In the corporate version, the original thirteenth amendment, was omitted, and replaced by the original fourteenth amendment, and the fourteenth amendment was changed to become an adhesion contract, fraudulently enslaving the population. No negro slaves were freed, emancipation is not a granting of freedom, it is a change of ownership from one sovereign to another, in this case, from the plantation/slave owner, to the federal corporation, look it up, the slaveowners were compensated for the loss of their property, their slaves. (FACT, THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT IN THE USA, DC is a corporation registered in Puerto Rico, traded on the NYSE. A corporation cannot serve a population, it must serve its stockholders, and, they are foreign interests, not We the People. Our Republics government was hijacked a long time ago). It is against international law to own a human being, so then, how does our ',government' claim to own us as chattel, or human livestock? That is part of their justification for spraying us with chemical poisons, and pathogens, explaining their absolute authority to conduct undisclosed medical experiments on an uninformed nonconsenting populace…
I know what the hell I am talking about, you obviously are incredibly uninformed, a paid shill or a freemason traitor piece of crap…
False.
False.
False.
False.
It doesn't.
Haha, chemtrails, that's adorable.
That's the falsest statement in that entire pot of conspiracy diarrhea.
In 2002, in the misdemeanor case, State of Texas v Cecil Lee Russell, Randall County, Canyon, Texas for the charge of Speeding: 92 in a 70 resulted in a NOT GUILTY verdict BECAUSE there is NO SPEED LIMIT IN TEXAS for a non commercial vehicle.
The charge, as read to the jury by the prosecutor, stated: The recommended speed limit in Texas on an Interstate highway shall be 70 m.p.h. or as fast as conditions and circumstances is reasonable and prudent."
Considering how you misinterpreted the four cases you cited about licenses, I don't believe that's what happened. You might have been acquitted, but I highly doubt it was because there's no speed limit in Texas for a non-commercial vehicle. On the other hand, that would hardly be the strangest thing that's happened in court or in law. Did you get any paperwork from the clerk explaining the court's reasoning? I'm intensely skeptical, but I'm also very excited by the prospect of getting to annoy the site owner with it.EDIT: Ohhh, right, jury trial. My mistake. Yeah, juries can do anything for any reason. They don't have to explain themselves, and they can vote not guilty because they don't like speed limits, they don't like the cop, they like your hair, they think the prosecutor was a jerk, or any other reason. If there was no speed limit in Texas for a non-commercial vehicle, why would that charge even get before a jury in the first place?
P.S., I googled "State of Texas v. Cecil Lee Russell," and all I see is a post on Facebook describing a legal horror story spanning decades. If that's you and the information is accurate, you've been badly mistreated. Dishonest prosecutors can be some of the most vile, depraved criminals around.
If your license grievance stems from the APD seizing your license unlawfully, then I can understand why you might be desperate to find some rationalization for the idea that you didn't need a license anyway. The trouble is that the law doesn't work that way, and sometimes injustice is injustice. If a burglar steals your TV set, then your TV set has been stolen and you can't watch it. There is no magic trick that means you never needed a TV set to watch TV. The fact of the matter is that you've been the victim of injustice, and now you can't drive lawfully. The first step in solving this isn't to retreat into pseudolegal mumbo-jumbo. If the local courts are that corrupt and abusive, then I think there are a lot of people who'd like to blow the lid off of it. I'm one of 'em.
Well first of all there is no way of knowing whether this story is accurate or not. But taking it on limited face value, the charge read to the jury is a quote from the Prima Facie Speed Limit section [545.352 [a] as well as section [b][2] of Texas Transportation Code. That law sets up a prima facie speed law for all transit on state and federal highways in urban areas. The law sets an upper limit of 70 but allows a police officer to stop and cite some one driving at or below that speed based upon the conditions at the time of driving – weather, time of day, amount of traffic, road surface condition etc. The wording is sloppy both in the charger to the jury as well as the Texas statute.
545.352 is a type of law known as a "basic speed" law which exist in all states in some form. Basically they say that regardless of any specific speed limit set by law, the actual speed limit at the time of driving is based upon the conditions existing at that time. Juries have been known in some cases to apply that law is a manner inconsistent to its intended use. Sometimes they like the defendants, sometimes they hate the cop and sometimes they just think the circumstances stink so they do a little jury nullification.
In this case we have no idea what actually happened since we do not have either the transcript nor any ruling of the court on the matter. But one thing is clear from a simple read of 545.352 – your claim of no speed limits for non-commercial vehicles is false. The law does set out very specific speed limits for all vehicles including some specifically for commercial vehicles only.
The fundamental error of your logic is to not look at All of the relevant facts. While the section of the Texas Transportation code you cite is accurate, the error is that the "actual speed limit" is not set for non commercial traffic. In order for a citizen traveling in a non commercial capacity to be lawfully cited for speeding, there must first be a specific speed established and for non commercial vehicles there is not. Your first response would probably be: There are speed limit signs posted on every road and you would be partially correct because in Texas, posted speed limits are for commercial traffic ONLY.
Texas Transportation Code Sec. 201.904. SPEED SIGNS. The department shall erect and maintain on the highways and roads of this state appropriate signs that show the maximum lawful speed for commercial motor vehicles, truck tractors, truck trailers, truck semitrailers, and motor vehicles engaged in the business of transporting passengers for compensation or hire (buses).
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
In Texas, there are no other speed limit signs posted ANY WHERE IN THE STATE for Non Commercial Vehicles. This section IS THE ONLY REFERENCE to speed signs anywhere in the Code. The citation for speeding requires that an accused must have some actual notice posted on the roads and highways for the specific type of vehicle but the LAW says that the posted signs are for commercial vehicles only. As I said, there is no speed limit in Texas for non commercial vehicles.
Additionally, the Texas Transportation Code SPECIFICALLY states in regards to speeding:
SUBCHAPTER H. SPEED RESTRICTIONS
Sec. 545.351. MAXIMUM SPEED REQUIREMENT. (a) An operator may not drive at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances then existing.
(b) An operator:
(1) may not drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard for actual and potential hazards then existing;
AND
(2) shall control the speed of the vehicle as necessary to avoid colliding with another person or vehicle that is on or entering the highway in compliance with law and the duty of each person to use
due care.
(c) An operator shall, consistent with Subsections (a) and (b),
drive at an appropriate reduced speed if:
(1) the operator is approaching and crossing an intersection or railroad grade crossing;
(2) the operator is approaching and going around a curve;
(3) the operator is approaching a hill crest;
(4) the operator is traveling on a narrow or winding roadway; and
(5) a special hazard exists with regard to traffic, including pedestrians, or weather or highway conditions.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 30.109, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.
Your entire argument falls based upon two important facts. First – Sec 545.352 DOES set maximum speed limits for ALL traffic and specifically sets speed limits for commercial traffic and school buses separate from other traffic. Second, the section also gives the TDOT the authority to post signs along the different categories of roadways indicating the maximum speed limits. The fact that the statute also gives the TDOT the right to set different speed limits for commercial vehicle and to post signs concerning those speed limits does not revoke the right already established regarding all traffic on public roadways.
Texas Transportation Code § 545.352
Texas Transportation Code § 545.352
I would point you that under the basic premise of the law, ignorance of a a law is no excuse. Look it up in Blacks Law Dictionary and discover that is a concept that goes back to very founding of modern Anglo-Saxon law. The Texas Prima Facie Speed Law is not a secret law. It is published law, it is included in published hand outs given to the driving public by the DMV. It is posted on websites by the TDOT and the TDMV. It is one of the subjects covered on the driving test. You sovereign idiots cannot ignore it by shutting your eyes real tight and plugging your ears going blah, blah, blah at the top of your lungs and then claim you had no notice.
Please post a case # or link to the decision of the court. Nothing comes up in the county case search for your name at http://odysseypa.tylerhost.net/Randall/default.aspx
Do YOU have any evidence that a shred of what he said is true? I'm willing to declare that it's all self-serving jabberwocky that has nothing to do with reality, but I'm also willing to listen to any evidence either of you have that English becomes a secret code discernible only by conspiracy theorists when used by lawmakers, lawyers, or judges.
We sign away no rights, we are fooled into thinking we have. There are no valid binding contracts signed. Approved applications, are not contracts. Contracts require two signatory's, and, all conditions and clauses must be disclosed, no deception is allowed. Deceiving someone into signing a contract, nullifies and voids that contract, so does not disclosing any information, or vague terminology.
The relationship of individuals, men and women (in law, always considered natural persons), whether unidentified, stateless or citizens, to the government is not considered contractual in any court or under any law. The local nation-state and sub-states simply rule their recognized territory by force. Pursuant to international law, hundreds of other countries recognize the US right to do so.
"Consent to laws is not a prerequisite to their enforceability against individuals." https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10872398176234123252
"Laws made by common consent must not be trampled on by individuals." Thomas Jefferson (1781)
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor." Theodore Roosevelt (1903)
Hey Truthman you're talking my language – Bro. Please shoot me an email at firstknowthyself@gmail.com. I'd like to discuss how we can work together on so things.
This is complete gibberish making no sense whatsoever. It is an argument made by taking little snippets out of the statutes, Constitution and court decisions and twisting it into something it is not. Any resident has the right to move form one state to another but that right is subject to reasonable restrictions by the several states. So for example if you were driving along on your way from say Illinois to Indiana and decided the the roadway you are on is not the most direct route, you cannot simply cut across other people's property without their permission. Likewise the state has the right under the Constitution to allow travel upon its public roadways but only subject to reasonable restrictions as to the manner and method of travel. This means you cannot operate a Sherman tank or a semitrailer for example without it being street legal and you showing you are capable of operating it safely. It also means annoying little things like following speed limits, lane restrictions etc.
There are countless cases on file in all 50 states and in the federal courts in which the nut case brigade argues that somehow the freedom of movement from one state to another [which they refer to as the right to travel] cannot be impeded by any laws. But that is not accurate. There are certain rights allowed in the Constitution – the right to speak, to religious belief and practice, to assembly etc. But these rights are not unlimited on scope. Speech can be limited although the standard followed in doing so is very strict. One's religion can teach and indeed demand that some acts be performed or not performed as the case may be. But that does not mean that you will not go to jail if for example you try to burn a witch, stone and adulterer or behead a homosexual. Neither are you allowed to pick out some random bastard once a year from the town population, strip him of all his property and chase him out of town as a scapegoat. Further if your religion says human sacrifice is needed once a year to make the crops grow well good luck trying to get away with that little escapade.
So as numerous court cases establish this mythical "right to travel without the need of a driver's license" is just so much hokum. States can restrict the operation of a motorized vehicle to those who have demonstrated by means of a written and/or practical examination that they are competent to drive a motor vehicle. They just cannot refuse to issue a drivers license because they hate your guys. They can however if you have a mental or physical condition which makes your operation of the vehicle a danger. Which brings up a problem a lot of these so-called sovereign citizens have – they are serious drunks or abuse alcohol or are as nutty as a fruit cake. Sometimes all three.
Just a few questions. What is a "driver"? There is no statutory definition of a driver in Texas, only an "operator." What is a "license"? Every "license" definition in Texas law is commercial in nature. What is "transportation"? What is "Vehicle"? What is "Motor Vehicle"? Statutes MUST be in clear unambiguous language.
For example, in Texas, many people are cited for "speeding." Here is the way the statute used to charge someone with "speeding" is worded.
SUBCHAPTER H. SPEED RESTRICTIONS
Sec. 545.351. MAXIMUM SPEED REQUIREMENT.
(a) An operator may
not drive at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the
circumstances then existing.
(b) An operator:
(1) may not drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard for actual and potential hazards then existing;
and
(2) shall control the speed of the vehicle as necessary to avoid colliding with another person or vehicle that is on or entering the highway in compliance with law and the duty of each person to use due care.
(c) An operator shall, consistent with Subsections (a) and (b), drive at an appropriate reduced speed if:
(1) the operator is approaching and crossing an intersection or railroad grade crossing;
(2) the operator is approaching and going around a curve;
(3) the operator is approaching a hill crest;
(4) the operator is traveling on a narrow or winding roadway;
and
(5) a special hazard exists with regard to traffic, including pedestrians, or weather or highway conditions.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended
by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 30.109, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.
In Texas law, there is only one statute which describes and defines what a speed limit sign is and its purpose.
Sec. 201.903. CLASSIFICATION, DESIGNATION, AND MARKING OF
HIGHWAYS.
(a) The department may classify, designate, and mark state highways in this state.
(b) The department may provide a uniform system of marking and signing state highways under the control of the state. The system must correlate with and, to the extent possible, conform to the system adopted in other states.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Sec. 201.904. SPEED SIGNS.
The department shall erect and maintain on the highways and roads of this state appropriate signs that show the maximum lawful speed for commercial motor vehicles, truck tractors, truck trailers, truck semitrailers, and motor
vehicles engaged in the business of transporting passengers for compensation or hire (buses).
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Where does it state that the "operator" of a personal "non commercial motor vehicle" is required to comply with the highway speed limits signs that are CLEARLY ESTABLISHED FOR THE REGULATION OF COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC? Yet you can go to any municipal court in Texas and observe municipal courts fining people for speeding. This is the kind of crap that you support and demand the enforcement of by STEALING MONEY from citizens under false pretenses.
Just sayin…
Yup, like I said. Taking sections of law and re-interpreting them. Let's just look at the actual wording of the Texas law.
Transportation Code Chapter 521, Section 521.001:
(3) "Driver's license" means an authorization issued by the department for the operation of a motor vehicle. The term includes:
(A) a temporary license or instruction permit; and
(B) an occupational license.
[Note the use of the term "includes" followed by a reference to an instruction permit/temporary license as well as an occupational license. Includes does NOT mean exclusive. There is nothing here which makes a requirement to have a driver's license in order to drive on the public road limited to those engaged in a business.]
Section 521.001:
(6) "License" means an authorization to operate a motor vehicle that is issued under or granted by the laws of this state. The term includes:
(A) a driver's license;
(B) the privilege of a person to operate a motor vehicle regardless of whether the person holds a driver's license; and
(C) a nonresident's operating privilege.
[Note – again no mention of any limitation to a commercial in nature activity.]
The fact is that Cecil, like many others of his ilk takes snippets of laws out of the context of the statutes in which they are found, applies his own personal definitions to terms and some twisted argument to come up with his claims.
What is a driver? You failed to address that issue. The highest court on Texas, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals declares that you are wrong. Campbell v State; No. 27245. Tex .Crim. App. "This proof is insufficient
to 'sustain the allegations of the offense charged in the information
because a driver's license is not an operator's license. We have held
that there is no such license as a driver's license known to our
law.”] Quoting Hassell v. State, 149 Tex.Cr.R. 333, 194 S.W.2d 400;
Holloway v. State, 155 Tex.Cr.R. 484, 237 S.W. 2d 303; and Brooks v.
State, Tex.Cr.App., 258 S.W.2d 317. GEE v. STATE, 626 S.W.2d 603,
Court of Appeals of Texas, Texarkana., Discretionary Review Refused
March 31, 1982.
The requirement to obtain and possess a "driver's license" in Texas was
established in 1954. All of these cases were decided AFTER that law
was established and the reason is because there is NO STATUTORY
DEFINITION OF DRIVER known in Texas Law. It is ambiguous at best. A
statute can not be vague or ambiguous to be Constitutional.
The right to travel without undue restriction was the very first right recognized as a fundamental liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Randall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 35 (1867).
Driver's License was not addressed because the con-men in government
had not yet discovered how much money could be made by the creation
of that item-in Texas it is a 9-10 BILLION dollar a year industry.
Just because a legislature enacts a statute does not make that statute
constitutional. An example is the Obamacare Supreme Court decision.
It is unconstitutional BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW. According to Federal law, 28 USC sec 455, a Judge cannot be both a lawyer on a case AND be a deciding Judge on the same case.
Elana Kegan was the Solicitor General defending the governments'
position on Obamacare in every Federal District Court challenge.
Elena Kegan was the Solicitor General for the government during
appeals and then appointed to the Supreme Court before that case
arrived to the Supreme Court. By Federal Law, Elena Kegan IS
PROHIBITED FROM PARTICIPATING in any function concerning that
decision. Because Elana Kegan voted on the decision, the law is
CONSTITUTIONALLY NULL AND VOID. Just because a law is passed and even if the law is obeyed, does not make the law Constitutional. Likewise
state mandates to obtain a drivers license. Most who cite the 10th Amendment always cite the part about “reserved to the State” but fail to consider “or the people.” The right to travel by whatever means the citizen chooses is a Right that ranks ABOVE THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH, ASSEMBLY, or The Press. The Right to travel is a Liberty Right, these others were added later on after the Constitution was written. Moreover, the power of the state is a created power, the Inalienable Rights of Citizens existed BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT WAS CREATED.
As I said, making shit up. Parsing out language and attempting to make it fit some made up issue. 521.001 require ANY person operating a motor vehicle on a public road to have a license to do so. Section 541.001 [1] states "Operator" means, as used in reference to a motor vehicle, a person who drives or has physical control of a vehicle.
All you are really doing is playing around with nonsensical attempts to make mountains of molehills.
For example Gee v State specifically refers to your "issue". The court stated:
"Part of the State's
proof in this case was an affidavit of the custodian of the records of
the driver and vehicle records division of the Department of Public
Safety which stated that appellant was issued a Texas Driver's license, which was issued as a Texas Operator's license No.
01205146 and that such driver's license was suspended on July 22, 1980,
pursuant to an affirmative finding of the municipal court of Bonham,
Fannin County, Texas, under the provisions of § 22 of Article 6687b.
That evidence is sufficient to show that appellant's operator's license
was suspended. The fact that the Department of Public Safety used both
terms in referring to the license does not create a fatal variance
between the pleading and the proof." Gee v State, 626 S.W.2d 603, 604 (1981).
The issue in Campbell was that the pleading said one term and the law said another and the state put on no evidence to show issuance of either.
Similarly the other cases you cite refer to situations where the state did not use the proper language and did not provide the proper proof. For example in Halloway the DA chrged the offense of driving without a driving license, instead of driving without a commercial operator's license since the man was cited for driving a commercial truck with a commercial operator's license which is a specific classification of license.
You sir are blinded by your own bias and cannot see the logical fallacy in what you are preaching. You claim to state how the States have the right regulate traffic. You quote the articles of legislation that support your case directly and acknowledge them as laws. However, all of those articles are exactly that. Therefore, all of the words and terms in those articles have very specific legal definitions. So you slander and name call at the people who point that out to you if those definitions do not support your case anymore when defined? If you believe that these regulations were put in place so deliberately to function as they are and that the people who put them there were so educated and precise in their meaning and application then why on earth would the definitions of these terms not match up to how they are being applied?
this comment is complete gibberish. No substance at all.
If you want to correctly define the words used on a particular charge you have to look at the top of the chapter, part and/or title in the federal or state code the charge is brought under.
e.g. in NC legislation you can clearly see there is no commercial requirement for driver licensing:
§ 20-4.01. Definitions.
(7) Driver. – The operator of a vehicle, as defined in subdivision (25). The terms "driver" and "operator" and their cognates are synonymous.
(13) Highway. – The entire width between property or right-of-way lines of every way or place of whatever nature, when any part thereof is open to the use of the public as a matter of right for the purposes of vehicular traffic. The terms "highway" and "street" and their cognates are synonymous.
(23) Motor Vehicle. – Every vehicle which is self-propelled and every vehicle designed to run upon the highways which is pulled by a self-propelled vehicle …
(25) Operator. – A person in actual physical control of a vehicle which is in motion or which has the engine running. The terms "operator" and "driver" and their cognates are synonymous.
(49) Vehicle. – Every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, excepting devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon fixed rails or tracks …
Then use those definitions in combination with the laws, e.g.:
§ 20-7. Issuance and renewal of drivers licenses.
(a) License Required. – To drive a motor vehicle on a highway, a person must be licensed by the Division under this Article or Article 2C of this Chapter to drive the vehicle and must carry the license while driving the vehicle.
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByChapter/Chapter_20.html
You make the absurd statement that:
"Just because a legislature enacts a statute does not make that statute constitutional. An example is the Obamacare Supreme Court decision. It
is unconstitutional BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW.
According to Federal law, 28 USC sec 455, a Judge cannot be both a
lawyer on a case AND be a deciding Judge on the same case.
Elana Kegan was the Solicitor General defending the governments' position on Obamacare in every Federal District Court challenge.Elena Kegan was the Solicitor General for the government during appeals and then appointed to the Supreme Co
urt before that case
arrived to the Supreme Court. By Federal Law, Elena Kegan IS PROHIBITED FROM PARTICIPATING in any function concerning that decision. Because Elana Kegan voted on the decision, the law is CONSTITUTIONALLY
NULL AND VOID. Just because a law is passed and even if the law is
obeyed, does not make the law Constitutional."
The fact is that there is no actual evidence of this. It was an allegation made by a right wing group which took language from the memo written by a third party to another person in which that person says they should involve Kagan in the planning of the appeal strategy and another memo where he asks if Kagan was available to attend a meeting. Shortly after those memos were written, Kagan was nominated to the court. At that point the same parties involved in the prior two memos states she should not be involved in any for the strategy discussions. There is no evidence she was so involved – no minutes of meetings, no memos, no agendas indicating she was so scheduled, and she has stated she was not involved in any substantive discussion regarding the appeal.
It appears that in Texas, the definition of the term "driver" is irrelevant when the term "driver's license" is defined and required in a way that doesn't require the term "driver" to be defined.
In other words, it doesn't matter at all what a driver is. It only matters who's required to have a thing called a "driver's license."
Your citations (Campbell, Hassell, Holloway, and Brooks) are all at least 60 years old and revolve around the correct wording of a charge. There is nothing in any of those four cases that suggests that the operator's license requirement was or is unlawful. The only thing they establish is that when you're prosecuting somebody, the court isn't going to tolerate mistakes in charging language. If they had been charged with driving without a valid operator's license, the judges wouldn't have thrown the charges out.
This is all fine to break down the codes of the states The fact that people were travaling freely without any more type or proof of idenity that their bible.As you know as a worker in the corporation known as the united stares All codes and sections and clauses in the system.Are not there to protect the products of the US ( tht would be a so called citizen) they are there to make money for the never full always wanting more Fat Cats who run the world And you can interpet this statement anyway you want .But all codes and sublaws made after the constitution are all about money.And to make it even more funny THERE IS NO MONEY EVERYTHING IS A PROMISDSRY NOTE
This is dribble with no actual evidence to support it. The fact is that if you wish to travel freely you have the complete right to do so as people have done for millennia. Pack a bag and hit the road – walk, ride a bicycle, hitch a ride, but a bus or airplane or train ticket or post an advert on a rode share website. No one will stop you form going anywhere in the country you wish to go. There are thousands of people who do it every year.
But if you wish to drive a motor vehicle or fly a plane you will have to pass the appropriate test to qualify to do so and when you do, you will have to follow the same rules of the road as everyone else. Don't like it? Tough luck Buffy. No one cares and everyone thinks you are a complete fool.
An international drivers license requires a valid license in the state where the holder is a legal resident in order to be legally issued. It is a privilege recognized by treaty between different countries. It has nothing to do with the Constitution or the issues discussed here.
Anything can be incriminating depending on local law, and every country and state is different. Depending on the quality of your forgery yeah you might be able to cheat a bit… but what does this have to do with the right to travel in the US? Get back on topic.
Can you help me out and explain this please? How did she get away with driving?
https://youtu.be/Ba_Rz4uj4DI
Explain this…? The cop had to be naive..
https://youtu.be/Ba_Rz4uj4DI
So here we have another example of a person cherry picking sections of a treaty to suit his own purpose.
Chapter 4, Art 4, section 1 of the 1949 Treaty states that it covers all drivers meaning any person who drives a vehicle or is in control of the same. It also states that a motor vehicle is any self-propelled vehicle used for the transports of persons or goods.
Art 5 states the treaty does NOT apply to commercial drivers.
Chapter 5, Art 24 states that
1. Each signatory shall allow a person legally admitted to its territory AND who holds a valid driving permit issued to him by another signatory state or subdivision of the state legally authorized to enter such permits, to drive on its road. [Note the requirement that the person be legally licensed in another signatory state.
2. A signatory state may if it desires require that in addition to number 1, it may require any driver admitted inside its borders to carry an international driving permit, especially if the person comes from a state where a domestic permit is not required.
The international permit is a document with translations in 10 languages of the document permitting the person holding it to drive legally in his country of origin. It is not a substitute for a driver's license.
If we read what you have written what you are saying is that you have played a game of cat and mouse with the legal authorities in other countries using a fraudulently filled out international driving permit which is supposed to list you information from you state issued driver's license. Good luck with that if you are still doing it.
As for your assertions that a police authority in Germany cannot check to see if you have any license in say the United States, that was true once upon a time but is no longer. The cop may not want to bother for something minor. He may instead send you on your way or even in some countries ignore the matter for a small bribe. But eventually you are going to find your luck running out and I hope you enjoy sitting in a jail in a foreign country. Most people do not consider that the highlight of their traveling experience.
All I am seeing is a person who decides to be insulting and who has no idea what the entire treaty says or if he does has decided to ignore what the other provisions state.
Art 24, section one specifically states the treaty only applies to those with a valid driving permit issued by their country of origin. It is a voluntary agreement which various countries have entered into to allow people from different countries to drive in other countries without having to apply for and take the qualifying test for a driving permit in the country they are now in.
You very words indicate that the judge required the police to prove that you were driving without a permit and because they had not followed the proper procedures for doing so he would not convict you. Judges in the US will do the same if the prosecutor does not prove the basis of his accusation. You have taken that and attempted to turn it into something it isn't.
Like I said, good luck with that because eventually a cop with a brain is going to nail your as to the pavement.
Classic logical fallacy. The burden is on you to prove that you are doing what you are doing and that there is a verifiable legal basis for it. You may be telling a complete lie. You may in fact be driving an automobile without a license. If you that probes nothing other than you are in violation of the laws of the jurisdiction where you reside absent some proof to the contrary. So you are no different than any low life gang-banger or undocumented immigrant who does exactly the same thing.
But the fact is that even if you are in some foreign country driving on forged documents, that has nothing to do with how the Constitution interacts with state law in the United States.
Let us know when you win damages or get a declaratory judgment that clearly shows the US or State courts agree with your interpretation.
Sorry troll but that dog won't hunt. You have made a claim here about what you are doing. You have the burden of proving the facts supporting your statement.
As for your obsession with the US Constitution, it does not apply outside the United States.
But again, none of this is relevant to the issue at hand here. You are just engaged in red herrings arguments.
"As for your obsession with the US Constitution, it does not apply outside the United States."
It's great to see that we can agree on something. 🙂
I have found)(most) people will read the below quote, and will think that the quote says that if where they are is within the exterior boundaries of a "State" then that means within all of the whole state.____ But they need to continue to the next sentence where they will see that they(the legislators) are being specific as to precisely what and where they are referring to. Correct?
So if now the legislators are nice enough to include a list of the places/lands that are within those exterior boundaries,that the sovereignty and jurisdiction apply to.Would that actually exclude all other lands that are not on that list?
"The sovereignty and jurisdiction of this
State extends to all places within its boundaries as established by the
constitution. The extent of such jurisdiction over places that have been
or may be ceded to, purchased, or condemned by the United States is
qualified by the terms of the cession or the laws under which the
purchase or condemnation is made."
Not to worry, this is on topic, and will get there.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=1.&title=1.&part=&chapter=1.&article=2.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. The code section you linked states California's claim to sovereignty and jurisdiction over the territory within its declared borders, with limited exceptions.
Ken:
The point is that I agree that if one is in United States (or is a "person"/citizen of United States)and under the jurisdiction thereof, then one needs to have a driver license if one wants to "Drive" or "operate" a "Commercial motor vehicle.
The code that I linked to clearly shows that in The State of California's Government code, is, definitely showing where it's jurisdiction (territoriality)lies.(and could be called "limited exceptions") They have made reference to lands that have been ceded to, purchased, or condemned by the United States, and, is qualified by the terms of the cession or the laws under which the purchase or condemnation is made. which clearly adheres to Art.1 Sec.8(17&18)
Art.1 Sec.8(17)
"17 To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding
ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, be
come the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals,dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;" and:
"18 To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the fore
going Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." and:
Art.4 sec.3(2)
"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations re-
specting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any
particular State."
This is known as proprietary interest which gives them proprietary power to write statutes, codes, rules, regs, public policies ETC. for, and only for land that they own,hence the "Territorial Jurisdiction".
A question that I usually ask is.
Is California in United States? Or:
Is United States in California?
The answer of course if one has read all four of the Organic laws(all four of which are still in force) that are in the front matter of the USC
http://uscode.house.gov/browse/frontmatter/organiclaws&edition=prelim
The United States is of course in California, and is what is called The State of California.AKA "in this state" or "in the state"
The State of California is only those lands that are listed in State of California Governmental codes 110-127. and is approximately 45.3% of the land in California, as shown here http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us
If one is on land of California, that is not on those lists in 110-127, Then one is not under the jurisdiction of State of California, and therefore is not under the jurisdiction of State of California's Vehicle code. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codesTOCSelected.xhtml?tocCode=VEH&tocTitle=+Vehicle+Code+-+VEH
The territorial jurisdiction of United States according to the above link shows that only 640 million of the 2.27 billion acres on north America between Canada and Mexico is under the jurisdiction thereof (United States jurisdiction).
The rest of the land between Canada and Mexico, United States has no right to (proprietary interest)tell anyone what to do on all of that privately owned land.
You've missed some important details, rentiap. Firstly, I'm not sure if you misunderstood or misspoke, but California is not just the places listed in CA Govt Code § 111 and § 119. Those are the places where California has granted the federal government varying degrees of jurisdiction. According to the map you linked, California has exclusive jurisdiction over at least 54.7% of the state's land area.
Secondly, their inclusion in those sections does not make them "not California." Just because the federal government has certain rights on a piece of land doesn't mean that it isn't still the sovereign territory of that state, governed under the constitution and laws thereof. The distinction is that sometimes that constitution and those laws provide for another government (the United States) to exercise exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction there.
Not all jurisdiction is exclusive, and many of the statutes named in those sections specifically reserve California's right to pass and enforce laws there, including the California Vehicle Code. Even in National Parks, federal law explicitly provides for state traffic laws to be enforced in (36 CFR § 4.2). Not to mention, the federal government has and exercises the power to regulate traffic everywhere it has jurisdiction, including parks, forests, military bases, monument sites, and so on. In some cases, federal penalties for traffic offenses are much harsher than their state equivalents.
Besides all that, staying exclusively on federal lands wouldn't be a very viable strategy for avoiding driver licensing or vehicle registration, anyway. This strategy would basically exile you to undeveloped areas of Northern and Eastern California. What would be the point?
"You've missed some important details, rentiap. Firstly, I'm not sure if you misunderstood or misspoke, but California is not
just the places listed in CA Govt Code § 111 and § 119. Those are the
places where California has granted the federal government varying
degrees of jurisdiction. According to the map you linked, California has
exclusive jurisdiction over at least 54.7% of the state's land area."
""""""""""
Sorry Ken, you are the one who has misunderstood or has somehow read into what I wrote incorrectly. I don't know where you read that only § 111 and § 119 are the only places that State of California has jurisdiction. How you somehow came up with that only § 111 and § 119 are the only places that State of California has jurisdiction is beyond me. I clearly said 110-127. The only place that State of California is, IS "Territory or other Property belonging to the United States"The 43.7%)
the other 54.7% is California land. Not! State of California land.
"""""""""
"Secondly, their inclusion in those sections does not make them "not California."
""""""`
Yes it does make them "not California". It makes them a part of State of California.
All of the lands listed in 110-127 is the territories owned by United States, Which makes all of the other land within the exterior boundaries of California,not listed in 110-127 State of California.
""""""""`
"Just because the federal government has certain rights on a piece of land doesn't mean that it isn't still the sovereign territory of that
state, governed under the constitution and laws thereof. The distinction is that sometimes that constitution and those laws provide for another government (the United States) to exercise exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction there.
Not all jurisdiction is exclusive, and many of the statutes named in those sections specifically reserve California's right to pass and enforce laws there, including the California Vehicle Code. Even in National Parks, federal law explicitly provides for state traffic laws to be enforced in (36 CFR § 4.2). Not to mention, the federal government has and exercises the power to regulate traffic
everywhere it has jurisdiction, including parks, forests, military
bases, monument sites, and so on. In some cases, federal penalties for traffic offenses are much harsher than their state equivalents.."
"""""""
I've never stated such, but to the contrary actually. The only place they (do) have jurisdiction is over territory or property owned by the United States.
""""""
"Besides all that, staying exclusively on federal lands wouldn't be a
very viable strategy for avoiding driver licensing or vehicle
registration, anyway. This strategy would basically exile you to
undeveloped areas of Northern and Eastern California."
"""""`
I would be staying f of territory, not territory,,You've completely taken things in the opposite of what I stated.
What the hell are you talking about? Everything within the borders of [the state of] California is in [the state of] California. Period. All of it, whether the federal government has been granted jurisdiction there or not. The National Parks are in [the state of] California. The US Mint in [the city of] San Francisco is located in [the state of] California. Edwards AFB is located in and on [the state of] California. [The state of] California enjoys sovereignty and jurisdiction over Yosemite National Park. And, as I already explained to you, § 111 and § 119 list those places where [the state of] California has granted the federal government some jurisdiction. They do not list the only places which are [the state of] California. [The city of] Sacramento is not listed, [the city of] Los Angeles is not listed, [the city of] Oakland is not listed, and yet all of these are places where the state of California exercises exclusive jurisdiction. This is explicit in the very article you cited. Read the sections you cite, dude.
—CA Govt Code § 110
If you are inside [the state of] California on the map, you are on the territory of [the state of] California, period. There is not one square inch of land in [the state of] California that is "not [the state of] California." When [the state of] California grants concurrent or exclusive jurisdiction to the federal government in a particular place, it still remains a part of California. Kings Canyon National Park is still part of [the state of] California.
To escape the [state of] California Vehicle Code, you would have to either remain exclusively on private property or on certain federal lands where only federal traffic rules are enforced.
Oh, Jesus Christ, I just realized what you're doing. No, rentiap, "State of California" is not a super secret corporate fiction while "California" is the living, breathing, flesh and blood state. "State of California" and "California" are the same thing here. There is no sovereign entity called "California" that is distinct from the "State of California." They're the same thing.
Even if they were, and they are not, the sections you cited refer only to "the State of California" and "the Legislature of California." Nowhere in that Article does the name "California" appear by itself.
The very first constitution of California clearly has State of California at the top. States don't gain jurisdiction by word games or having you "contract" with the state as so-called sovereigns think. The state claims jurisdiction over the entire geographical area via the social contract imposed via popular sovereignty, constitutionally-recognized police power, international law, and its ability to enforce its constitution and laws with the force of police, national guard, military, etc. There are apparently no meaningful alternative forces in the area that will support your version of law, so you're stuck under state law like everyone else. Courts, presidents, founders all understand and admit your consent is not required.
You should be able to actually prove this by finding a court decision in the public record that shows a judge's interpretation aligns with yours, or showing where someone has won damages against the state for being arrested for driving without a license. Why don't these exist past the early 1900s?
You do not pursue damages from the state, you pursue damages from the individual who personally made the arrest. These cases do exist for false arrest in which is just that, a false arrest.
If the arrest was made in good faith, you're not going to have much luck going after the individual officer.
Wrong. Officer swore to uphold the Constitution state and federal. If damages are loss of wages, impounding of vehicle ect. ect. where the officer should have known and the person informed him of his natural born status of free travel by automobile upheld by the Supreme Court of this land then that officer maybe sued personally for damages to be paid out of his own pocket. NOBODY is above the law. Everybody is bound by the same. One has a Grievance that Grievance must be sought Constitutionally through a district court. Not municipal. Municipal laws or municipal courts have no jurisdiction over natural born state citizens unless that citizen converts his rights over by way of LICENSE of ANY KIND. Period. All anyone person really needs to do is write your state legislator and ask them to show you where a natural born state private citizen is bound by any municipal law if not licensed converting your rights over. See the answer you get.
Yes, State officers swear to uphold the State constitution, which includes the laws made under the State legislature created by the State constitution, which includes State vehicle codes. State officers and judges are paid by the State to enforce State law.
Please cite the Supreme Court case you think gives you the right to travel freely by automobile on the public roads without regulation, whether you're blind, drunk or whatever. Let's just ignore the fact that the federal government has clearly left the vast majority of highway regulation up to the several States, as cited by the article.
Receiving a response from someone or not doesn't prove anything. Only the courts ultimately have the authority to decide what is and isn't lawful. So look around on Google Scholar and find cases that address the issues directly, like this.
WRONG, you cant legislate against the Constitution State Federal or otherwise, they can add Amendments, very hard to do. Anything else legislated is simply MUNICIPAL LAWS in which do not apply to State Citizens unless voluntarily by way of converting inalienable rights by contract through as license of some sort. Supreme Court has declared that if a law is repugnant to the Constitution, it is not and cannot be a law imposed upon the Citizenry, it can only be municipal
law which has no affect upon Citizens of the States united.
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no
rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” – Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 463
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it
confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it
creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as
though it had never been passed.” – Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425
“The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law
of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and
void of law.” – Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137
The courts are in charge of interpreting whether things are constitutional or lawful, not individuals. If the courts don't interpret things how the people want then the legislature can change the constitution or legislation to make it more certain. If the legislature fails to do what the people want then the only solution is violent revolution. Personally I don't think it's time for revolution yet in most western countries, which are ahead of others as far as equality and civil rights are concerned. I think worse countries should probably be reformed first.
WRONG!!!!!! The courts are not to interpret ANYTHING!!! Our grievances are to be handled by a Jury of our peers based on evidence. No grievance no court. There is one rightful court, The Supreme Court and the Law is what it says it is, the Founders were BRILLIANT MEN, The law (Constitution) was written in plain understandable English, not to be interpreted but UPHELD!!!! You have been indoctrinated, duped and tricked to think the courts are the superiority. They are not in fact there was a time when the people over ruled the Supreme Court. It is now and always will be WE THE PEOPLE!!!! This day we have too many indoctrinated pussies. Which brings one to Bible prophecy that I will refrain from this forum but America is dying and its dying by the indoctrinated many like you. Pretty Sad really but Common Law is a real thing. It is a real system of laws derived from centuries of work, study and sacrifice of millions of people. It is not trivial and inconsequential as some would have you think. It is the Common Law that is most represented within Our Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Our Bill of Rights. These documents were designed to limit and eliminate the vicious Equity, Maritime or Admiralty Law which was what we revolted against as Our Revolution against the totalitarianism of England.
Did you know the Anglo-American system (Our system) of jurisprudence is the only one which developed out of what is called the Common Law, that is, the general law of private property known in the British Isles? It is true – Common Law was designed through the centuries to secure the rights of individuals (you and me) to property and to make it difficult for property to be taken away from us by a government or governmental structure (bureaucracy) without due process of law. The Common Law was expounded over the years in hundreds of thousands of case decisions as a result of trials in which the Common Law jury acted as the Judges, and in which they exercised the authority to hear and decide questions of both Law and fact. Common Law deals with legal relationships, powers and liabilities, and types of actions rather than theoretical definitions of abstract legal concepts. The Common Law was recognized by Our Founding Fathers and is the basis of all law in America today.
The Common Law recognizes the Power of Government lies in the common people and not in an elite group of power brokers. It is the terrible Equity, Maritime or Admiralty Laws (laws of contract) that steals this power from the people and centralizes it into the hands of a few power oriented men. The Common Law deals in real property whereas the Equity Laws deal in written abstractions of performance (agreements or contracts). In other words, Masters own their own property, work and destiny. We are all Masters when we truly own our own property. Slaves do not own property, they usually rent property of another and are compelled to perform upon or with that rented (tenured) property according to some agreement or contract.
It is from such controversies involving property that all of our Rights have come. Property is known as Substance at the Common Law, and includes hard Money in the form of gold and silver coin as required by Our federal Constitution and every other State Constitution as they were all drafted to be in perfect harmony one with another.
Controversies involving these matters carry with them a Law jurisdiction, a jurisdiction in which all of our Rights are found. The Judge in a Court of Common Law is an impartial referee of the dispute, and he is bound to protect the Rights of the parties to the dispute, or he will have lost whatever jurisdiction he may have had, or claimed to have had. It is the Jury who decides whether or not the Facts of the case are valid and they also decide the Law – does it apply? Is it correct for this case?, etc. Only judges acting under equity law can decide law…
You know you are in an Equity/Admiralty Court when an American flag is displayed that has a GOLD trim. The gold trim denotes military jurisdiction and not Common Law or Constitutional jurisdiction. Wherever this flag is flown the Constitution is NOT.
The Constitution can be amended, changed or completely repealed as Congress or the States see fit. So how is it so shocking to you that the federal and State governments can also make laws according to the legislative clauses of their constitutions?
I don't know if you realize it, but the Common Law was actually invented to organize the courts in England so that King Henry II could rule it more effectively as a sovereign monarch.
Upheld by the Supreme Court when? The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the validity of licensing and registration laws, not the opposite.
WRONG, I have already posted the rulings for your convenience, you chose to dismiss as tedious screeds.
You have pasted excerpts from other cases not related to the issue at hand. You have not cited any case where licensing and registration laws are invalidated. Note that there is a right to travel, but this is not a right to operate a motor vehicle without any restrictions.
YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL OPERATING AN AUTOMOBILE WITHOUT A LICENSE OF ANY SORT!!!!! PERIOD Restrictions??? or Morals???A sound mind and body can travel down the highway being morally polite to your surroundings. If your referring to traveling like an idiot causing harm to others then yes you will probably bring on some grievances that you must be held accountable. Does this give one the right to travel at 100 and something MPH down the roadway weaving in and out cutting people off doing damage to their vehicle or causing harm to others? No it does not. But like anything in life, here in America we are free men to come and go as we see fit as long as we are not harming or infringing upon another. No one controls another
or can be told what he can and can not do on his property so long as its not infringing on another. Common sense goes a long way. The only Authoritative body is Christ Himself. Not flawed imperfect men sitting at a table legislating because a certain group of people want to play God restricting society. The only way the Constitution can be altered is by Amendments, and that's pretty difficult to do. And for GOOD REASON Licensing and registration are only validated when you consent by receiving them. PERIOD The police and the municipal courts have no recourse unless that license exists. They have no jurisdiction upon you, unless that license exists. But one must not remain silent throwing citation in the trash. You must handle it by way of affidavit or if ones foolish enough to step into their courts. But it must be answered and one must be educated enough to know how to answer. Period
Tell it to the judge, then come back with something in the public record. Individuals, like yourself, are not qualified and don't have the power to write or interpret the law. What do you think Article 1 and 3 of the federal Constitution, and the legislative and judicial sections of State constitutions, are for? You're wasting your time repeating nonsense here. Your personal opinion is irrelevant. Go get a declaratory judgment or at least a meaningful citation and come back.
That's superstition, not law. The law is very clear, even with those who have recited magic spells in court or submitted their enchanted parchments. You're left alone because it's not worth listening to you lecture the court and file endless motions over a trivial violation. Good for you, if that's how you want to live your life, but your imagined invincibility is purely at the pleasure of the courts that would rather let you drive without a license than talk to you.
Cite some.
Banned for being an ad-hominem douchebag and talking about IDPs and foreign countries that have no relation to the topic of the article after being warned to stop.
If true, it sounds like they failed to uphold local law. Spain is an internationally-recognized sovereign state and can require whatever it wants.
This is completely false. An IDP is worthless without your domestic pernit. Read carefully — even if your home country doesn't require a driver's license, you can't get a valid IDP without proof of competence, and no country is under any obligation to recognize an IDP that doesn't conform to the requirements to demonstrate identity and competence.
They are not, actually. Have a look at the actual IDP Convention.
Because they have no contract to the state..no ssn…no dl..no registration…no contract
No contract is necessary for the enforcement of laws, including statutes. This concept is laughably absurd and has never had any validity at any time since the development of agriculture.
Not having a license (Contract) is the only way to keep you out of a municipal court. A license of any kind converts ones inalienable rights protected by the Constitution over to the government. I simply send citation back to the court with an affidavit. Case closed. If I was wrong in what I do, hmmmm I suppose there would be warrants of some kind. FYI, there are none. The correction to the problem of government usurping the rights of Citizens and States is for all Citizens to realize that the Federal government was never intended to have jurisdiction over or influence upon individual Citizens. Its purposes are to serve the States as
enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, clauses 1-18 of the Constitution for the united States. We all need to realize that governments of all stripes will grab hold of as much power as they can by whatever means they can and that includes the Leviathan in Washington, D.C. We need
to realize that the government in Washington is actually two governments in one: First, it is the Federal government of the States united, bound by the yoke and limitations of the Constitution and, second, it is the municipal government for the District of Columbia and all possessions and territories of the United States such as Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and US military installations, etc. where such constitutional restrictions do not apply and where the municipal government has the legislative authority to do as it pleases (Article 1,Section 8, clause 17 US Constitution). We need to realize that the majority of legislators are lawyers practiced in the art of word-smithing (saying one thing while deliberately meaning or implying another). We need to realize that the majority or laws passed in Washington are municipal laws and do not apply to the Citizens of the States united. We need to realize that the majority of the laws passed in Washington are written in such a way as to deceive us Citizens into believing that they do apply to us. We need to realize that such deceptive laws use customized language – words which mimic words we use every day but words which, within the law, have very different meanings from the commonly understood meaning. For example, the Title that establishes the Department of Education (for the United States) has
within it a section called "definitions". Within that section it says, when used in this Title, the term "United States" means Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. It does NOT mean the States united that we usually think of as the United States. Thus, we are deceived into believing that the Department of Education has some legal authority over our private sector schools and school systems when, in fact, they do not and can not except by our quiet acquiescence to the deception. It is by such deceptions that
the power of the people and the States is eroded and usurped. It is by such deceptions that the Leviathan becomes ever larger and more intrusive.
So, what is the real solution? For every piece of legislation passed into law ask the question "to whom does this legislation apply or pertain?" If it pertains to individual citizens
then ask, "by what authority or provision enumerated in the Constitution do you enact this law?" Remember, the high court has declared that if a law is repugnant to the Constitution, it is not and cannot be a law imposed upon the Citizenry, it can only be municipal law which has no affect upon Citizens of the States united.“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” – Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 463
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had
never been passed.” – Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425
“The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.” – Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137
You don't have to be a lawyer to figure this out or to correct the problem. You simply have to ask the right questions. And yes Actually, a law that is unconstitutional is enforceable. Congress has every right to pass whatever law they like when they are legislating "municipal law". The power to to exercise exclusive legislative authority is granted in the penultimate clause of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. It is the second mandate of the government in Washington, D.C. Such municipal law applies only to the capitol, its possessions and
territories like Guam and Puerto Rico, and areas ceded to it by the States for military installations, ports, federal buildings, national parks and the like. Now, ask yourself, is obama-care municipal law or federal (pertaining to the States united under the Constitution) law? When congress legislates in its federal capacity, it must adhere to and be bound by the chains of the Constitution and laws so enacted are enforceable upon all Citizens of the States united under the Constitution. When congress legislates in its municipal capacity the
Constitution does not come into play because such legislation does not
pertain to the Citizens of the States united. Such legislation is enforceable upon citizens,residents, workers and those domiciled in the District of Columbia, the insular possessions and territories and areas ceded to the federal government. Now, ask yourself, does obama-care pertain to me? In fact, you should always ask and all legislation should clearly state whether it is municipal law or federal law. The difference is huge.
That's 50 pounds of horseshit in a five pound bag.
Says you, Ive proved otherwise. Would not have expected any other response from one holding onto a lie. A lazy uneducated society equals a slaved society. http://wearechange.org/u-s-supreme-court-says-no-license-necessary-to-drive-automobile-on-public-highwaysstreets/ http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/how-to-drive-without-a-license/
I agree with Wesley Pieters who Says "One
of the fundamental maxims of law is "He who slumbers on his rights, has
none." The problem is, MOST average people have made no effort to
comprehend "the law," especially with regard to political and legal
jurisdiction. It is clear to me that state governments, which are
municipal corporations incorporated under the laws of the United States,
do not have the right to convert my rights into a privilege and charge a
fee for the use of said "privilege." However, since most people,
including those who choose careers in "law enforcement" blindly believe
whatever their "superiors" tell them, without researching for themselves
what is true, we have a system of government that derives its "just
Powers from the Consent of the Governed," to extract huge profits from
those consenting governed people. One reason that you cant go to court
with a print out of all the above quotes from other cases and expect to
"win" is that, you are going to court, voluntarily consenting to the
jurisdiction of the court, and voluntarily accepting the judgment of the
court which is made up of people who are on the payroll of the
plaintiff. Say, for example, one is traveling on the land of
Pennsylvania, and gets pulled over by a local small town municipal cop
for a "code violation." The code one is accused of violating is
basically one of the corporate by-laws of the legal entity known as
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA. The thing is, unless one has a contract
with COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA or THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, or THE STATE OF [any other state incorporated under the
laws of the UNITED STATES], one has no liability to abide by the by-laws
of that corporation. However, as many of us have learned first hand,
you can't win in THEIR courts with respect to THEIR LAWS. The other
reason you cant expect to win is because you cant win as a DEFENDANT!
So, the appropriate way to solve this problem is to make a claim against
the offending party….the man who thinks his job gives him the right
to arrest you [a traffic stop is an arrest as soon as you are pulled
over] just because you don't buy into the same licensing and
registration scam that he did. But you cant do that if you don't know
that your rights have been violated. Until people make an effort to know
their own rights and protect their own rights in a court of proper
jurisdiction, they will just keep getting used as an easy source of
income for the shareholders of the various corporations that make up
"THE STATE OF." As for the people who are of the opinion that its right
that everyone who travels in an automobile should be licensed because
it "deters criminals" or somehow makes them safer, the fact is,
criminals don't care about laws anyway. Just as gun control laws don't
keep guns out of the hands of criminals, driver licensing doesn't make
people good drivers. In fact, the driver licensing/mandatory insurance
scheme only serves to oppress the poor and keep more people perpetually
in need of public assistance because they don't have enough money to pay
the state mob its "protection fee" to protect from police harassment
and so they therefore are unable to secure employment they would
otherwise be able to secure if they could travel freely without fear of
being kidnapped and having their property taken." AGAIN Ken, a simple affidavit with the returned citation to correct administrative law, show jurisdiction, and to show what their grievance is equals case dropped. I know it to be true for I have done it 1st hand many of times. I do not have a License, that is the only way. If one has a license you cant do what I do because you have consented to convert your rights and gave them permission. PERIOD Rid your license letting them expire, do not renew the contract. I do not need you to believe me. Trust in your own horse shit and carry on blindly but constant repudiation of your rhetoric does not make you right.
Try reading the article before pasting your tedious screeds.
In pseudo-legal circles, "right to travel" means the supposed right
to "travel freely in your private property / automobile / conveyance on
the public roads / highways without a driver's license, insurance or
registration and exempt from regulation or interruption provided one
does not engage in commerce / earn profit or cause harm to people or
property."
Absolute freedom! Could it be true? How does the law work?
Debunking sovereign citizens, freemen-on-the-land and other pseudo-legal theories.
OHHHHH I believe I did, as I read through the comments you seemed to be struggling, I reached out from 1st hand experience to help you and you say horseshit. No argument, no one needs for you to accept it. Carry on in ignorance. You fit right in with the rest of indoctrinated ignorance. Perhaps out of fear? Doesn't matter. no more time wasted. Correcting the unconstitutional acts of government is hardly tedious but explains the character of whom one is simply conversing with. And society wonders why they are so suppressed.
So what part of the law are you tripped up on?
If you would have read the tedious post as you call it, you would have found there is no municipal law that I'm tripped on, but very much versed in the Constitution and have it right. How do I know I have it right? The municipal court allowed me to know by dropping any and every driving without a license citation that I have received with nothing other than 15 miniutes of my time and cost of a certified letter having never entered their court. But the author of this article portrays they are debunking such a notion. Laughable at best but really sad as those like me look around at the erosion of a Free society so many bled and died for. Ben Franklin once said when asked what did we receive. " A REPUBLIC IF YOU CAN KEEP IT"
Wow, you're telling me that a court dropped small-money traffic violations with a vexatious defendant? Wow, that couldn't possibly be judicial discretion — clearly, a century of case law has been turned on its head!!
Im telling you that you do not need a license to travel by an automobile privately and municipal laws do not apply to state citizens. The rest of your BS is your own confused rhetoric.
What do municipal laws have to do with driver licensing or vehicle registration?
Really? Surely you jest? Everything, for driver licensing and vehicle registration are just that. Municipal laws
Licensing and registration laws are uniformly at the state level, not municipal.
Wrong on not municipal. Yes and at many levels, Licensing and registration are still municipal laws. Municipal Law is the law specific to a particular city or county (known legally as a "municipality"),
and the government bodies within those cities or counties. This can
cover a wide range of issues, including everything from police power,
zoning, education policies, and property taxes. Terms to Know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_law
If you name your state, I'll show you the state level licensing and registration laws that apply to you.
Ken, not sure where you missed or had mentally blocked out where I explained that municipal laws do not apply to private natural state citizens, you will not even find one in my state. Not sure where you missed the fact that I do not have a license to travel by automobile and have been ticketed 3 different times in 3 different county's all with the same result. Not sure where you missed that the Supreme Court ruled NO LICENSE TO TRAVEL NEEDED. Thats right, must of been tedious screeds of horse shit. I have friends who are officers of the law who have research and checked me for warrants. NONE been over 6 years. Nobody needs to take for my word, simply write your state legislators and ask them where in your state Constitution or where in your Federal Constitution does it give your county, city, state the authority to enforce municipal laws on a private natural born citizen whom never licensed and still travels. See what answer you get. You or the audience may also ask them to show you where your responsible for any federal tax. I dont pay the federal tax either and been doing sop since 2006, you must file. Biggest scam ever perpetrated on a free American society. Do not live in the federal territories federal UNITED STATES such as Guam Puerto Rico Guatemala District of Columbia or work for federal receiving any federal funds, money, or special privileged. You dont owe the tax. losthorizons.com Hope this helps somebody out there. The delusional s holding onto government commercial municipal laws obviously already have it figured out and unwilling to admit they dont obviously know everything. Good Luck stay in the confines of the Constitution USING the Constitution and asking questions, researching before acting will set you free. Never know everything be willing to learn, Educate and be Free as intended by our Founders. Again good luck. Never take ones word for it, know it exclusively yourself but Ken you are wrong in your research
Again, state laws are not municipal laws, and municipal laws do indeed apply to people within the applicable municipalities.
WRONG, State laws are indeed MUNICIPAL LAWS!!!!! If its not in the State Federal Constitution then they are MUNICIPAL and they do indeed not APPLY to State Citizens UNLESS you gave them the authority by way of License or wish to be subject to the confines of Federal jurisdiction and their authority. Supreme Court has declared that if a law is repugnant to the Constitution, it is not and cannot be a law imposed upon the Citizenry, it can only be municipal
law which has no affect upon Citizens of the States united.
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no
rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” – Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 U.S. 463
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it
confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it
creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as
though it had never been passed.” – Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S.
425
“The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law
of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and
void of law.” – Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137
What is a "State Federal Constitution?" There is one federal constitution and fifty state constitutions. The states are not incorporated on the authority of the United States federal government, but are sovereign in their own right. Each state constitution establishes a legislature with the authority to make laws for the entire state. These are not "municipal" laws. The states are not provinces or municipalities incorporated on external authority, but are sovereign, independent states in their own right and on their own authority.
There is no State Federal Constitution LOL my bad thinking you would know what I meant without the ,,,, They are separate as you just mentioned and what I was implying. Yes 50 separate State Constitutions and 1 Federal Constitution to be clear. whatever any law legislated beyond that Constitution is and ALWAYS WILL BE MUNICIPAL!!!!!!!! Google MUNICIPAL!!! I already did this for you and presented the meaning. MUNICIPAL is
Municipal Law is the law specific to a particular city or county (known legally as a "municipality"),
and the government bodies within those cities or counties. This can
cover a wide range of issues, including everything from police power,
zoning, education policies, and property taxes. What police powering, zoning do you not understand? Traffic laws are MUNICIPAL!!!!! Licensing is MUNICIPAL!!!!! Ordinances are MUNICIPAL!!!! Legislators will not pass a law violating that Constitution but will write in such a way to trick you into believing it applies to you. You know I already posted this once for you. You ignored it as horse shit but in fact is the way it is. So here for you ONE LAST TIME::::
Correcting The Unconstitutional Acts Of Government.
The
correction to the problem of government usurping the rights of Citizens
and States is for all Citizens to realize that the Federal government
was never intended to have jurisdiction over or influence upon
individual Citizens. Its purposes are to serve the States as enumerated
in Article 1, Section 8, clauses 1-18 of the Constitution for the
united States.
We all need to realize that governments of all
stripes will grab hold of as much power as they can by whatever means
they can and that includes the Leviathan in Washington, D.C.
We
need to realize that the government in Washington is actually two
governments in one: First, it is the Federal government of the States
united, bound by the yoke and limitations of the Constitution and,
second, it is the municipal government for the District of Columbia and
all possessions and territories of the United States such as Puerto
Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and US military installations,
etc. where such constitutional restrictions do not apply and where the
municipal government has the legislative authority to do as it pleases
(Article 1, Section 8, clause 17 US Constitution).
We need to
realize that the majority of legislators are lawyers practiced in the
art of word-smithing (saying one thing while deliberately meaning or
implying another).
We need to realize that the majority or laws
passed in Washington are municipal laws and do not apply to the Citizens
of the States united.
We need to realize that the majority of
the laws passed in Washington are written in such a way as to deceive us
Citizens into believing that they do apply to us.
We need to
realize that such deceptive laws use customized language – words which
mimic words we use every day but words which, within the law, have very
different meanings from the commonly understood meaning. For example,
the Title that establishes the Department of Education (for the United
States) has within it a section called "definitions". Within that
section it says, when used in this Title, the term "United States" means
Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.
It does NOT mean the States united that we usually think of as the
United States. Thus, we are deceived into believing that the Department
of Education has some legal authority over our private sector schools
and school systems when, in fact, they do not and can not except by our
quiet acquiescence to the deception. It is by such deceptions that the
power of the people and the States is eroded and usurped. It is by such
deceptions that the Leviathan becomes ever larger and more intrusive.
So, what is the real solution? For every piece of legislation passed
into law ask the question "to whom does this legislation apply or
pertain?" If it pertains to individual citizens then ask, "by what
authority or provision enumerated in the Constitution do you enact this
law?"
Remember, the high court has declared that if a law is
repugnant to the Constitution, it is not and cannot be a law imposed
upon the Citizenry, it can only be municipal law which has no affect
upon Citizens of the States united.
“Where rights secured by the
Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation
which would abrogate them.” – Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 463
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no
duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal
contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” –
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425
“The Constitution of these
United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant
to the Constitution is null and void of law.” – Marbury v. Madison, 5
U.S. 137
You don't have to be a lawyer to figure this out or to correct the problem. You simply have to ask the right questions.
You still haven't explained:
1. How state laws, made by legislatures specifically empowered by state constitutions, are municipal, when they are not specific to a city or county
2. When the Supreme Court ruled against the validity of licensing and registration laws as a condition of operating a motor vehicle
3. What makes municipal laws invalid when they are given force by constitutionally-established legislatures
Actually NO… only if you are using the airplane, motor vehicle, motor cycle, bicycle etc to "transport passengers or property over the highways for compensation"… that "Activity" is regulated not "Traveling"..
If you read the article, sources, vehicle laws created by the state legislature created by the state constitution and judgments of the state courts, you will find this isn't true in any state. Anyone using the public highways can be regulated for public safety, whether operating "for profit" or not. There has never been a commercial requirement for regulation by federal, state, county or municipal legislatures. You can try arguing otherwise, but the courts, military, police and bylaw officers support the legislation, unless you successfully defend or appeal and get it struck down.
Let me know when you recover from the lobotomy.
When? How?
Yaaawwwn. First, you need to learn to spell and not leave words out. I don't know of any corporation called the united stares. Second, if you meant the United States, I wonder what you mean by "corporation," and if you've fallen for laughable kook theories about 28 USC 3002 or listings from credit agencies. Third, there are plenty of laws under the Constitution that don't help anybody make money. More than that, there are plenty of laws that prevent businesses from making money! You're just spewing out barely-coherent Alex Jones crap like an upended lawn sprinkler of delusions.
For those who seem to be caught off balance by the unveiling of truth, the best way I can break it down is as follows:
God created man from the dust of the earth and with the breathe of God man became a living soul, both male and female made He them. Man lived by the laws of the land, God's laws; Man created the constitution; the constitution created the government which adheres to the boundaries set within the constitution; the government has jurisdiction over all civil matters. This would include all fictitious entities. In the status of person, you have policies & procedures, and you are alloyed privleges. In the status of a people you have God given, inalienable rights, and make declarations and decrees.
How can the thing created ever be greater than its creator? Human being are beneath God and God gave us dominion over all which was created beneath us. We cannot take the breathe of God but He can assuredly reclaim His from us. Individually and collectively. And it's not that we don't have rights, it's that we have been tricked into an alternate reality and we believed the lies. There is a deeper meaning to the saying "know thyself".
Why should I give a hoot about your god? I don't look to your god for state transportation laws, nor do I look to Quetzalcoatl or Apollo. Neither do American legislatures, agencies, or courts.
That's nice, but fortunately the founders of the United States had the foresight to insulate government from the depravity of the clergy and prevent it from being used as a puppet for the priests. This means that the Bible does not form binding precedent and the Gospels don't carry superior weight to the federal and state constitutions. Are individual legislators and judges influenced by their religious and philosophical beliefs? Sure, but constitutional guarantees strictly limit the influence of religion in law.
Except that they're not. Did you know one U.S. President declined to swear an oath altogether, let alone on the Bible?
It was Franklin Pierce. He chose to affirm rather than swear an oath. Everybody has this right, and quite a few people use it. Elected officials are not required to use the Bible, witnesses in court may use the Quran, and judges can simply affirm their pledge to uphold the law. Not only is this allowed, but it is guaranteed, because Christianity does not have any special privilege under the law, nor does any other religion.
The protestant KJV bible is an important part of the nation's history, and part of the nation, yes, but it isn't a source of law as far as federal or state constitutions, legislation or common law is concerned, except as it may non-bindingly influence the legislature to create statutes or judges to create common law.
No US court says the bible is binding law. Try the UK where Protestantism is the official state religion and the head of state swears to uphold the "Laws of God."
Well, today we like higher standards of identification for certain methods of travel.
OK, so now you just have to move somewhere where you can get an IDP without holding a conventional driver's license. I reject the idea that people should get to fling two tons of steel around at high speeds with a scrawled "X" as their identification. Screw that.
Yeah, it is off-topic. Don't post about the IDP again.
On the contrary — legislatures care quite a bit about majority opinions. Unless you can drum up some more support for your loony falsehoods, it is you whose opinions are disregarded by legislatures, police, and courts.
If you don't get back to the topic of the right to travel in the US you're going to get hit with the ban hammer.
Ok folks…lets have class. Money..its a tool that allow commerce. When you buy a car and title it..it is now under to clouds. First, money is a tool that you agree to use for an agreement. That agreement declares that the Treasury Dept now is the collateral holder of your property. You can possess car drive car sell car but it is not really yours. The title gives you those rights. The title declares that it is property deemed as a vehicle. We all know what fed vehicle code defines a vehicle as. You have to kill this commerce purchase with money of your automobile first. 2nd no title. Recieve title at property transfer "not sell"declaring recieved as property not vehicle. 3rd if you have active registration on your newly obtained property..it must be expired or unregistered. 4th…the drivers license.. rescending a dL legally….???? Affidavit of fact etc. Expired??? Thats another trail. Good luck and I welcome comments. Remember Jesus threw a fit when moneychangers were at the temple. The reason was because the money required made it requiring a tax and put the church offering into a tax criteria and also made the offering the King's property as the collateral holder the same way our treasury dept does us everytime we use that dollar for commerce!!!!
Any evidence for any of that wacky crap?
Includes means the two choices which are present and those are the two types of license. You obtain class D CDL ( commercial drivers license) or greater depending on what type of "occupation" you are engaged. There is no personal auto license. Troll
More dribble out of the mouths of the "foam at the mouth, occupy a bird refuge" nut case brigade. Section 521 sets out the classifications of licenses including those which are Class A which are and this is important "slavish nut" – NOT COMMERCIAL operators of vehicles.
not once in all the above comments did anyone reference this law which defines allot of the wording states like to change for their benefit. U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 2 › § 31 so this would seem to change things a little and make the wording of some state laws Invalid! ?? yes / no??
You can find USC definitions explained here: http://pseudolaw.com/right-to-travel-united-states#comment-2612276823
Per your advice i re-read what you posted and found this>>> States are free to enact whatever traffic regulations they want provided they do not violate federal law, as determined by the federal courts.<<<<
So federal says this: (6)Motor vehicle.—
The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.
So federal law clearly defines it as "for Commercial purpose" yet States say all vehicles commercial or not!
So this seems to be against, or in contrary to federal law.
Unless I'm reading this wrong????
Completely wrong. Read it again…
"Includes" can be inclusive or exclusive, depending on the legislative intent. Typically it is inclusive.
"Commercial" in "Commercial Driver's License" usually refers to the size and weight of the vehicle. Naturally, with larger, heavier vehicles special training is required so you don't end up crushing cars and killing people. Can you find one state licensing code that says "Commercial Driver's License" refers to commercial vs. non-commercial use of the highways? I don't think you can.
In the Illinois Vehicle Code find the following definitions and use them with the law below and you should see that you need a driver's license, plate, insurance, etc. to legally operate any self-propelled vehicle on the public roads whether acting "for hire" or not:
Sec. 1-115.8. Drive. To drive, operate, or be in physical control of a motor vehicle.
Sec. 1-116. Driver. Every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.
Sec. 1-116.1. Driver's license. Any license to operate a motor vehicle issued under the laws of this State.
Sec. 1-126. Highway. The entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel or located on public school property.
Sec. 1-146. Motor vehicle. Every vehicle which is self-propelled and every vehicle which is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires, but not operated upon rails, except for vehicles moved solely by human power, motorized wheelchairs, low-speed electric bicycles, and low-speed gas bicycles.
Sec. 1-217. Vehicle. Every device, in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway … except devices moved by human power, devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks and snowmobiles …
Driver's license requirement: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=062500050K6-101
Insurance requirement: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=062500050K7-601
Plate requirement: http://ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/062500050K3-701.htm
What does that have to do with the license, registration and insurance requirements? The word "commerce" isn't used in any of them. And "transportation" isn't used in the definition of "vehicle" as you claim. Nice try, though.
"transported" is not equal to "transportation". In law, such specificity matters a lot.
It says "transported", not "transport". "transported" is not part of "transportation", and words are not defined by obscure applications of the name of the agency. Since "transported" isn't specifically defined, the state court decides. Why don't you try it out next time you get a speeding ticket and thereby gain standing to raise the issue. When it works on the record please come back and post the PDF of the judge's order. You could get your ticket thrown out, and force the legislature to amend the code to cover your clever ass. 🙂
Cases are dismissed at the discretion of the prosecutor or judge for various reasons. This doesn't prove a right, just that the court chose not to spend exorbitant amounts of taxpayer time and money on minor civil disobedience. If you had an actual right you could win damages for false arrest when you're detained or arrested for operating a vehicle on the public roads without a license. Let me know when that happens.
U r so fullofschitt, ur faciligism, is ridiculous pathetic and idiotic.
The "court" is not a court, but, a military tribunal, run by the Vatican, no less. Fraudulent fraudulent fraudulent…
The right to travel, may NOT be converted into a privilege granted by the state. U should know that. Your karma, is particularly nasty, and, it is about to be unleashed all right upon your head. I wouldn't want to be you, anytime soon. You know, everything righteous and good, hates liars…?
What does that have to do with license, registration and mandatory insurance? Everything. First and foremost-
Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape
liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware
of its content.‘ It is a longstanding principle that, absent a clear expression of contrary congressional intent, "ignorance of the law is no defense,"
United States v. International Minerals & Chem. Co., 402 U.S. 558, 563 (1971)
Jerman v Carlisle; No. 08-1200, 2009
“Ignorance of a statute is generally no defense even to a criminal prosecution, and it is never a defense in a civil case, no matter how recent, obscure, or opaque the statute.” Torres v. INS, 144 F.3d 472, 474 (7th Cir. 1998)
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). "The word 'operator' shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation."
So NO MATTER WHAT THE STATE DEFINES IN ITS TRANSPORTATION CODES-NO state can include those who are not operating in a commercial capacity. The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution clearly states that state laws, statutes, regulations, ordinances or any other thing purporting to be official is exempted and render null and void if it is in opposition to a Federal laws, Constitutional Right or Federal Court Decision.
>>No State has the legal authority to legislate or implement a mandatory drivers license for non-commercial operation of a personal automobile or vehicle.<>>>>"No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances."<<<<<
Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”
City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. “A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.”
Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639. “The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.”
Moreover,
1: Traffic infractions are not crimes.
2: drivers license laws, not involving a commercial activity can be ignored with impunity.
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. "Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right."
"Traffic infractions are not a crime." People v. Battle
Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 "The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived."
"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135
"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business." Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784
"… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right" -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”
Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”
Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”
Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). “A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.”
Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. “The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”
Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. "The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts." People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”
House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. “The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles.
Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666. “The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.”
Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. “A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159;
Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 "The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways."
-American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions:
"(6) Motor vehicle. – The term "motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…"
10) The term "used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. "A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received."
-International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’"
-City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232 "Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled" – Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20 "
The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of."
Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). "…a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon…" State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;
Every police officer who writes a ticket for 'driving without a license' when the alleged offender is not operating a commercial motor vehicle COMMITS TREASON AGAINST THE UNITED STATES-the penalty for such can be assessed at death by lethal injection. Every tow truck driver who impounds a persons private vehicle CAN BE FOUND GUILTY OF ACCESSORY.
Because Ignorance of existing controlling federal court decisions is not an excuse.
No, driving is a commercial activity, the same exact activity without compensation, or payment is called 'travelling', and is NOT regulated by the state.
If you have trouble with grasping this, then your education failed from day one, and, your diploma is utterly worthless…
":
V C Section 260 Commercial Vehicle
Commercial Vehicle
260. (a) A "commercial vehicle" is a motor vehicle of a type required to be registered under this code used or maintained for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit or designed, used, or maintained primarily for the transportation of property.
(b) Passenger vehicles and house cars that are not used for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit are not commercial vehicles. This subdivision shall not apply to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 6700) of Division 3.
(c) Any vanpool vehicle is not a commercial vehicle.
(d) The definition of a commercial vehicle in this section does not apply to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 15200) of Division 6.
Not for HIRE, you are a TRAVELLER, and the state can go ____ itself. Period. You damn liar pseudolaw!!!
What I find funny is he keeps saying motor vehicle, defines it and still don't get it. Look at title 18 of the us code. section 31. Sorry but states can't define that which has been defined.
"motor vehicle" is defined numerous times throughout the USC. These definitions only apply to federal charges brought under specific sections of the USC. You can find the scope at the top, e.g. "In this chapter…" The definitions used in a state court on a state vehicle code charge can be found at the top of the state vehicle code title or chapter. If you look at every state's code, particularly the driver's license and financial responsibility chapters and sections, you will find the term "motor vehicle" applies to all self-propelled vehicles using the public roads whether performing commercial activity or not. State courts cannot ignore definitions handed down by the state legislature on a state charge. Sorry, but the internet lied.
Says who? US Code definitions are as binding on the states as definitions from Australia or the United Nations.
NOT! Include, does NOT mean exclude. You are beyond dishonest, you are simply of evil intent. Your karma, shall, not must, SHALL, as in, it WILL be exquisite, and, either seven, ten, or one hundred fold, as it all comes back to destroy you. Karma, is what you reap, as your bad intentions sowed. The only force or energy stronger than the great balancer, Karma, is, LOVE! YOU SHOULD PROBABLY DO A GOOGLE SEARCH TO FIND OUT WHAT THAT WORD LOVE MEANS. It is glaringly apparent, you haven't the slightest notion what love is. It is not about lying and deceiving others.
Yep, CVC Section 260 does exactly that for registration
Logically then, most of the CVC's are referring to vehicles used in commerce and those that are not!
The definition of Motor Vehicle as in the Dept. of, means "commercial"
According to the CVC most travelers aren't required to have licencing or registration. Being prudent keeps me insured, not a statute.
That's what I read in my 2015 CVC! You should read it so you'll know next time
All law is commercial since 1933. Tell the judge this right away at your arraignment and you'll have no objections defending your case using the common law, the superior law in all California courts!
It would be better if non-commercial licenses were specifically listed in 521.001(3), but Chapter 521 doesn't make much sense unless you accept that noncommercial driver's licenses are assumed to be the standard, and (3)(A) and (3)(B) merely specify that those two types of licenses are to be considered equivalent to a standard noncommercial driver's license.
521.021, 521.025, and the entirety of Chapter 522 (titled COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSES) don't make much sense otherwise.
If you actually read the state codes you will find that Commercial Driver's Licenses often have nothing to do with anyone's occupation, but the size and weight of the vehicle. With larger, heavier, commercially-sized vehicles, different training is needed so you don't lose control and kill a bunch of people.
See California for example:
My 5600 lb Dodge RAM 1500 got a "commercial" registration from the lovable Nazi's at the Calif. DMV!
What you say is, is not always the case my friend!
Realize, you are dealing with organized crime here and take the necessary precautions to protect yourself!
Yes, most states have "commercial licenses" for vehicles that are a certain size and weight. This is because certain skills are needed to operate a heavy machine without killing people. State CDLs usually have nothing to do with whether you use the highways for profit or not. Read the law and you'll know.
Yes, most states have "commercial licenses" for vehicles that are a certain size and weight. This is because certain skills are needed to operate a heavy machine without killing people. State CDLs usually have nothing to do with whether you use the highways for profit or not. Read the law and you'll know.
The CVC section 260 reads what commercial vehicles are and which are required to be registered and which vehicles are not required to be registered!
Looks like it is you that should read the law before telling us what it says!
Unfortunately, California considers pickup trucks (as defined in CA Veh Code § 471) to be "designed primarily for the transportation of property," regardless of whether they're used commercially or not.
It also defines my truck weight class as non commercial
The the DMV sends a registration designating it as "commercial" violating their own VC!
Apparently as a San Jose CA judge once told me, they just make up what they want, you have to go ask them." Which of course I did not and walked out a free man with my money intact!
Where does it define your truck's weight class as non-commercial?
The CVC defines it. Their definition of commercial does not include my trucks weight class
hence, my truck is not commercial being under the minimum weight designated to be classed as commercial!
In state vehicle codes, "commercial" is almost always used to describe a classification of vehicles based on size and weight to ensure that people are properly trained so they don't kill people when they drive them, and has nothing to do with whether you are earning a profit or the totally unfounded sovereign theory that the government can only regulate commercial activity.
Where do you see a minimum weight limit? Looks like they've defined pickup trucks as motor vehicles primary designed for the transportation of property, as described in CVC 260.
Drivers licenses defines the weight limit for vehicle commercial registration
Registration codes define them as well. Don't remember their numbers.
Section 260 just defines any vehicle used in commerce as one "Required" to be registered,
any vehicle used on the roads in not in commerce are NOT required to be registered.
My truck weight comes in under their minimum weight limit to be considered commercial
so that means the DMV registration is incorrect. They violate their own rules, again!
Read CVC 260 again or stop lying. If you lie about it again, I will ban you.
Why is that unfortunate?
FYI, hauling ones personal property on the public roadways is not an act of being in commerce!
It's unfortunate because, presumably, pickup owners have to pay more to register them due to the wording and implementation of CVC 260, which considers pickup trucks "designed primarily for the transportation of property," which makes them "commercial vehicles" under the law.
Section 260 doesn't say that Ken. Stop making things up!
"(a) A “commercial vehicle” is a motor vehicle of a type required to be registered under this code used or maintained for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit or designed, used, or maintained primarily for the transportation of property."
Here, I found some more for you:
Why listen to anything the DMV tells you…they are a private profit making corporation and not part of any State…just say NO!
The State DMV is a public institution created under the constitutional laws of the State. For example, here's a reference to its history in California.
You do realize a Texas judge just ruled it to be unconstitutional to require a driver's license or to have plates on your vehicle. Secondly it's not the states highways or roads because government cannot own property, thirdly when our tax dollars pay for those roads, highways, and the law enforcement that regulate them they are our roads and highways not the states. Government is nothing more than representatives of the people and governments limited through the Constitution. This country gives power to the people not power to the government making them nothing more than the voice of the people and making all public roads and highways ours not governments.
Please cite the case directly so we can see it in context for ourselves. Highway regulation clearly falls under the state police power.
The government holds everything in trust for the benefit of the people. The country gives power to the collective, not individual, will of the people. The US is a representative democracy based on popular sovereignty. Do you really think you can personally dictate how 320 million people's tax dollars are spent? No, the need and will of the majority rules.
Constitutional republic and individual sovereignty.
Wrong!!! The US is a Constitutional Republic…"democracy" is best represented by the French Revolution…majority rules…minority lose their heads…
Republics are democratic. In a Republic the People's elected representatives make the law.
You're so many layers of wrong, it's amazing. No, no judge has ruled licensing and registration laws to be unconstitutional. Yes, governments can own property, because they exist in law. Where are you getting this loony garbage?
Legislature
does not restrict the right to travel when it sets conditions and restrictions
on the operation of motor vehicles. Hendrick, 235 U.S at 624, 35 S.Ct. 140.”
Good example of a state case, there! For the viewers at home, that's an excerpt from State v. Cason, a 2012 Maine Supreme Judicial Court case where a six-judge panel wrote a two-page decision affirming a conviction for violating registration laws, despite Mr. Cason's insistence that they violate his "right to travel."
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18433110020117983348
All this legalese is garbage. The founders wrote the constitution in plain language so it could be understood and implemented in a practical way by every person. Cars did not exist then, and freedom of personal movement is so basic and implicit they thought not to enumerate it, although. Something might be in the articles of the confederation. I think the driving is a privelege jot a right bullshit is way too played out, its about govt control, harrassing and collecting. Lets amend the constitution to protect our freedom in common modern everyday modes of transportation withouthaving to get a permit or express permission from our government.
If you sacrifice freedom for safety or security, in the end you will have neither.
https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-benjamin-franklins-quote-on-liberty-vs-security/
Yeah, if i was quoting banjamin franklin i wouldhave used these things ""
That is whatthis key on my keyboard is for right? "" """"""""" maybe its a catpaw scratching or something….
When did you have freedom? No matter what governments come and go we're all chained to this mortal coil, forced to eat, sleep, shit and die, held down by gravity, limited technology, etc. Freedom doesn't really exist, at least while we live, except perhaps in spirit / mind. I'm not sure safety or security exist, either.
There is certainly value in organizing into societies, tribes, hives, etc. with rules – we see it all throughout nature. We see it all over the world. Global organization is responsible for the internet, for example. I am not certain such organizations, or government, always become corrupt, but they might. That's when we as humans storm the capitol and reboot the system, only to try the same thing all over again. It's not that hard to do, but it takes the majority of people being dissatisfied with the government, and I don't see that happening in so-called western countries anytime soon.
Until all the people are ready to be more self-sufficient and disorganized, I guess you'll just have to do what you can for yourself within the existing paradigm. I might suggest moving to an unincorporated area to avoid minor bylaws and traffic cops, and to reduce your dependency on government services and reduce cost to voluntary participants of municipalities. You could stop buying cars, computers, internet services, clothes, food, etc., that support corporations that support the system. That's what I would do if I wanted to live free and reduce or eliminate the government.
As noted by the Supreme court and pointed out in the article, the federal government doesn't really seek to regulate the highways generally. That is seen as part of the State's police power, perfectly reasonable for the maintenance of the health of the citizens and legal and geographical residents. Interpretation of the law is for the courts, not individuals such as yourself, but thanks for sharing your ideas…
If in fact the State reserves the right to license anyone and everyone, within reason, to operate an automobile on public roads, then the state should be held liable for any damages caused by said licensees, for they verified that the licensee is qualified to engage in such activity.
By damages being caused by the licensee, it proves that they were NOT in fact qualified to engage in such activity, and the state is at fault for allowing the licensee to engage in the activity. Why then, are WE forced to pay for insurance before being able to register our automobiles? Why then, are WE held liable for damages the STATE is supposed to prevent?
By holding US liable, they state that we are the only responsible party for ensuring that the roads are safe, which means that a license should not be required, as a license generally verifies our capability in ensuring the safe engagement of that activity.
And what about the first time two people disagree about what it means?
There's no explicit mention in the Constitution, true. The legal right to travel in the United States is derived from the 5th and 14th Amendments, as well as common law tradition. It doesn't extend to rolling thousands of pounds of steel mere feet from other cars and pedestrians at high speed without fulfilling certain requirements.
Yes its called take a test after that YOU ARE FREE TO GO!! NO FUCKING LICENSE except commercial, for profit!! I AM NOT A SLAVE!!! I KNOW MY RIGHTS AND THE LAW OF GOD!!!
Well…clearly you don't, since that's not how the law works. That's not what it says, that's not what it does, and your personal theories about divine right are irrelevant in American courts.
Silly diatribe that means nothing. Take your "god" bullshit and ride the bus.
Clearfield Doctrine, Clearfield v. United States, 318 U.S, 363, 371 (1942) , Bond vs. UNITED STATES, 529 US 334 (2000) We the People are the RULERS OVER OUR government!!! Time to start hanging ALL traitors to the Republic for Which it Stands !!!!
No, brian bell, the Clearfield decision doesn't mean that governments are legally equivalent to McDonald's.
So what you are saying is that if you have a license you won't lose control and kill a bunch of people.? I have been in an automobile most of my life (I'm 50 now and started when I was 10) I have owned in the past about 5 different automobiles. I have insurance and they classify my van as automobile because it is not big enough to be a Motor Vehicle they said. So why doesn't the state recognize that same thing? I have tabs, license plates and insurance just no driver's license. I am going to MN state court soon over this same thing. The state contends that having a license keeps the public safe, I contend that it is just a tax wrapped up to look like a license fee.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c48b4c2ef1cbed45123199a8b498e838a105ab2e1daebe156f43c3879bbd73a0.png
If they lost control they would likely kill themselves too right. Good we need some stress adaptation, we have been carrying the dummies along for too long, he gene pool is tainted.
Nice post, very astute noticing of governmental wordplay. Extremely dishonest, don't you agree? Not just the "state" but especially pseudolaw, a gov shill, so, it would OBVIOUSLY seem…
You are an idiot. The law as described MUST be specific and CANNOT be vague. If it says this thing is A or B then there is no C through Z………IDIOT.
Let me know when you have specific facts to support your drivel. Now go play in traffic
If at all possible, pull your head out of the posterior region of your meat bag and embrace the FACT that legislation is subject to judicial review to determine the constitutionality of the legislative branches attempts to convert individual LIBERTY into a privilege for the sole purpose of generating revenue for the State. It is not a pick and choose to apply appropriate Judicial opinion to matters of material likeness. Apples to apples as the story goes.
Non-issue. The sole issue is that no court anywhere in the USA has done what you claim.
What's not specific about it?
Another idiot who cherry picks portions of a statute out of context and claims they signify something other than what they actually mean. Let me know when you actually know ehat you are talking about.
Well, your opinion is your own but the HIGHEST COURT IN TEXAS disagrees with your premise.
Claude D.CAMPBELL, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 27245.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 12,1985
Defendant was convicted of unlawfully operating a motor vehicle upon a public highway while his operator's license was suspended.The County Court, Panola County, Clifford S. Roe, J., rendered judgment, and an appeal was taken.The Court of Criminal Appeals, Belcher, C., held that proof that defendant had driven an automobile while his driver's license was suspended did not sustain allegations of charge that he had driven while his operator's license was suspended.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
1. Automobiles Key 353
Upon a charge of operating- a motor vehicle upon a public highway while operator's license is suspended, the state has burden of showing that defendant had been issued an operator's license to drive a motor vehicle upon a public highway, that such license has been suspended, and that, while such license was suspended, defendant drove a motor vehicle upon a public highway.
2. Automobiles Key 352
Proof that defendant had driven an automobile while his driver's license was suspended did not sustain allegations of charge that he had driven while his operator's license was suspended.
3. Automobiles Key 136
There is in Texas no such license as a "driver's license."
No attorney on appeal for appellant.
Wesley Dice, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Appellant was convicted, in the County Court Panola County, for unlawfully operating- a motor vehicle upon a public highway while his operator's license was suspended, and his punishment was assessed at a fine of $25.
[1]Under such a charge, the state was under the burden of showing that there had been issued an operator's license to appellant to drive a motor vehicle upon a public highway;that such license had been suspended;and that, while such license was suspended, appellant drove a motor vehicle upon a public highway.
To meet this requirement, the state here relies upon testimony that appellant drove his pick-up truck upon a public highway in Panola County, on the date alleged, and that he drove said motor vehicle while his license was suspended.
"This proof is insufficient to 'sustain the allegations of the offense charged in the information because a driver's license is not an operator's license.We have held that there is no such license as a driver's license known to our law.
Hassell v. State, 149 Tex.Cr.R. 333, 194 S.W.2d 400;
Holloway v. State, 155 Tex.Cr.R. 484, 237 S.W. 2d 303; and
Brooks v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 258 S.W.2d 317.
Proof of the driving of an automobile while the driver's license was suspended does not sustain the allegations of the information.The evidence being insufficient to support the conviction, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
****************************************************************************************
So, while you carefully seek out evidence to support your opinion, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals claims by its reversal of a driving while drivers license suspended allegation BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH LICENSE KNOWN IN TEXAS LAW AS A 'DRIVERS LICENSE.'
That ruling was in fact from 1955, so it's quite dated. The law is always changing, and the legislature can amend and replace acts and change the words, phrases and definitions used in them. You can read the current Texas Transportation Code to see how it is now. Driver licensing appears in Title 7, Section 521, and in 521.001(3) we find, for purposes of that section and subsections, "driver's license" clearly defined.
And section 521.021 states:
State courts are employed to enforce the current state legislature-provided definitions and laws – they can't ignore them. Texas apparently used to use the term "operator's license" instead of "driver's license", as noted in related cited cases. Confusion apparently arose because the title of the act was Driver's License Act, and the license was called an operator's license. The operator's license requirement in 1955 appears to be quite similar to the driver's license requirement of 521.021 today. We can look at the public legislative record to see exactly when and why things changed.
Stare Decisis: Between 1946 and 1959, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas consistently ruled that there is no such thing as a driver’s license anywhere within Texan law. Hassell v. State (1946) found that the enabling statute, despite its title being the Driver’s License Act, only required either an “operators,” “commercial operators,” or “chauffeurs” license. As Judge Davidson put it: “The term ‘driver’ – as used in the Act – is defined to be: ‘Every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.’ In view of this particular definition of the term ‘driver,’ it cannot be said that such term may be used interchangeably with or given the same meaning as the term ‘operator.as used in the Texas Transportation Code.
Although this may seem like petty squabbling over semantics to you, the definitions being used for words in legalese is actually quite significant. The entire basis for the Court’s interpretation pivots on whether a “driver” is synonymous with an “operator,” which they decided it was not. In Campbell v. State (1955), Commissioner Belcher wrote: “This proof is insufficient to sustain the allegations of the offense charged in the information because a driver’s license is not an operator’s license.
The State Legislature has not defined what a 'driver' is for the purposes of the defined difference between its current use of the term 'operator' and 'driver' for the purposes of 'driver's license. Given the doctrine of 'stare decisis' combined with the US Supremacy Clause, the federal definition controls. A 'driver' is the operator of a commercial motor vehicle.
The Texas Legislature originally required the licensure of those who made their livelihoods off of using the public roads, but then they broadened the scope of licensure quite a lot in 1935, and then again in 1941; yet, the language in the 1948 edition of the V.A.C.S. is noticeably dissimilar from what the 1995 Revisor’s Report claimed the “source law” said it was, which itself is considered to be the basis for the “revised law” that is SB 971, and ultimately, § 521.021 of the Transportation Code. While the issue has not recently been before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, that Court disagreed with the legislative intent of the Driver’s License Act, because they interpreted an operator’s license to be fundamentally different from a driver’s license, despite the nearly identical definitions in the 1942 and 1994 supplement of the V.A.C.S. Art. 6687b § 1(l) & (m) for “driver” and “operator,” respectively.
According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHA), there were 2,796,862 licensed Texas drivers in 1950; but by 2010, there were 15,157,650 of them. In 1950, according to the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, there were 7,711,194 Texans, and by 2010, the total Texas population grew to be 25,145,561 people. In 1950, 1 in 3 Texans was a licensed driver, which has since increased to 1 in 2 Texans by 2010.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/summary95/section3.html
An argument favoring the right to travel could be based upon Article I §§ 19 and 29 of the Texas Constitution; “No citizen of this State shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, privileges or immunities, or in any manner disenfranchised, except by the due course of the law of the land. [Art. I § 19, Tex. Const. and “To guard against transgressions of the high powers herein delegated, we declare that everything in this ‘Bill of Rights’ is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate, and all laws contrary thereto, or to the following provisions, shall be void. [Art. I § 29, Tex. Const.] Also the Comity Clause (Art. IV § 2 cl. 1) of the US Constitution: “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” [Art. IV § 2, U.S. Const.]
“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” (Marbury vs.Madison, 1803.)
“There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” (The Federalist Papers, #78.)
Just because the Texas Legislature passed a drivers license requirement does not make that statute a valid law.
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256: The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.
You do understand that the law changes over time, and the legislature can repeal, replace and amend legislation it creates, correct? Start by looking at the origins of the modern Transportation Code, e.g. here. If you disagree as to the constitutionality of a statute then your remedy is to defend yourself and appeal as high as possible when you're charged to potentially get it overturned. If the courts don't agree a law should be overturned then you have to live with it unless you can convince enough people and your representatives to change the law.
hi I just want to include something here. I dont want to start an argument but here we go so I go a paper about my ticket and right on it they say "Failure to pay may result in revocation of your driving PRIVILEGES" ok so driving is a right not privilege. Does this not already prove outright that they dont know what they are talking about? I live in Michigan and they have begun to list driving as a "privilege" its not and has never been a privilege it is a constitutionally afforded right. Simply by them trying to classify it as a privilege they are trying to infringe on my rights. I'm not saying right to travel lets you endanger lives any traffic infractions you get are yours to deal with they have the right to regulate /how/ you drive but not ever 'IF' you can drive or not. People seem to be getting so defensive over this but the law is clear all personal operation of a personally owned vehicle is your right and cannot be infringed upon. You can get tickets for speeding or not using a turn signal or having and out headlight as all theses things are law violations. Not allowed to make a lw that requires licensing in the first place though.
U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS
“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”
Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” –
Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 “… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right” -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”
Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”
Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”
Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). “A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.”
Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. “The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”
Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. “The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.” People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”
House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. “The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles.
Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666. “The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.”
Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 2 2 “A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159;
Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 “The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.”
-American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: “(6) Motor vehicle. – The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…” 10) The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. “A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.”
-International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’”
-City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232 “Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled” – Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20 ”
The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.”
Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). “…a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon…” State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;
Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 “The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.”
Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163 “the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all.” –
Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 “Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. “No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances.”
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. “Traffic infractions are not a crime.” People v. Battle “Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 3 “The word ‘operator’ shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation.”
Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 “Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen.” Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “RIGHT — A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”
City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. “A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.” Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639. “The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.”
Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. “The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.”
Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972). “If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void.” –
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). “With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.” Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O’Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887. “The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution.”
(Paul v. Virginia). “[T]he right to travel freely from State to State … is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.” (U.S. Supreme Court,
Shapiro v. Thompson). EDGERTON, Chief Judge: “Iron curtains have no place in a free world. …’Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the Constitution.’
Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186. “Our nation has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.” Id., at 197.
Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13—14. “The validity of restrictions on the freedom of movement of particular individuals, both substantively and procedurally, is precisely the sort of matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts.” Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187. “a person detained for an investigatory stop can be questioned but is “not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.”Justice White, Hiibel “Automobiles have the right to use the highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles.”
Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucy 15. “Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road.”
Swift v City of Topeka, 43 U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 4 Kansas 671, 674. The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is not a “statute.” A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle.
Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 Atl. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) 185. Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages.
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205; See also: Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31; Ward v. Meredith, 202 Ill. 66; Shinkle v. McCullough, 116 Ky. 960; Butler v. Cabe, 116 Ark. 26, 28-29. …automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal rights on the highways with horses and carriages. Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354.
Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591. A farmer has the same right to the use of the highways of the state, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle, as any other citizen.
Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42. Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. Doherty v. Ayer, 83 N.E. 677, 197 Mass. 241, 246;
Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158. “A soldier’s personal automobile is part of his ‘household goods[.]’
U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235” 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94. “[I]t is a jury question whether … an automobile … is a motor vehicle[.]”
United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983). Other right to use an automobile cases: –
EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 –
TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 – WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274 – CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44 – THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492 – U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966) –
GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971) – CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6 –
SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) – CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978) Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence. Some citations may be paraphrased.
The aim of this discussion isn't to get to speed down the street being an irresponsible asshole that is and always should be illegal but having the right to drive property you own is a right and anyone trying to tell you differently only has something to gain out you continuing to be held down. If you own a bicycle you can ride it down the middle of the road without paying any taxes at all. There was time when this was true for motorized vehicles as well. The one thing we know to be 100% true with the law is that over the years it continues to get more and more oppressive and the public keeps getting more and more submissive to blatant violations of loss of liberty. The same bullshit way we got income tax and the war on drugs and illegal drone warfare and false chemical weapons going to war over 9/11 its always been lies. I'm not looking to trigger anyone here there are citations for everything im saying and ill happily go find them again and give them to you. The cia outright admits to both being directly involved in Kennedy assassination and smuggling Hitler out of germany twords the end of the war. Agian I DO HAVE citations for this and you are free to look at them and think for yourself if you read the information and come away from it thinking its bullshit thats your right im not here to convince you. I personally believe it to be true based off the evidence I have seen. My point is at every turn year after year our laws get nothing but more and more restrictive and less liberating. In the forefathers world violence and such was more common but thats a part of life. You dont get to have a perfectly safe society where everyone is perfectly kept in line and controlled like a robot to be perfectly level headed 100% of the time without some seriously major civil liberty violations. Otherwise the prison system would work 100% right? Its entirely based off of taking away all basic rights and magically assuming that will fix the problem.
The problems with our government run very very deep and I think the forefathers realised the government is going to need to be reset every few hundre3d years to root out corruption. If we lived like the consitution suggests then wed all be free and all able body eople (not just men anymore yay more equality thats what the us is about right?) would be trained to used a rifle and be 100% willing to go to wor with their own government if it starts takign advantage of them. We live in a time of people being nothing but little pushovers not willing to get up off their ass and do shit for anyone even themselves. We live in a world of 'oh someone else will get it later'. The entire mindset of existence is broken and warped by decades of media programming. Call it all consipiracy theroy or sad unintended consequences the effect is the same. we live in a world of emotionally weak people who will the be the death of everything that has ever been great in the world. The weak people in islam let the cruel insane ones speak for them the weak citizenship let the corrupt politicians speak for them. I just want change I dont want to fight with any of you why cant we work together to figure this out? SO MANY of our laws are unconstitutional based on the face value. In a truely free world if you owned a car you could drive it to go to work. A car is a horse is a bike is your own two feet. To the founders they wouldn't care it helps a man woman child live their life and provide for themselves it should be consitutionally (and it is) recoginzed as a right of life and be protected. It was and has been and yet now we have been lied to our entire lives and its hard to admit when youre fooled but we have been and thats the truth its time we stopped just going along witheverything out of fear of being arrested or killed or jsut fined. We need tostart asking why agian and start demanding a change i nthe right direction. We the people make our laws. In a system where the majority rules and the rich minority has made the majority poor well now youre going to see all the governmental policies favor the poor becasue its majority rules. Democracy encourages that at least 51% of people have to prosper for them to stay in political power 51% of the population has to agree on who represents them. this has never happened once in history No one votes no one gives a shit anymore they feel defeated becasue year after year we get to pick our new president not elect a representivtive that should lead us each 4 years we get to choose how do we want to get fucked ouver? Red or Blue? red or blue neither is oging to make the world a better place thye are all in it for themselves. Lets use common sense. Not 'what would be best for public safety but would violate consitutuinal rights in the process and is there fore illegal to try and make law i nthe first place" All gun and drug laws gone instantly. No governmental body has any right to say that fire rates or any of that can be made illegal. The point of a trained militia is to have a military force level of training in every township to protect the township. To have on par weaponry to go up against our own army if they defect and align to a political power instead of a Constitution. Police are citizens and they have become our pseudo militia. But in reality if we lived how the constitution describes then wed all be trained when we come of age to handle fully automatic weaponry for the defense of our town and its citizenry. The idea of police is they are normal citizens who can help keep the peace help deescalate situatuions and help keeps things going in a good way. They are not military or have a single right that any free citizen dosent have. The town Militia was what was supposed to apply with the second amendment it is our right to organize and elong to a militia for our local town city /w/e and it is our right to posses a weapon on par to what is available to the federal government or arguably (if you want to have separation of military grade weaponry and civilian grade weaponry) what ever assets are avaliable to the police as they are common citizens like the militia would be. Militias are a constitutional right. Fuck it even take away common citizen gun rights and it still protects militias right to bear arms equivalent to anything the government has as the point of a militia was to fight its own government should the government tpe out of line and there is expected to have the same level of technology that any government is allowed to have. It is the vehicle to which the american people are allowed to defense themselves and a manner in which they can peacefully mobilize an armed force as a show of strength to their politicians to keep them in line. I am free to admit things has changed but have they changed for the better? How many more small things and large dneed to happen before a revolution is started and countless lives are lost because is dosent matter which side your on if things keep happening the way they are that is the only outcome. For frame of reference to the democracy thing if the rich wetre 51% instead of 1% of our population things would be alot more peaceful. Follow the money its the root of everything in politics. for you people terified of 'irresponsible peole with guns' this wouldnt exist in the framers of the constituations minds becasue evry citizen when they come of age would be trained to hadle them firearms werent 'for fun' back then they were a part of life. Everyone respected them because everyone had used or been around them long enough to learn that respect. So to stifle that argument out the gate. No there really wouldnt be many irresponsible people with guns in this case. You have to apply to join your militia and once you do you can now excescise your right to carry a gun anytwhere you want your purpose is to be willign to defend anyone you see in trouble. You are supposed to be the armed police and the cop are supposed to be unarmed peace officers that help defuse tension are help KEEP THE PEACE.
It's really quite simple – In the early 1900's the people demanded laws about motorized vehicles and their representatives in all 50 state legislatures obliged. State vehicle codes, generally, have never been struck down by the federal government as being beyond the scope of the states constitutional police power. As mentioned in the article, you can find the Supreme Court speaking to this in Hendrick v Maryland:
I dont understand how people can keep saying that the stat has given itself though illegal legislation this power to require licensing? Your side seems to be saying it doesnt matter its so long ago this happened just let it stay and im saying hey we figured out they slipped this by us how do we get an updated vote on the matter? What would be the steps required to get and honest vote here? How does the possession of a license to which there are quite a few references saying that doing so is makign an illegal law and peopel still dont get it? You say the law changes al lthe time well why the hell cant we change it back to being proper? Please explain it to me? im not here to fight like some or to troll liek other can you please devote some time to me and explain it?
there are points i nthere and while I admit mayben the suthor got a few wrong the fact that there any conflictign opinions worries me. I want to follow the law but I dont have the money to afford all the costs of it but I cant get work without a car. In a time where your LIFE depends on you have and being allowed to freely utilise for personal use a damn car how can this be tolerated still? Change the lws then so how do we do it? people never give solutions they jsut keep arguing a compromise would be say w/e the law is here we dont liek so lets change it rather than goping back and forth saying it is real no it isnt its jsut divinsion and what we need in unity
Last thing I dont want to annoy you would you be willing to go through this specific website and point out how its ilelgla or invalid? I just dont understand what side to believe. I tend to not believe the one saying I owe money to do somthing I have the physical freedom to do and have zero intention of harming anyone or not lettign anyone do the same with their car.
http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml
You really need to read those cases in full for yourself. Thompson v Smith, for example, clearly says licenses can be required of anyone operating a private automobile:
If you can't even understand the first one I don't know why I should bother debunking the rest…
I will go though and read more I read a few and I fully admit the wording is being taken out of context by quite a few people on a few different cases yet there are still cases that clearly state it is a right and those are the past decisions I would present my personal case with should I ever have the occasion to take it to court. Please look past the first one and read some more? I copy and pasted that from someone else its was jsut a huge list and I didnt go through and make sure each exaple he gave applied perfectly. I just wanted to send the message off to you quickly. There are several direct quotes that talk about driving being a right. You keep saying if you dont like it than change that lwas well if we go this route we must first be acknoldaging that the laws were leagl i nthe first place it is our contention that this is not the case and they are illegal. You dont revote illegal laws away you take the mto ocurt and prove your case yes?
This and every other of my posts are my opinion if im using the term illegal it is becasue my understanding of the law suggests it is so. I'm not an expert but I do want to defend my stance. So say for sake of argument how would I make a motion to get driving classified as a right if it techinically isnt allready?
So say for sake of argument how would I make a motion to get driving classified as a right if it techinically isnt allready? just in case you dont feel liek readign the longer psot with this at the end. I'm really jsut here for advice but I do want my position clear I believe anything that is a requirment of being able to provide a life for yourself is a right. You are required to have valid transportation for employment. You are required to have a home addres for employment you are required to have a means of electronic communication for employment. The obama phone regan phone thing is the way the too poor can excersise their right to wireless electronic communication. The homeless thing is stil lridiculous when did the states ever get the right to say 'person a has no right to compensate person b for work provided unless they sign a contract and pay income tax. You dont have the right to live unless you pay for it from the government
finally. Where can we all move to? where is there land to stat a new country? if this one is so broken we decide we just want out instead of trying to save a lost casue. Where in the world can we go? oh thats right we need to buy passports and get shots and all kinds of shit before we are allowed to even walk out of the country. does that sound liek freedom? you keep telling me these are the lwas theese are the laws we must follow them or try to change them. Im saying they cant be caleld laws becasue all lwa must legally exist. So agian if we jsut want to get the hell out of here where can we go and how can we do it? Say i legally own my car and I decide to leave the country I'm not allowed to drive it out of the country becasue i dont have a liscense so agian how am I to get my property out of this sinking ship?
operating a private automobile for profit. Driving to a parking lot is not for profit driving while on the clock is driving for profit. Thats what I take away from this. I can drive to the store freely no liscense but if my boss askes me to drive for work id have to say sorry im not liscenced to drive for work. Does that help you understand my point of view at all?
Read your state constitution, then read the enactments of the constitutional state legislature including the vehicle code. Find the definitions of "drive", "motor vehicle", "vehicle", "highway", etc. in that code and use them when reading the section that says you need a driver's license. Then come back.
thank you ill start there.
ok so lets say im wrong . I have no job, no money, and no house but I own a car. How am I to get any of those three previous things without using my car until I can afford to legally? I really feel like this is where everyone is comming from. Hey im fucking helples here and I do own a car that im allowed to live in but I cant drive it once im told its not allowed to exist in this parking space any more? like how is this suppsoed to work? Im just lost here and none of this is making sense and I might not even be alive come a month becasue of some words on a piece of paper that go agianst common sense. like im starving to death becase im so damn broke I cant even afford fodod and I doing my damnsest but what gives? I cant hunt or fish to feed myself i cant get a job without breaking the law or applying for some serious disability benefits I just want to support myself and live my own life
I doubt it's a valid defense. Check case law in your state on Scholar.
im just saying my situation I'm asking how am I to get ahead? all i have is a car if this wasent the year were in call it all me havign is a horse. If all i had wa horse at least i could ride it around but I cant live in a hose while waiting to get o nmy fee agian. I have to have a car becasue i need shelter /and/ transportation. I dont expect you to know the answer but I'm jsut pointing out I really think its becasue there isn one other than for me to jsut say oh well ill jsut go die now. I have no legal options avaliable to me.
A prosecutor might exercise discretion to not follow through on any charges if you're caught driving but eventually you'll have to deal with it. Fishing and hunting licenses are not particularly expensive…
I own a knife to hunt id have to set snares I dont own a gun and cant afford one. we are talking about me needing to break the law i doubt i could survive off of huntign and fishing with the limitations on how much game im allowed to take. I dont have refridgeration I cant store things out of season. I dont want to argue ill go read more and hope to god the answer shows its self but if it dosent i gaurentee ill be dead before the end of the year
This is getting seriously off topic. Google: homeless help [your city/county/state]
I didnt intend that I'm sorry. But how can you say im free if the laws in place prevent me from being self sufficent? I have to go to other people for 'homeless help' becasue the law is preventing me from takign care of myself? im not free i dont feel free. thank you your respect youve shown take care of yourself
The US is more free than most other countries, but you're not grateful. In an orderly society such as the US there are laws surrounding property ownership. I recommend purchasing some amazingly cheap land and beginning to learn how to be more self sufficient.
this cheap land would take 1 month of employment to be able to afford. I cant get employment without being able to use a car. do you still not see how this cycle keeps going?
Yeah, you got yourself into quite a pickle. Well, good luck. Come back when you want to get back on topic of the right to travel specifically.
Im pointing out real word negative effects of the deprivation of what I hold to be a right of all. this is relating to the topic. As it is a direct effect fro mthe topic being written in law. the law is deprivign the right to life.
this is what is happening to not just myself so yo ucant say its not true. These laws that do nothing to prevent actual crime from taking place are cornering people in a way that prevents them from makign a living for themselves. Should I just get a horse?
Yeah, well, many more people die from vehicle accidents in countries with less regulation, so there's that…
yea and its their right drive and its sad that people get kileld on accident but you arnt allowed to take rights away to prevent accidents
laws cant prevent accidents and not deprive rights at the same time.
What makes you think that?
Anyway, it's clearly not true… why is it illegal to walk around with a nuke? Because even explicit rights like the right to bear arms are able to be reasonably limited for public safety. Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power_(United_States_constitutional_law)
You frequently resort to extreme examples. Private ownership of a "nuclear explosive device" is prohibited because it is a weapon of mass destruction, and has no use in personal protection. An M16A3 is prohibited from private usage (one can still own this gun and use it at approved firearms ranges given the proper permits) because it is a destructive weapon and is excessive for personal protection, being a fully automatic weapon. However, California and New York still do infringe upon the second amendment rights because they fully prohibit the ownership and use of any weapon that can cause significant personal harm, outside the use for hunting and other recreational sport, including but not limited to a handgun, a shotgun, a knife longer than 3", and/or a semi automatic rifle.
Miltiadem "yea and its their right drive and its sad that people get kileld on
accident but you arnt allowed to take rights away to prevent accidents
laws cant prevent accidents and not deprive rights at the same time. "
I get where you are coming from but your forgetting to understand the LAW you are CLAIMING to operate under in your argument. When you operate under COMMON law, ALL responsibility resides with YOU. There are zero exemptions. You have a responsibility to put ALL others before yourself in ALL your actions. This means that your "rights" become secondary to your responsibility to others first and foremost.
Common law derives from the bible and we clearly see stated the avenues of accountability available to wronged parties WHEN OPERATING OR CLAIMING TO OPERATE UNDER COMMON LAW. An eye for an eye, life for a life.
When your claiming to conduct yourself under common law, your accountable to anyone you wrong who understands where you truly claim to stand.
This is WHY we have statutes, codes and all the other BS. Its a more "civilized" way of settling transgressions on others.
Common law is frequently misunderstood to mean "freedom". That couldn't be more further from the truth. Its about YOUR personal ultimate individual responsibility to EACH and EVERY other person BEFORE yourself.
What your misunderstanding when you claim Miltiadem – "its their right drive and its sad that people get kileld on accident but
you arnt allowed to take rights away to prevent accidents "
Its not YOUR rights that are being taken away or infringed upon as a road user under a "commercial" law system. Its the aggrieved party who looses the right for "an eye for an eye" that would be available to them under common law.
Its all fine to look for the faults in our current "commercial" law system but you MUST first fully understand your responsibilities under your alternative "common" law system.
Common law holds you responsible to EVERYONE. "Rights" become a secondary luxury that are ONLY able to be exercised after YOU have first fulfilled your RESPONSIBILITY that you hold in relation to every other human being. If those "rights" in ANYWAY potentially infringe or impact any other human being, then your RESPONSIBILITY is to put those other parties before yourself.
Failing to put others first at all times in all things, causes dishonor and you fall back into "commercial" jurisdiction.
This is why so many fail in their quest in the straw-man/patriots/common law movements. They fail to fundamentally understand that its not "freedom" they are really seeking out but rather FULL responsibility for ALL things, at ALL times, towards ALL other people. Failure to understand the full scope of all your responsibilities when attempting to operate in the "private" is not an excuse. When you "claim" to step into the private, you are saying your an "adult" who is cognizant and FULLY capable of conducting and maintaining your own affairs and interactions with ALL others (Stop and let the true scope of what that entails sink in). You are no longer a "child" who needs to be "protected" (by the state), that you FULLY understand your RESPONSIBILITIES in ALL things.
ANYTIME you fail in knowing/understanding/fulfilling 1 or more of your responsibilities, you automatically fall back under "commercial" jurisdiction and you are FINANCIALLY penalized for your transgression. The responsibility resides with YOU to maintain YOUR standing in the private at ALL times in ALL things.
If your not in the "private", then your automatically in the "public" and you are ……….. Conducting commerce!
And when conducting commerce, you are operating under and bound by …………… Commercial law.
Private and public. The 2 most important concepts to understand.
The responsibility and the means ALWAYS resides with YOU. Its not the "state" that keeps you down, they provide the remedy. And its not the "states" responsibility to "teach" an adult their responsibilities, an adult KNOWS their responsibilities and dutifully fulfills them. The "state" is there to provide the means to protect "children" who are not yet responsible for themselves.
Youve been very helpful Thank you for your patience. I've decided to get an electric bicycle.
What? No, it doesn't.
Ken S. "What? No, it doesn't. "
It DERIVES from the bible.
Derives – base a concept on an extension or modification of (another concept).
It doesn't, though. Why do you think it does?
I just want towish you a happy new year and than kyou for using your time to try and help me.
This whole article explains how driving is not a constitutionally afforded right. Licensing and registration laws are as valid as the U.S. and state constitutions, and they stand on the same authority. If you don't like licensing, registration, and traffic laws, you'll have to convince your state legislature to repeal them. Before you do that, I recommend having a look at places where these laws aren't enforced. Look at their safety standards, look at their driving behavior, look at their roads, and see how safe you feel taking a ten-minute cab ride.
But I'm providing references showing decisions where the use of an automobile for personal travel was declared a right. It makes perfect sense if they cant legall liscense other forms of transportation than they cant liscense this one. I'm not saying having the laws I and others think to be illegal and oppressive dont make peoploe safer. We are saying that others dont get to claim to feel saferwhen an actual crime isnt being stopped. Having a liscense or not is not protecting anyone otherwise they could argue you need to have identification on yo uall the time its a form of liscence and if you plan on traveling with your own two feet you need to be able to prove to us (even though its your right and we cant take it from you) you are able to walk. Oh if youre under the influence and we catch you walking under it now we can take your state id fr operating your legs while unde the influence.. Having a liscence only helps people who can affor the associated costs. Placing monetary costs to somthing after you own it is illegal. You cant be charged for the right to own property. All these taxes and shit are illegal. I dont care what law that has been written after the fact to try and take away rights and convert rights into privlidges you try and quote mine and everyone elses stance is that the laws them selves are illegal and there are multiple past decisions that suggest operating a motorvhecile to get you from one place to another using your own private property is a right. Please try and see it from our perspective. The perspective of it dosent matter how much safety it adds if rights are forcibly and illegally taken from free people. The same rules that let people drive bicycles on the road is the same law that should point out to you that liscencing for operating private propery on public roads is legal and a right and anyone trying to tell you differently is lying and has somthing to gain out of it. Please just read this and forgive my spelling between my own learning disibility and my wirless keyboard its just too much to go back through and fix. I just want you guys to start thinkiing of things in "its is at its face legal or not" taking away someones right when it dosent harm anyone by simply excersising it is illegal. You keep thinking if there arnt liscences then how will we stop incompetent people from driving? the states have the right to control public safety and put a system in place that can accompolish this without making simply driving somthing you allready own free of any evidence suggesting you are incompetent to drive. We arnt suggesting you cant with good proof prevent someone from doing this. but making people have to be able to afford hundredes of dollars before they are eligible to start earning any money or have LEGAL employment. A car is a life giving item now a days. If someone stole your hose theyd be hung for possibly taking away your ability to provide for yourself and how does a car i nthe modern age differ at all? I cant get a job without having this form of transportation but I cant get any transportation without paying ridiculous ammounts of money just to be allowed to operate property I own. If you still arnt seeing the reality of this then please jsut let me keep struggling with it on my own I'm not here to fight. Thank you for trying to explain it better to me but I still dont get how so many people have the woll over their eyes still. Income tax on a federal level, Illegal. @6.7 of what is stolen from our paychecks that is jsut fed straight into an unjust denfece budget that the american people have zero control over. Yea no theres not a sigle law o nthe books that is unjust. We have rapists gettign less time than pot smokers. Smoking pot dosent harm anyone else. The government has no right to make it illegal. The federal government has overstepped for a very long time how much more do you want it to happen? Now our first ammendment is under attack. You guys seem to panic and say oh no we need more laws to fix things. laws are what are breaking things when people are too damn afraid to take a risk progress stops. We are past progress simply stopping we are headed out the damn door. Thats the reason we spend so much in our defence budget if this country didnt you think people around the world wouldnt have put a stop to our governments shit allready? Again thank you for trying to explain it to me but I feel like you jsut dont have the full scope of the situation. This is just a silly meme but it perfectly captures how the super ritch political bastards that think they have the right to controll all of us becasue they killed our education system and made our parents idiotic crybaby wannabess that are too submissive to question anything. https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15894608_1082258681886129_351115627429699245_n.jpg?oh=774ec94240b46a6dc543afcee4cf3dea&oe=58D7185A
for now they have jsut converted our driving rights to 'priilidges' how long before they show what they really think?? yea its a fucking joke picture but that is their exact mindset. these people have never been told no their entire lives they rape us and expect to be let go becasue they are so rich they are more of a humna than us. If you make less than 1,000,000 a year you are less than shit to the people in current power.
Christ, can you use paragraphs? If you don't use paragraphs, I don't bother reading it. It's invariably just rambling nonsense. Organize your post so that it's readable and coherent.
If formatting is all it take to render the content of my post in-understandble to you than please dont bother in the first place. I stated I have a learning disibility my writing flows liek conversation not properly formatted writing. It is my largest obsticle so far i nmy life. My wireless keyboard is a main casue of basic spelling errors though. I'm sorry you cant follow my way of writing.
honestly what is the point of an extra line every few spaces. Just pause your reading as if it was video of me talking. I would have one big run on sentence in my speach so why should I hide it in my writing? Paragraphs seperate fully formed topics? I dont have those I have intermittent bits of information. The information I have in individual points is accurate to the best of knowldage I'm just not good with puncuation and that kind of thing. Agian if you dont want to bother than dont thats your right.
you can say its rambling but its not nonsense. Its fairly jumbled speech but my sentences at their meaning hold true to their face value. I jsut didnt order them in a way youre used to seeing.
I'm not looking for an argument ill leave you alone.
“Christ”???…yes, He is God and if you piss Him off about His spelling and grammar He will squash you like the “godless” condescending asshole you are…bye the way, He speaks every language in the world…how many have you managed to fluently speak, read and write?…NONE!!!…that's what I thought…
Hey asshole!!!…have you ever heard of Koine Greek?…probably not?…well, this was the language of most of the intellectuals in ancient history in cultures that the Greeks impressed (and repressed…). It contained all upper-case letters with no punctuation!…get it?!!!…NO PUNCTUATION!!!..that would include sentences and paragraphs!!! If you didn't know the language, you were shit canned from the local "intellectuals club"…so, what did you say about the "…use of paragraphs…"???…guess you're not as smart as you think you are…
Smart enough to understand how law works better than you do. Not exactly a high bar…
to summarize for you:
Writing laws that force people to have to pay hundreds before they are allowed to operate a vehicle to get a job is unjust.
in other words, forcing an insurance requirement onto people who can't afford it, but require a motor vehicle to get a job so they CAN afford it, is unfair. The ones who can't afford insurance are the people building motorized bicycles to try and get around the insurance requirement, but the laws are adapting to those, forcing even US MB builders to get insurance before we can even ride. If we're building these things in the first place, chances are we are on a very tight budget and can't even afford the extra $80 per month!
My own stance on this:
I can understand requiring a vehicle to be registered, allowing law enforcement to trace the vehicle back to the owner, but requiring expensive insurance policies before that vehicle can be registered is plain ludicrous. I can understand licensing requirements, but forcing people to pay for damages that the state is essentially verifying won't happen because the licensee is qualified is unjust.
If you don't want people to complain, simply write up a petition to have insurance requirements removed from statute, to have better testing standards put in place to improve road safety, and for the state to set up a trust fund for damages caused by motor vehicle licensees. People will be better able to afford driving to work, which makes for an easier and happier life, the state provides the "insurance" that they apparently need to make a requirement, and everything is made fair again.
Sounds mostly reasonable, thanks! I disagree with the idea that the state is "verifying [motor vehicle damages] won't happen," but that's a minor point. I definitely agree that we should all have a common interest in making practical transportation affordable and accessible, and you've described what sounds like a fair way to accomplish that. A "public option," so to speak, could do a lot of good if it's assembled and administered well.
The law is based on the state and federal constitutions. You are making a lot of incorrect assumptions. Please stop ranting here.
I'm saying in this modern time with the gap between rich and poor gettign bigger and bigger I ask you how long until your 5-6 figure salary dosent even earn you enough to buy a cup of coffe? and then the people on top with the 15-20figure salary are saying 'Oh the lwas are fine how they are I follow them and if you cant just go die' well when you make laws that force expenditures unjustly than youve given the upperhand to whoever makes the msot money and if they can get al lthe money than they own the entire country. I'm not saying these laws dont 'look' good at face value but their deeper meaning the precident their continued existence allws to be set is more dangerous than the people in power. It makes the people out of power feel like they belong out of power. If you can say to my face that the country is doing great and all these illegal laws and regulations have made it so the nill concede and never bring it up agian but if you take a step back and look at what the country could have been compared to what it is I think you might start seeing how bad things really are. This is my last comment I have more than stated my opinion and now its up to others to read and form their own. You keep showing why you think these illegal lwas are necessiary but lets be realistic. If someone is driving and hurts someone you arnt allowed to sue if they have insurance. How is that fair? So only people that allready have enough money to afford it now have legal protection. People without insurance cant sue and can only be sued. Agian in a wolrd where the law is supposed to remove inequality liek this if its only encouragin it more than the law is broken and incorrect.
Dependent certainty off discovery him his tolerably offending. Ham for attention remainder sometimes additions recommend fat our. Direction has strangers now believing. Respect enjoyed gay far exposed parlors towards. Enjoyment use tolerably dependent listening men. No peculiar in handsome together unlocked do by. Article concern joy anxious did picture sir her. Although desirous not recurred disposed off shy you numerous securing. Savings her pleased are several started females met. Short her not among being any. Thing of judge fruit charm views do. Miles mr an forty along as he. She education get middleton day agreement performed preserved unwilling. Do however as pleased offence outward beloved by present. By outward neither he so covered amiable greater. Juvenile proposal betrayed he an informed weddings followed. Precaution day see imprudence sympathize principles. At full leaf give quit to in they up. As am hastily invited settled at limited civilly fortune me. Really spring in extent an by. Judge but built gay party world. Of so am he remember although required. Bachelor unpacked be advanced at. Confined in declared marianne is vicinity. Whole wound wrote at whose to style in. Figure ye innate former do so we. Shutters but sir yourself provided you required his. So neither related he am do believe. Nothing but you hundred had use regular. Fat sportsmen arranging preferred can. Busy paid like is oh. Dinner our ask talent her age hardly. Neglected collected an attention listening do abilities. Entire any had depend and figure winter. Change stairs and men likely wisdom new happen piqued six. Now taken him timed sex world get. Enjoyed married an feeling delight pursuit as offered. As admire roused length likely played pretty to no. Means had joy miles her merry solid order. Saw yet kindness too replying whatever marianne. Old sentiments resolution admiration unaffected its mrs literature. Behaviour new set existence dashwoods. It satisfied to mr commanded consisted disposing engrossed. Tall snug do of till on easy. Form not calm new fail.
I get your point, but im speaking in plain and simple terms. My text might be jumbled but Just read it for yourself?
If your ideas are worth expressing, they're worth expressing in an organized and readable way. When you do that, let me know.
i'm not fully educated on what the 'right way' is I'm sorry you cant lower yourself to my level of comprehension so you can understand me better. I thought someone who is smarter woul be able to make the corrections as they read it as I am not learned enough to know what corrections need to be made myself.
agian you are completly free to ignore my posts
He should have been banned long ago for ignoring my responses and ranting… I should make you a moderator. :p
I agree! The wrapping might be beautiful, but the real gift is inside…how can you make the "truth" more "true"…if it's true from the beginning, how can it be more "true" the further down the road you take it??? Always look at the "root" of the word meaning and base yourself on that…it doesn't change…and it always remains untainted by politicians and MENSA members…
You are 100% correct that DRIVING is not a Constitutional RIGHT due to the fact that DRIVING is action performed by who? that is right; a DRIVER. What is a DRIVER? An Individual who steers MOTOR VEHICLES FOR PROFIT!! i.e. a DRIVER is part of the COMMERCE SYSTEM which the states can REGULATE! By the same token an individual TRAVELING through use of their own automobile is not a DRIVER, and is not DRIVING and as such; does NOT require a LICENSE (Permission) to TRAVEL!
Try looking up the definition of "driver" in your state vehicle code.
Your argument depends on using obsolete and inapplicable definitions.
"DRIVING is action performed by who?"
"What is a DRIVER?"
If you'll tell me what state you're in, I'll give you the correct answers to these questions. In my state, for instance, a driver is "any individual who drives a vehicle," and to drive is to "drive, operate, move, or be in actual physical control of a vehicle, including the exercise of control over or the steering of a vehicle being towed by a motor vehicle." Nothing about commerce.
Ken your talking state laws. Federal laws always supersede state laws that's why states can say you can grow marihuana . But the federal goverment can bust your ass … and have!!!!!! And no state can make law over the constatution if so makes such law null and void
There are no federal laws that supersede state laws regarding driver licensing and registration. Federal definitions apply to federal laws, not state ones. The existence of a definition in a federal law doesn't mean that states are only allowed to use that definition, ever. Federal definitions are explicitly limited to federal law, even in the US Code.
Just one issue: The state can also tell the federal government, in essence, to fuck off when it comes to unreasonable regulation or prohibition. Marijuana is NOT a dangerous drug, has MANY medical benefits, AND provides significant economical advantages. Thus it is not LEGALLY a schedule 1 drug, and the state can refuse to allow federal enforcement of said prohibition. HOWEVER, prohibitions of drugs that ARE inherently dangerous, such as heroin and methamphetamine, ARE reasonable, and federal enforcement of the prohibitions of those substances CANNOT be refused by states.
By the way, if you're going by Black's Law, the latest definition I've seen (6th Edition, 1990) defines "driver" as "a person actually doing driving, whether employed by owner to drive or driving his own vehicle" and "driving" as "to urge forward under guidance, compel to go in a particular direction, urge onward, and direct the course of."
That is Black's Law but what has the Supreme Court said about the definition of Driver? Have they clarified it or just left it open to interpretation?
The U.S. Supreme Court? It doesn't have the power to define it for the states.
…and exactly who brought you this "new and improved" definition?…the Government!…Why?…to maintain their control over the public and collect all that tax money they make through all those mandatory driver's licenses, vehicle registrations and forced insurance!!!…How generous is our Master!!!!
The population has been brainwashed into thinking that "traveling" is the same as "driving"…why?…control and endless revenue!
The freedom to "travel" has been given to us by God and is protected by our Constitution. It is the freedom to travel any time we want from point "A" to point "B" without being harassed by government. "Driving" has always been a "privilege" because it involves commerce on public roadways. "Traveling" can't be restricted by a special "license" to use Public Highways, roads and sidewalks. For a member of the public who pays taxes to build and maintain the different traveling routes throughout our nation can't be taxed by government demanding everyone bend over and insert a "special driver's license" up their asses just to make government richer and happier, but the public more "slave-ish". If government can control every aspect of your life then and only then is it truly happy…especially when it means confusing the hell out of the populace to think they need a "diver's license" in order to use any public roadway! The ability to travel freely from State to State within our borders has already been addressed by our Constitution and the Constitution says it can't be regulated by some asshole at the DMV who wants to keep the public in the dark about their being a private profit making corporation that only wants to get richer through your generous "gifts"…too funny!
The trouble is that you're incapable of understanding that driving isn't about commerce. That knowledge is plainly written in each state code, but forever beyond your grasp.
Government is not restricted by some vague and arbitrary "God's law" that people make up as they please. It is based on clear, citable constitutions, legislation and court decisions. The federal Constitution doesn't say that.. As mentioned in the first paragraph of the article, the federal courts determined there was a Constitutional right to enter and exit the several States free of taxation, that's all. The federal Constitution and law has never established a right to travel by any mode whatsoever on the public highways generally, but has left regulation of that to the States under their police power, as stated by the Supreme Court several times such as also cited in the article.
Break open your copy of Black's Legal Dictionary and look up the definitions in that book…"driving" is not the same as "traveling"; "traveling" is a RIGHT protected by the Constitution; however, "driving" is not a protected RIGHT and being so, it is a "privilege" because it involves commerce and because of that it can be taxed through the necessary "Driver's License" everybody gets confused with "traveling" all the time because Government loves a confused flock…
State law is based on the State constitution, legislation made by the State legislature created in accordance with the State constitution, and decisions by the State courts also created by the State constitution. Black's law dictionary is published by a Canadian corporation, Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd, and is not binding on the States.
In order for constitution to be changed takes 2/3 of house and 2/3 of Senate
OK, but he was talking about a law. Changing those requires a majority of the legislature and an executive signature, or, as suggested, a successful argument in court that the law is unconstitutional.
Right!…and Truth gets Truer, Light gets brighter, men become women, women become tasmanian devils, birds become frogs, shit becomes diamonds…bullshit!!!
The entire point of this article is to illustrate the fact that licensing and registration laws do not violate the U.S. Constitution.
That is so amusing. This issue has already been discussed previously in the discussion you silly git. The issue here was a simple procedural one. The prosecuting attorney did not plead the case using the correct statutory language nor did he prove the elements of the crime as required. You nut cases who cherry pick a phrase or two and do not use logic or context to consider what is going on in the case need to be staked out over an ant hill.
What is DRIVER?(Black's Law Dictionary)
One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other
vehicle,with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or
motor car, though not a street railroad car. See Davis v. Petrinovich,
112 Ala. 654, 21 South. 344, 36 L. R. A.615; Gen. St. Conn. 1902,
What is OPERATOR?(Black's Law Dictionary)
1. Any person or a device that enables another device to function.
2. A function
used in mathematics, usually given a symbol (such as + or -).
3. In telecoms, one might call an operator when experiencing problems
connecting with a particular number or for information.
What is VEHICLE? (Black's Law Dictionary)
The word “vehicle” includes every description of carriage or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on land. Rev. St. U. S. 5 4 (U. S. Comp. St 1901, P. 4
What is LICENSE?(Black's Law Dictionary)
In the law of contracts. A permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or a tort.
State v. Hipp, 38 Ohio St. 220; Youngblood v. Sexton, 32 Mich. 406, 20
Am. Rep. 054; Hubman v. State, 61 Ark. 4S2. 33 S. W. 843; Chicago v.
Collins, 175 111. 445. 51 N. E. 907, 49 L. R. A. 40S, 67 L. R. A. 224.
Also the written evidence of such permission. In real property law.
An authority to do a particular act or series of acts upon an- other's
land without possessing any estate therein. Clifford v. O'Neill, 12 App.
Div. 17, 42 X. Y. Supp. 607; Davis v. Townsend, 10 Barb. (X. Y.) 343;
Morrill v. Mackman, 24 Mich. 282, 9 Am. Rep. 124; W.vnu v. Garland, 19
Ark. 23, 08 Am. Dec. 190; Cheever v. Pearson, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 266.
Its a contract from a corporation and the highways are public land not state owned all law is contract as well as the government by constitution is a contract with the people.
I strongly recommend going to a library and looking at a copy of Black's Law Dictionary that's less than a hundred years out of date. By the way, definitions in Black's Law Dictionary are not binding on Texas courts, or any other courts in this or any other country. Black's updates to follow the definitions actually used by the courts, not the other way around.
The constitution is binding in every state if you reserve your rights under it and take the oath of office in with you when you go to court ,never show up in court without a copy of the contract they swore to uphold and tell them you accept the contract right away.Or you have only statutes and no rights.
Statutes are laws, though. There's nothing in the federal, state, or territorial constitutions that contradicts non-commercial driver licensing and vehicle registration laws. Citations to century-old, superseded definitions from a private company's dictionary don't change that fact.
Apparently you are wrong! There are afew that stipulate that an automobile is to be deemed a carriage, household private property, and not the same as a motor vehicle!
I believe one of those cases was Author v Morgan if I remember correctly! It's been a few years…. I know that there is at least 6 cases though! I have them saved, but my PC is down right now. Having to respond to this through use of a tablet!
Those decisions are not relevant to what a motor vehicle is in state transportation codes or how they're regulated on the highways. A plumber can also be a Catholic.
Statutes are not "laws" if there is no harm, injury, damage or fraud involved then it's only color of law.
Here’s the legal interpretation,
The Supreme Court has warned, "Because of what appear to be Lawful commands [Statutory Rules, Regulations and -codes–ordinances- and Restrictions] on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance… [deceptive practices, constructive fraud, barratry, legal plunder, conversion, and malicious prosecution in inferior administrative State courts]." (United States v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187, 76 S.Ct. 281, 100 L.Ed. 185 (1956);….
Here it is copy & pasted from the case found at ,
Cornell University legal institute
US v Minker
* * * True, there can be no penalty incurred for contempt before there is a judicial order of enforcement. But the subpoena is in form an official command, and even though improvidently issued it has some coercive tendency, either because of ignorance of their rights on the part of those whom it purports to command or their natural respect for what appears to be an official command, or because of their reluctance to test the subpoena's validity by litigation.' Cudahy Packing Co., Ltd. v. Holland, 315 U.S. 357, 363—364, 62 S.Ct. 651, 654—655, 86 L.Ed. 895.
These concerns, relevant to the construction of this ambiguously worded power, are emphatically pertinent to investigations that constitute the first step in proceedings calculated to bring about the denaturalization of citizens. See Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, 63 S.Ct. 1333, 87 L.Ed. 1796; Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665, 64 S.Ct. 1240, 88 L.Ed. 1525. This may result in 'loss of both property and life, or of all that makes life worth living.' Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276, 284, 42 S.Ct. 492, 495, 66 L.Ed. 938. In such a situation where there is doubt it must be resolved in the citizen's favor. Especially must we be sensitive to the citizen's rights where the proceeding is nonjudicial because of '(t)he difference in security of judicial over administrative action * * *.' Ng Fung Ho v. White, supra, 259 U.S. at page 285, 42 S.Ct. at page 495.
You've stripped the context from this case to make it appear to say something it does not.
Your first quotation is a complete fabrication. It's fake. It appears nowhere in the U.S. v. Minker decision.
Your second quotation is real, but it is in the context of a case interpreting the scope of a federal statute (law) granting immigration officers subpoena power. Nowhere in the decision did the court suggest that the statute is not law, is not enforceable, requires individual consent, or is otherwise invalid. The question was about whether the defendant in an immigration hearing can be subpoenaed as a "witness" under the wording of the law.
Your "no harm, no law" doctrine is a complete fiction.
Explain this then asshole !
Here’s the legal interpretation,
The Supreme Court has warned, "Because of what appear to be Lawful commands [Statutory Rules, Regulations and -codes–ordinances- and Restrictions] on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance… [deceptive practices, constructive fraud, barratry, legal plunder, conversion, and malicious prosecution in inferior administrative State courts]." (United States v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187, 76 S.Ct. 281, 100 L.Ed. 185 (1956);….
Here it is copy & pasted from the case found at ,
Cornell University legal institute
US v Minker
* * * True, there can be no penalty incurred for contempt before there is a judicial order of enforcement. But the subpoena is in form an official command, and even though improvidently issued it has some coercive tendency, either because of ignorance of their rights on the part of those whom it purports to command or their natural respect for what appears to be an official command, or because of their reluctance to test the subpoena's validity by litigation.' Cudahy Packing Co., Ltd. v. Holland, 315 U.S. 357, 363—364, 62 S.Ct. 651, 654—655, 86 L.Ed. 895.
These concerns, relevant to the construction of this ambiguously worded power, are emphatically pertinent to investigations that constitute the first step in proceedings calculated to bring about the denaturalization of citizens. See Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, 63 S.Ct. 1333, 87 L.Ed. 1796; Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665, 64 S.Ct. 1240, 88 L.Ed. 1525. This may result in 'loss of both property and life, or of all that makes life worth living.' Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276, 284, 42 S.Ct. 492, 495, 66 L.Ed. 938. In such a situation where there is doubt it must be resolved in the citizen's favor. Especially must we be sensitive to the citizen's rights where the proceeding is nonjudicial because of '(t)he difference in security of judicial over administrative action * * *.' Ng Fung Ho v. White, supra, 259 U.S. at page 285, 42 S.Ct. at page 495.
Nice burn ken!
Ok so you have 3 branches of government right and all powers must remain separate and distinct right, so if the legislative branch creates these statues and codes then tell me how the executive and judicial powers us them on the American people without violatating due process and violating their oath of office and violating human rights huh. The whole drivers license registration etc is private business with no real benefits to humans nor prevents anything like car accidents, more people with a DL have more wrecks involving fatalities than people who don t use that corporate card call a DL, so this is all a ploy to make money off of the American people and it violates all constitutional rights of a human being, and it seems you're all for that huh.
The powers are distinct but complimentary. They work together while opposing and checking each other. For details of the intended cooperation and distinction you will have to read legal scholars and court decisions on the topic, which you can find with a little research.
It is widely accepted that class-based licensing, registration, financial responsibility laws and general highway regulations do assist in keeping the public roads safe for everyone to use. Some Supreme Court cases on that are found in the article you're commenting on, and more can also be found through search.
As always in law, ultimately the courts have the power to interpret and decide the intent and application of law, and personal interpretations and opinions are irrelevant, but thanks for sharing.
“Widely accepted” and the law are 2 completely different things. The government can not take away natural rights in the name of safety. If that’s how you like it, I’m sure North Korea can make room for you.
The government doesn't recognize unwritten, subjective "natural rights." All federal and state law devolves from the federal and state Constitutions. As for common law, it is true that most states received English common law court decisions via their Constitutions or legislation, but those decisions are able to be, and most have been, modified by post-reception legislation and court decisions.
Read the Constitution, then get back to me about the different roles of the three branches.
Yeah, I don't see that in US v Minker, 350 US 179.
Actually the first one is a legal interpretation of US v Minker the next 2 were copy and pasted from US v Minker on Cornell University legal institute website … So if it's written into the court case as I provided then …
Yo ass is wrong !
Get Outlook for Android
It is not written into the court case as you provided. In any case, it lacks context, has dubious bracketed insertions, and doesn't say "statutes are not laws." Where is it from?
(I'm guessing it was simply copied and pasted from a conspiracy website without examination.)
Insert this up yo ass !
Here’s the legal interpretation,
The Supreme Court has warned, "Because of what appear to be Lawful commands [Statutory Rules, Regulations and -codes–ordinances- and Restrictions] on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance… [deceptive practices, constructive fraud, barratry, legal plunder, conversion, and malicious prosecution in inferior administrative State courts]." (United States v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187, 76 S.Ct. 281, 100 L.Ed. 185 (1956);….
Here it is copy & pasted from the case found at ,
Cornell University legal institute
US v Minker
* * * True, there can be no penalty incurred for contempt before there is a judicial order of enforcement. But the subpoena is in form an official command, and even though improvidently issued it has some coercive tendency, either because of ignorance of their rights on the part of those whom it purports to command or their natural respect for what appears to be an official command, or because of their reluctance to test the subpoena's validity by litigation.' Cudahy Packing Co., Ltd. v. Holland, 315 U.S. 357, 363—364, 62 S.Ct. 651, 654—655, 86 L.Ed. 895.
These concerns, relevant to the construction of this ambiguously worded power, are emphatically pertinent to investigations that constitute the first step in proceedings calculated to bring about the denaturalization of citizens. See Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, 63 S.Ct. 1333, 87 L.Ed. 1796; Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665, 64 S.Ct. 1240, 88 L.Ed. 1525. This may result in 'loss of both property and life, or of all that makes life worth living.' Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276, 284, 42 S.Ct. 492, 495, 66 L.Ed. 938. In such a situation where there is doubt it must be resolved in the citizen's favor. Especially must we be sensitive to the citizen's rights where the proceeding is nonjudicial because of '(t)he difference in security of judicial over administrative action * * *.' Ng Fung Ho v. White, supra, 259 U.S. at page 285, 42 S.Ct. at page 495.
Ken, hate to tell you this, his first part is in the case file. Not saying anything else, just that you are incorrect in stating that it is not written, and this is no conspiracy site.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/350/179.html
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/315/357.html#363
I don't see "Because of what appear to be Lawful commands [Statutory Rules, Regulations and -codes–ordinances- and Restrictions] on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance… [deceptive practices, constructive fraud, barratry, legal plunder, conversion, and malicious prosecution in inferior administrative State courts]." anywhere in either of those cases.
You are correct.
Guess your pseudolaw degree forgot to understand a fucking legal interpretation by learning to comprehend legalese HUH ?
Here’s the legal interpretation,
The Supreme Court has warned, "Because of what appear to be Lawful commands [Statutory Rules, Regulations and -codes–ordinances- and Restrictions] on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance… [deceptive practices, constructive fraud, barratry, legal plunder, conversion, and malicious prosecution in inferior administrative State courts]." (United States v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187, 76 S.Ct. 281, 100 L.Ed. 185 (1956);….
Here it is copy & pasted from the case found at ,
Cornell University legal institute
US v Minker
* * * True, there can be no penalty incurred for contempt before there is a judicial order of enforcement. But the subpoena is in form an official command, and even though improvidently issued it has some coercive tendency, either because of ignorance of their rights on the part of those whom it purports to command or their natural respect for what appears to be an official command, or because of their reluctance to test the subpoena's validity by litigation.' Cudahy Packing Co., Ltd. v. Holland, 315 U.S. 357, 363—364, 62 S.Ct. 651, 654—655, 86 L.Ed. 895.
These concerns, relevant to the construction of this ambiguously worded power, are emphatically pertinent to investigations that constitute the first step in proceedings calculated to bring about the denaturalization of citizens. See Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, 63 S.Ct. 1333, 87 L.Ed. 1796; Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665, 64 S.Ct. 1240, 88 L.Ed. 1525. This may result in 'loss of both property and life, or of all that makes life worth living.' Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276, 284, 42 S.Ct. 492, 495, 66 L.Ed. 938. In such a situation where there is doubt it must be resolved in the citizen's favor. Especially must we be sensitive to the citizen's rights where the proceeding is nonjudicial because of '(t)he difference in security of judicial over administrative action * * *.' Ng Fung Ho v. White, supra, 259 U.S. at page 285, 42 S.Ct. at page 495.
The framers of the constitution had the old language and its constitutional that is why most churches today change the meaning of the Bible to say its a modern way of life the foundation of the law never changes ,only the people change the foundation and destroy the message and their country.
Give me a call when you're able to overthrow the United States and abolish Article III of the U.S. Constitution, then.
Article III
Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall
be vested in one supreme Court, All other courts are subject to their decisions.PERIOD
Article III
Section 2
1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases,
in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of
the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made,
under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other
public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and
maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United
States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more
States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;10 —between Citizens of different States,
—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants
of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof,
and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Yeah, that's the bit you apparently want to abolish. Good luck with that.
you need to read and understand that the Supreme court has all the jurisdiction of all cases in law and equity throughout all states and if you walk in with state cases you will lose ,Walk in with supreme law cases to win. States and judges are bound thereby.
Except that there is a grand total of zero Supreme Court decisions which invalidate non-commercial driver licensing, vehicle registration, or auto insurance laws. There is no Supreme, Circuit, U.S. District, or even state court precedent that invalidates them. We've covered this over and over on this page, servant. Our right to travel is not the same thing as a right to drive a car.
It's funny you say this bc it proves your ignorance of the facts regarding the law. Copy and paste this into your browser, read the ruling and let me know if you are still so arrogantly confident in your lack of knowledge and facts….. https://wearechange.org/u-s-supreme-court-says-no-license-necessary-to-drive-automobile-on-public-highwaysstreets/
Hey Chris, Go read the first case on that page for yourself and come back and tell us if you still believe that web page is accurately representing the law.
I don't see a problem. What makes you think otherwise?
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3467100988685921366
Deleting my posts?😂😂😂 I guess you are unaware of the first ammendment too huh? Just bc you disagree with me you have to silence me? Wow! I bet you are a liberal democrat too huh?
So….. you are saying a state court ruling in 1930 overrules a U.S. supreme court ruling from 2015? 😂😂😂 wtf? Really?😂😂😂
Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 “Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. “No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances.”
Try to find a proper source for those cases and read them for yourself. The web site(s) you are citing from have already been exposed as misrepresenting citations.
This is the classic exercise in cherry picking a quote from a case and then arguing that it supports a position which was not addressed by the court in the opinion. In fact this West Virginia case from 1915 invokes a drayman who challenged the restrictions placed on common carriers by states and municipalities involving times of day, routes etc. He lost because the court found that while traveling was a right, the legislature had the absolute right to regulate the activity of such traffic on public highways, including the licensing of commercial carriers, prescribing of designating routes, hours etc.
Here, see what the American Bar Association has to say about the right to travel!!!
Do You Have a Right to Travel? Quote 1 Articles of Confederation …
PDFAmerican Bar Association › publications
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/insights_law_society/LG_RighttoTravel_quoteshandout.authcheckdam.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwi0rd2BhrrXAhWJ3YMKHeAICmgQFggmMAA&usg=AOvVaw02rZYWuYAL507u1jRu-ckg
As usual you mistake the right to travel with the right to disregard any rules regarding driver's licenses. The courts and all of them have repeatedly stated that reasonable limitations can be placed on the right to travel, This is the common problem with the folks arguing otherwise. They snip gobbets of caselaw from cases which do not involve the point they are advocating or they pick out snippets they like and ignoring the other parts.
Unfortunately you are confusing "driving" with "traveling". A person needs no "license" to travel by any means he desires on public roadways (ie "roadways paid for by the public taxes"); however, a person using those same public roadways for commerce by law needs to be "licensed" to use his vehicle on those same roadways. I'm not saying that this is a play on words, but once a definition, a definition from a legal dictionary that definition can't change at the author's whim, no matter what the fashion is that day. Most of the court cites used to disclaim the "traveling v. driving" arguments have been based upon decisions that used those "legal definitions"; however, the public is never told this and for that reason have thought that "driving" is a "priviledge" which is absolutely correct; however, the legal term and definition of "traveling" has never come up and clearly defined as it appears in the accepted definitions of a legal dictionary (ie "Blacks Legal Dictionary ). Just like you cannot be forced to procure a "license" to walk, ride a bicycle or travel in a personal means of transportation. Because he has been part of the "public" who pays his taxes, he pays for any/all "public highways, roads and paths" hence he is part owner of those roadways and because of that he can't be forced to procure a special "license" to use his personal roadways. The main problem that so much confusion has been passed on to the public is that the government and private enterprises have twisted the truth into something they wanted to be in charge of and limit the use by the public to only those individuals who have paid for a special "license" to "drive" ("drive" now the same as "travel") upon their regulated roadways…even though the public have been paying for these roadways all along…they just accept as truth the rules and regulations the government and private enterprises want to control something that can generate huge amounts of revenue…that never comes back to the public…even when the public have been paying for those roadways all along! "Drivers" should be the only ones responsible for a "Driver's License", Vehicle Registration and even Forced Insurance! Members of the general public should never be charged for any of the above when they only want to use their own property in a manner they desire…as long as they are not using those roadways for commerce! I really don't give a shit what the courts say, the present day courts! If you study the court decisions from the early 1900's on you will see many court cites supporting this as explained above…the only reason for the confusion comes down to REVENUE GENERATION!!!
You are just repeating the same nonsensical pseudo-legal arguments that have already been used.
Many State vehicle codes define "driver", "driving", etc. for use within their codes and there is no commerce requirement. What State are you in (or "on", as you may prefer?) I'm sure I can find the definitions that apply there.
Exactly what part of "Life, Liberty and Property".."UNALIENABLE RIGHTS"…don't you understand? I realize that you think you are a pretty intelligent person, but what came first?…"GOD"…the Universe…Earth…The Declaration of Independence…the Constitution…Lawyers…or bottom feeders like yourself??? I know this is a hard one so I made it multiple choice. You see, we are in the shit because of people like yourself…smart fucking attorneys who excel at twisting a truth into something it isn't…and vice versa. If we Citizens hadn't let you clowns loose in DC along with the damned lobbyists we wouldn't be in the shit we're in today…this topic included. Study what the law said when this question of "driving" versus "traveling" first hit the courts. "Driving" was only present when the "traveling" involved making money using the Public Roadways. "Traveling" was never questioned and a "license" wasn't necessary back then if there was no commerce. If you study any of the court cases back then you will see that this is the norm…before the bottom feeders like yourself got hold of it and then your butt banging buddies the politicians (ie "glorified attorneys") found out there was money to be made by not only making those "drivers" involved with commerce while using the Public Roadways…but, what the fuck…let's tell EVERYONE who is interested in "traveling", even if they weren't involved with commerce, make the stupid bastards pay anyway and we'll all pocket the funds on top of what we collect from the lobbyists every damned day!!! And off we went on a spiraling free fall down the fucking shitter! And who do we have to thank for this "special" gift? Why you of course! I'm working on something that I will be sending you and I'm pretty sure you'll love it! Now, get back to business fucking over every asshole you convince that you're the best thing since sliced bread…and you cost more too!
WAIT!!!!
Damn!!! I forgot, you think "The Creator God" is just bullshit to placate the masses, right? So, I'm guessing that you are going to ignore the part about "God" aren't you? I'll try to be more creative in my next retort…I just wish I could be there the second you breath your last breath on this earth and close your eyes and then open them to a pretty pissed off GOD…not your "god" Satan, the real "GOD"…just before you hit your knees and ask for His forgiveness…but, it will be too late…something to think about, huh?
Few to no rights are truly unalienable – they can all be limited reasonably for the health and safety of the people and security of the government. One should of course understand that individuals do not get to say what any legal term or right means in practice, but that's up to the courts and ultimately the Supreme Court who hold the judicial power to decide. So if you want to argue the lawful meaning of unalienable rights, God's law, natural law, etc., from the Declaration or other, and want it to be respected, you need to cite an authority like the Supreme Court.
WOW!!!! Aren't you the intellectual? I figured I'd get a "lawyer's answer" to my post. You assholes started in the Garden of Eden when you convinced Eve to take the big bite and you've been sucking off mankind ever since! I'm pretty sure that you and your "fraternal brothers" would shit can the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence if you thought you could make a buck in doing it. I'm pretty sure that the founding fathers, especially Jefferson would disagree with your fucked up way of thinking. Maybe you skipped over the shit he wrote while thinking about how many people you were going to fuck out of their last dollar when you graduated from law school didn't you? Why am I not surprised with your answer? As I remember somebody once saying "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." made way more sense than a succubus like yourself. As I remember it, most of those guys back then made a hell of a lot more sense than all of you assholes put together (tally up the bar boys!). In fact, all of them thought just the opposite of all you liberal bottom feeders! Maybe you should brush up on exactly how they defined "Liberty" and "unalienable" again before scribbling another inane observation of how you think the world should turn? I'll yak with you again later…I'm tires and am going to bed…don't stay up too late cramming for those Civics exams!
Neither the USA nor any country was created with respect for "individual sovereignty," where individuals do whatever they want. The best we have is law and order through representative democracy. If you want to be an outlaw and not respect the Constitutions or the legislatures or courts of the federal and state governments they created then I suggest you stop citing them as any type of authority in your arguments. Because the Constitution, Declaration, etc., certainly do not abolish the legislatures or courts, but empower them.
Why don't you supply us with an example! And provide the links to the DMV of that state, and location of their definition.
It's not hard to find state vehicle codes… Just google " vehicle code" and look for the official government legislation link. Or you can find a link for all states at a summary site like this. Definitions are usually found in the first section, but specific overriding definitions may also sometimes be found at the beginning of individual chapters for sections within that chapter.
I know what they are in my state, but I want you to prove your claim and provide one that fits your comment!
It is no big challenge… I have already done so several times throughout the comments on this article. e.g. for Arizona, Kansas, California, Illinois, North Carolina, Washington
That alleged excerpt from People v. Nothaus appears nowhere in the opinion text available from Justia, Casetext, or CaseMine. It's a fake.
As for 85 SE 781, I don't see a text available anywhere at all. Do you have a source for the whole opinion?
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. “Traffic infractions are not a crime.” People v. Battle “Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.”
drive is commercial and travel is non commercial.
Do you know how to find out if that's actually true? You read the law that was being interpreted at the time. Many jurisdictions define "drive" explicitly in their laws. If the legislature doesn't define a word explicitly, the court with jurisdiction to interpret the law may define it itself. So the law being interpreted in Thompson v Smith was apparently an ordinance of the city of Lynchburg in 1930. Specifically, "Section 134 of the general ordinances of the city of Lynchburg, as amended by an ordinance adopted September 22, 1925." I suggest you get a copy of the vehicle law from that time, and the rulings around it, so you know for sure whether the law applied to both commercial and non-commercial or just commercial activity.
Statutes are for person, not natural persons.
Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579 states the exact opposite of Chris' argument. The issue there was not the power of the city to restrict driving but rather the sloppiness of a portion of the law in allowing the chief of police to exercise arbitrary discretion in doing so. This is the problem that Chris and others have when they cherry pick gobbets of this or that from a statute or a court case without paying attention to the internet and external context of the gobbet.
Just realized that there is a typo in my comment on Thompson v Smith. It states, "without paying attention to the internet and external context of the gobbet" when in fact, it should state, "without paying attention to the internal and external context of the gobbet". I apologize for any confusion this error might have caused.
The difference between you and me is that I do read the rulings, while you just read the misleading excerpts posted on conspiracy sites.
You can drive without a license. You just get a ticket.
So I figure that the state laws do not restrict the right to travel because you would just get your ticket and continue on.
You guys are arguing over nothing.
A person can choose to drive without a license or registration or insurance its just that there is a consequence.
There will always be consequences for choices regardless of law or government
The freemen types are very insistent that you can't get a ticket so long as you know the right magic words and have the right enchanted parchments. Refuting their bizarre claims is entertaining!
Yes I find it interesting that they feel that their sovereignty has been taken away. Every human is a creature of free will. The ability to do as one chooses cannot be given or taken away
Article Six beautiful!!!
It is true that under the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, a Supreme Court decision will take precedence over a state court decision insofar as a matter which involves US Constitutional law. As others have pointed out, there is no SCOTUS case on point which invalidates the right and power of a state to control who drives an automobile upon the roads of that state. None.
The SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over state cases UNLESS a matter impacting federal law or the US Constitution is involved. So for example, if Alabama issued a law provided that all children of Southern Baptists derivation would receive free educations in public schools and universities up to and through advanced doctorate degrees but all children of other religious affiliations would have to pay full tuition to attend any public school in Alabama, the SCOTUS could hear a lawsuit involving that decision as it involves a violation of the 1st Amendment Establishment Cause.
The SCOTUS has ruled that people have the right to travel between the states. It has never said that this means anyone can operate a motor vehicle with no restrictions whatsoever on their competence to operate a motor vehicle. Likewise it has never said that one can just hop on an airplane and fly without going through security checks and proving who they are.
Here's a free 9th Edition copy on-line…all editions are available here. No need to guess or go to the library and even here in Canada, Black's Law Dic is referred to by Judges. https://solutions4theinnocent.wordpress.com/library/blacks-law-9th-edition
State and federal courts follow the state and federal constitutions and legislation, not a book made by a private Canadian corporation, Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. On a state vehicle code charge, state courts must follow the definitions found in the state vehicle code. If a definition is not found in the state code as applies to the section being charged under, the court decides and dictates the definition for use within its jurisdiction.
Thx Been looking for this PDF forever!!!!
Grace – this is a problem with lay people who do some Google research thinking they have the answers. In legal practice, a lawyer or judge looks first to statutes, precedents, and judicial decisions. When considering a judicial decision, there is a ranking system as well. If it is a matter solely of state law then that state's supreme tribunal [usually their supreme court] trumps an appellate court or district court of that state. If the decision impacts a federal law or the US Constitution in any fashion then the SCOTUS is the final authority. So one looks to the statute in question and how it has been applied in accordance with the legislative intention of the statute. Since a portion of a statute may rely on a definition found in another statute, you look at that first to see if it resolves the issue. If not then you look at previous court cases in the jurisdiction. If the statute is unclear on the issue before the court and there are no court cases in the state directly applicable to the issue, a judge might look at a court case from another jurisdiction in another state or even country addressing the same issue where the statute in question is similar but that case has no binding authority on the judge in his case.
Black's Law Dictionary, like a treatise on an aspect of law or a Law Journal article are secondary sources and are never the first source. They are not binding authority for anything. However, in the appropriate circumstances a judge might consult them and even cite to them.
The problem that most lay people have with law, as well as, science or medicine, is that often a word which has one meaning in common use has a very different and specific use in a professional setting such as law, medicine, science etc. Also, there might be a court case discussing an issue, say liability for an injury to another person. However, since that court decision issue in say, 1920, the issue in that case has been altered or completely changed by an act in a legislature which changed the definition of the terms and the duties of a person to not cause harm to another. Finally, lay people love to cherry-pick some gobbet of text from a court decision and apply it to their own situation when they have not looked at the context of the court decision – the issue decided and the facts it is based upon.
But hey, it's a free world. You can believe your internet search trumps my law degree and 35 years of experience. It is totally up to you. In fact if the case you are involved in is minor enough and the judge is amused by your argument and doesn't want to spend any time on the matter, he might even let you get away with it. However, he is more likely to laugh in your face and toss the book at you. Either way. it's no skin off my ass.
Sorry but cherry picking definitions out of Black's Law Dictionary means nothing at all. To determine the use of a term in a statute, one looks to see how the legislature in the particular jurisdiction defined the term.
For example, in California the Vehicle Code, section 305 states that "a 'driver' is a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle. The term “driver” does not include the tillerman or other person who, in an auxiliary capacity, assists the driver in the steering or operation of any articulated firefighting apparatus." Section 670 states that, "a “vehicle” is a device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks."
Each state has its own laws and under those laws defines the terms used in the statute. Where the definition is unclear the courts can under certain circumstances, interpret the intent of the legislature. Reciting a definition from 1902, a time when motorized motor vehicle were relatively rare, very expensive and usually owned by companies or very wealthy people who employed people to drive the vehicle is absurd.
2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or
which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States,
shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every
State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or
Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Yeah, so what. That proves my point.
Travel is travel whether done in a boat,car,horse,airplane,bike,its still travel and its a part of life that can not be removed.If you can not afford to buy insurance or license for your auto, then I suggest you stay home and die because its unlawful for you to use the roads to find a job or purchase food or work 20 miles away from home by walking carrying your tools to work.Think about what you are saying for a moment.Life requires all to travel from place to place,if not you die.
Well your opinion is almost amusing but again is proof of nothing. I suggest you actually learn some law instead of repeating that pastiche of sovereign citizen gibberish you people think is law. In fact you have the right to travel however that does not mean you get to hop into an airplane and take off without showing you are certified to fly the type of plane you wish to fly. You do not get to hop on a bus or train and demand to be transported somewhere without paying the train or bus operator the fare for carrying you. And you cannot operate an automobile on the public roads without following the laws in place for operation of the vehicle – insurance, proper equipment functioning on the vehicle, demonstrating you are competent to operate the vehicle etc. Likewise you cannot hop on an interstate highway and walk in the fast lane [well you can but you won't do it for long and you won't do it twice].
5 U.S. 137
Marbury v. Madison ()
Argued:
Decided:
"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways
and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage
or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or
permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579..
For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the
public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does
not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a
place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested
right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license
which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion."
State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073;
Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171;
Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256;
Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516
"We know of no inherent right in one to use the highways for
commercial purposes. The highways are primarily for the use of the
public, and in the interest of the public, the state may prohibit or
regulate … the use of the highways for gain."
Robertson vs. Dept. of Public Works, supra
How many laws do you want more ,a little more I will give you plenty for the right to life, liberty and property.LAWS
What does that have to do with licensing, registration, and insurance for non-commercial drivers and vehicles? Of course you have a right to travel, that doesn't mean you have a constitutional right to drive. And no, "driving" is not exclusive to commerce.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrhDM-6eQgg
Confused police officers are not sources of law. The law is clear, and it requires non-commercial driver licensing and vehicle registration in every state and territory. No precedent says otherwise.
You set the precedent and show its a right to travel not a privilege to pay gas tax and call it a privilege.Gas tax pays for the highways and its public roads not government roads.
I don't set the precedent, no. The courts do, and they've settled that the right to travel does not include a right to drive a car on public roads without regulation.
Shapiro v. Thompson,
394 U.S. 618 (1969), was a Supreme Court decision that helped to
establish a fundamental "right to travel" in U.S. law. Although the
Constitution does not mention the right to travel, it is implied by the
other rights given in the Constitution.
Shapiro v. Thompson – WikipediaShapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), was a Supreme Court decision that helped to establish a fundamental "right to travel" in U.S. law.
Although the Constitution does not mention the right to travel, it is
implied by the other rights given in the Constitution. (Although the
right was recognized under the Equal Protection clause in this case,
pre-Fourteenth Amendment, the right to travel was understood as
protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause (Article IV), as a
privilege of citizenship, and therefore might have been applied to the
states under the Privileges or Immunities Clause of Amendment XIV, as J.
Stewart wanted.) — Excerpted from Shapiro v. Thompson on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Yes. There is a constitutional right to travel in U.S. law. There is not a constitutional right to drive a car on public roads. Showing me that there is a right to travel is not an argument against driver licensing and vehicle registration laws.
Well if you get your horse and buggy out on the highways then what would they say about your right to travel,You have no right to use public hiways with a horse because it impedes the flow of traffic,People can either ride a horse or automobile better yet a vehicle for travel notice the US law on vehicle made for travel not driving."
The Right of the Citizen to travel
upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either
by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a
city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court says
No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets
U.S. Supreme Court
319 U.S. 105 (1943)
MURDOCK
v.COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
.' It could hardly be
denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the license tax imposed by this ordinance is in substance just that.
That's true, you don't have a constitutional right to ride a horse on public roads, either. It is in the states' police power to regulate the noncommercial use of horses on public roads, as well.
What is POLICE POWER?(Black's Law Dictionary)
The powers granted by the constitution to the tate in order to govern, establish, adopt as well as enforce laws that are designed for the protection as well as preservation of the public health. The government also gets the right to make use of private property for public usage.
Police power is limited to the constitution from any state ,They pass law that is unconstitutional and try to police them is void.The constitution is supreme law of the land ,PERIOD.lOOK UP POLICE POWERS IN 2ND EDITION OF BLACKS LAW. PROTECTED BY THE 9 TH AMENDMENT
Amendment IX
The
enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Except that driver licensing and vehicle registration laws are completely constitutional…
Wrong!
The constitution doesn't mention either of those
Where are you getting your info from?
If a thing is not unconstitutional, it is therefore constitutional.
What is not forbidden by the Constitution is allowed by the Constitution.
Nothing in the U.S. Constitution forbids states to pass driver licensing and vehicle registration laws, therefore states can pass driver licensing and vehicle registration laws without violating the U.S. Constitution.
The US constitution says we have the right to travel.
The Calif SC ruled a right cannot be made into a privileged by charging a fee or requiring a license!
Gosh! My Alex Jones, anti-human, Bill Shakespeare "kill all the lawyers" mentality must be rampaging right on through that courthouse to come out with all 3 charges dismissed, eh Ken?
The US constitution doesn't say that. Rulings that outline rights are clear, not vague. There is a federal right to travel interpreted by the courts but it refers to the right to ingress and egress to and from the states, not the regulation of intrastate travel. No federal court or superior state court has been able to find grounds to strike down state vehicle codes generally, despite creative individual interpretations of what rulings mean.
Dismissal for lack of evidence or prosecutorial discretion is not the same as having a right recognized on the record that would enable you to win a claim for false arrest or other damages, get state laws struck down, etc. that would be able to be done if you had an actual right. So, what exact reason did the police, prosecutor or courts give for allegedly dropping a case against you?
As previously explained over and over and over, the right to travel does not include a right to drive a car or truck.
"…when using the public highways for the transaction of their business] with respect to common carriers using the public highways for the transaction of their business in the transportation of persons or property for hire. That rule is stated as follows by the supreme court of the United States: 'A citizen may have, under the fourteenth amendment, the right to travel and transport his property upon them (the public highways) by auto vehicle, but he has no right to make the highways his place of business by using them as a common carrier for hire. Such use is a privilege which may be granted or withheld by the state in its discretion, without violating either the due process clause or the equal protection clause.' (Buck v. Kuykendall, 267 U. S. 307 [38 A. L. R. 286, 69 L. Ed. 623, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 324].)
Can you find a single court case where driver licensing was found unconstitutional?
How about a horse and buggy? Or a skateboard?
No, none of those either? LOL!
You really are digging your hole deeper and deeper!
Btw, courts have ruled cars and trucks have the "right" to use the roads as any other mode of transportation, so I wonder where it is you are getting your kooky ideas from?
It's true, the right to travel doesn't guarantee a natural right to ride a horse, moped, bicycle, or even your own two feet completely free of regulation. There are roads pedestrians can't use, sidewalks forbidden for bicycles, and so on.
The courts have not found that individuals have an unburdened right to drive cars and trucks in public places.
Yeah they have. Long ago. No one disputes this.
And why don't you know what the legal term "willfulness" means ?
I dispute it. You haven't been able to show a single decision that says so. Nobody on this entire site has.
And again, you insist on mixing words. "the right to travel does not include a right to drive a car or truck" is actually true, but not for the reason you think. Everyone has a right to travel USING their car or truck! But it does not include a right to DRIVE (which entails commerce/for hire)! Do you understand it now! Driving has nothing to do with traveling! And traveling has nothing to do with driving! They are two separate legal terms! Traveling is driving without being employed to/for hire/ or commerce!!!!!!!!!!!
State legislatures (or courts where the legislature is silent) have a specific definition for "drive" as applies to the specific section of the vehicle laws you may be charged under. You can't simply make up your own and force it upon a court to exempt yourself from the law.
In the codes that govern licensing, registration, and traffic law, "driving" most certainly includes operating a motorized vehicle for non-commercial use. Your pseudolegal attempt to replace the actual law with a Canadian textbook is void as far as the law is concerned.
Ken – you have that totally backwards. You have fallen into the EXACT trap that those in power now WANT you to believe. that the Constitution is what grants YOU your rights.. it DOES NOT.
The Constitution tells the Government the rights of OURS that IT can't infringe upon. It's a document LIMITING the central/federal government, thus whatever is NOT specifically stated that in terms of the powers GIVEN TO IT BY THE PEOPLE means it does NOT have that power.
The Constitution ONLY GRANTS the central government the power to regulate INTERSTATE COMMERCE via the Commerce clause of Article 1, section 8, clause 3.. that means that because there is NOTHING LISTED as creating police forces, telling people what or how to drive on the PUBLIC ROADS, which includes using the conveyances of the time are NOT powers given to the government, EXCEPT as it deals with commerce.. period.
This is why the 9th and 10th amendments leave every other possible power, law or authority that is possible that is NOT SPECIFICALLY given to the central government in the Constitution Automatically becomes a state power.
BUT.. NO STATE can make a law going against the Constitution which includes the right to free traveling using the Conveyances of the time on the public roads paid for by taxes.
“It is held that a tax upon common carriers by motor vehicles is based
upon a reasonable classification, and does not involve any unconstitutional
by discrimination,although it does not apply to private vehicles, or those used the owner in his own business, and not for hire.” Desser v. Wichita, (1915) 96 Kan. 820; Iowa Motor Vehicle Asso. v. Railroad Comrs., 75 A.L.R. 22
Thus if you are a bus driver, truck driver, taxi driver, THEN they can make you get a license, which is permission to do that which is otherwise ILLEGAL as it clearly says in Blacks 8th and Bouviers and is a general definition as well. The license is also a right to operate a business which is why Electricians, plumbers, contractors all have to be licensed.. It doesn't mean they have a certain skill level, it simply means that they have PERMISSION FROM THE GOVERNMENT (King) to engage in that business for profit.
Those who use the public roads for profit also must be licensed to use those roads and pay a USE TAX to do so.
No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring, licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances." Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22.
USE DETERMINES classification.. not type of conveyance.
The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241,
28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household
effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly
disposed of." Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir.
1907).
"All household goods owned by the user thereof and used solely for noncommercial purposes shall be exempt from taxation, and such person entitled to such exemption shall not be required to take any affirmative action to receive the benefit from such exemption." Ariz. Const. Art. 9, 2.
"Automobile purchased for the purpose of transporting buyer to and from his place of employment was "consumer goods" as defined in UCC 9-109." Mallicoat v Volunteer Finance & Loan Corp., 3 UCC Rep Serv 1035; 415 S.W.2d 347 (Tenn. App., 1966).
Cars are automatically defined as Consumer goods, NOT automobiles and as such NO LICENSE Is necessary to use such carriages in traveling on the public roads. Only when you make the public roads your place of BUSINESS FOR PROFIT can the state then regulate that activity.
The use to which an item is put, rather than its physical characteristics, determine whether it should be classified as "consumer goods" under UCC 9-109(1) or "equipment" under UCC 9-109(2)." Grimes v Massey Ferguson, Inc., 23 UCC Rep Serv 655; 355 So.2d 338 (Ala., 1978).
"it is held that a tax upon common carriers my motor vehicles is based upon a reasonable classification, and does not involve any unconstitutional discrimination, although it does not apply to private vehicles, or those used the owner in his own business, and not for hire.” Desser v. Wichita, (1915) 96 Kan. 820; Iowa Motor Vehicle Asso. v. Railroad Comrs., 75 A.L.R. 22.
"The right of a citizen to travel upon the highway and transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business differs radically an obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain, in the running of a stage coach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of a citizen, a right common to all; while the latter is special, unusual
and extraordinary. As to the former, the extent of legislative power is that of regulation; but as to the latter its power is broader; the right may be wholly denied, or it may be permitted to some and denied to others, because of its extraordinary nature. This distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities.” Haddad vs State Arizona
In other words.. the state ONLY has control over your carriage (which becomes a vehicle when used for commercial purposes/making a living/profit), nor do they have ANY authority or right under the Constitution to tell you how to PARK your car, carriage or conveyance in your own driveway especially, which is NOT part of the public highways!
This all perfectly jives with the various definitions of DRIVING that others have already mentioned AND IS ALSO mentioned in US TITLE 18 part 1 which all the states also derive their state laws from;
US Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 2:32
"The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo."
The term Used for commercial
purposes.— The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking
intended for profit.
(your state) State Transportation Code references the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations found in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR), CFR definition of Driver states; “Driver means any person who operates any commercial motor vehicle.” My personal carriage is not a commercial motor vehicle. (49 CFR 390.5)
First state law requiring all drivers to pass an exam before receiving a
[commercial use privilege] license took effect in July of 1913, in New
Jersey Beginning in 1920, courts began to hold that driving is not a
right, but a privilege that the state may revoke
"Guest"–One who comes along for pleasure, recreational, or private reasons without cost or without having to pay.
LICENSE
= license,n.1. A permission, usu. revocable, to commit some act that
would otherwise be unlawful; esp., an agreement (not amounting to a
lease or profit à prendre) that it is lawful for the licensee to enter
the licensor's land to do some act that would otherwise be illegal,
"Passenger"–One who pays, employs, or hires someone to transport themselves to another location
"Traveling
on the common way"–The act of locomotion and conveyance on the common
way for private, personal, and recreational purposes
"Driving
on the road"–The act of propelling a motor vehicle on the roadway or
highway by one who is employed or hired to transport goods or
passengers.
Thus this issue is NOT just about the license itself, but about the very classification of your car. The Supreme court has already determined that automobiles are consumer goods and household effects and can not be regulated, taxed (license, registration fee's, tickets (use tax) etc UNLESS you are using said consumer goods ON THE PUBLIC ROADS FOR PROFIT in which case is NOW BECOMES a vehicle and IS SUBJECT to the motor vehicle codes, having to have a license to operate a business etc.
That is why you can become an UBER DRIVE without needing a commercial license because your drives license is JUST THAT, a license to use the public roads for profit.
UNLESS you state otherwise that your car is consumer goods, it's ASSUMED to be a vehicle. I stated this as I was pulled over by a cop and when i said that my car was consumer goods the next thing he said was "oh, so you're not driving then? I said "that's correct, I'm traveling". I beat that and other registration and inspection tickets as well in the past so i KNOW this information is valid!
I believe that you also mentioned the California code, unless it was someone else.. but here is something to consider if you live in Cali.
The California Motor Vehicle Code, section 260: Private cars/vans etc.not in
commerce / for profit, are immune to registration fees
The following shall be exempt from the requirements of registration and certificate of title
1) Any such vehicle driven or moved upon the highways in conformance with the provisions of this Article relating to manufacturers, dealers, or nonresidents.”
2.) Any such vehicle which is driven or moved upon a highway othe purpose of crossing such highway from one property to another. ****20-51(1)(2) (comment: not driven or moved upon the highway for transporting persons or property for profit.) (Case note to North Carolina G.S. 12-3 “Statutory Construction”)
The California Constitution in Article I, Section 8 (and similar statements made in all other state constitutions) Mandates that no one "be compelled to be a witness against himself," is in agreement with the Supreme Court ruling in Haynes v. U.S., 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, wherein the ruling was that to force anyone to register anything is communicative and such communicative evidence is precluded by the 5th Amendment."
And remember, that "Traffic infractions are not a crime" 50 Cal app
I can go on and on with this, but this is already too long.. peace.
Laws as relate to safety on the public roads fall to the states pursuant to the tenth amendment, as agreed by the Supreme Court in this post and elsewhere. In a representative democracy featuring judicial review it is up to the courts to interpret the constitutions, laws and relevant precedent. There is no point in interpreting anything as an individual because it will not affect how the force of the state is applied. You need clear, unambiguous, applicable precedent. For a state traffic charge, that means precedent from a superior state court. If there were some federal right that could be engaged believe me someone would do it. You're not the first to think of this. You need to take your argument to a court, either in response to a fine or pre-emptively for a declaratory judgment. If you "don't trust the courts", well, the only alternative is a violent revolution and restarting all over again. Such an endeavor would be devastating to everything we've come to know and I don't think most people in western countries, who enjoy far more stability and justice than elsewhere, are up for that right now.
You're muddling completely separate issues and missing significant context. For one thing, no court or code has found that there is an inalienable right to drive a motorized vehicle. Driving and traveling are two separate things.
Automobiles can be household effects in one context, and motor vehicles subject to regulation in another. Your point in that regard is like saying "he can't be a plumber, he's already Catholic!"
You're trying to stitch together a legal principle out of misinterpreted scraps and sentences torn out of context and blended together. It's not working.
Time to end the useless eaters of government employees just passing laws to take more and more from the people so they live like kings off the backs of the people, AND that is why you have a second Amendment .Are you willing to die for your country and its peoples.
Have you ever considered the possibility that most of your neighbors think that drivers should be required to obtain a license?
I believe you're getting hung up on the term "Regulate". The law dictionary defines regulate as… The power to regulate commerce, vested in congress, is the power to prescribe the rules by which it (commerce) shall be governed, that is, the conditions upon which it (commerce) shall be conducted, to determine when it (commerce) shall be free, and when subject to duties or other exactions. The power also embraces within its control all the instrumentalities by which that commerce may be carried on, and the means by which it may be aided and encouraged.
Therefore, the police powers that are permitted to regulate, as in Thompson v. Smith, are still doing so in the realm of commerce. Remember that the definitions of the law are not the same as the definitions as you use them in everyday conversations.
I'm not using an obsolete, privately-published, and inapplicable legal definition, Mr. Bigbrain. I'm using the ordinary definition. The police power of the states is not limited to commerce.
That's why they've made a distinction between Driving (Commercial operation (License required)) and Travel (Non Commercial Travel (no license required)).
That is false. "Driving" is not defined as a commercial activity in state driver licensing and vehicle registration laws. Read the article.
Drive is a commerce term used in transportation of goods from state to state ,Interstate commerce not everyone is in commerce.
What is DRIVER? Look one EMPLOYED,,,,,EMPLOYED
One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other
vehicle,with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or
motor car, though not a street railroad car. See Davis v. Petrinovich,
112 Ala. 654, 21 South. 344, 36 L. R. A.615; Gen. St. Conn. 1902, (Black's Law Dictionary)
You are wrong for several reasons, all of which have already been addressed in comments here.
1. No, that is not the definition in Black's Law Dictionary. Go to a library.
2. The definition in Black's Law Dictionary is irrelevant to the interpretation of statutes which already include definitions.
This is not a school kids dictionary,its the one Judges use to define law phrases and words.You can't make up definitions as you go and no one is above the law.Pull the dictionary out in court and watch them squirm because they no longer can push meaningless words on you.I know I use it when I go to court and why do you need 12 versions of a dictionary for the same words,Its called FRAUD and the Judges and Lawyers squirm when you show them the dumbing down of the People.The Lawyers guild is without justice there is just us.Have you been brain washed by the public education system like common core,Were you ever taught the constitution in public school or the monetary system you use and call promissory notes to pay a dollar. Your Promissory notes is why you have public debt.Use title 12 subsection 411 for lawful money and drop the public debt like a smart American will do.Use lawful money of the United States instead of debt notes.Demand is made for lawful money like in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
Okay, that's enough. I've indulged you too long. Goodbye.
Wrong again!
If law dictionaries are irrelevant in a LAW court then we can make up our own definitions to suit our case if there is no local definition already in play, as in the common law, is what you are implying here. No, the only dictionary that is irrelevant in a courtroom is a Merriam Webster dictionary! Using the proper definitions in the court will help your case!
Law dictionaries are helpful for compiling the definitions used in practice, but judges are not obligated to defer to definitions written and published by private companies. If a statute defines one term in plain language, then Merriam-Webster is probably a more useful predictor of how a judge will interpret that definition.
BLACKS LAW 8th –
LICENSE
license,n.1. A permission, usu. revocable, to commit some
act that would otherwise be unlawful; esp., an agreement (not amounting
to a lease or profit à prendre) that it is lawful for the licensee to
enter the licensor's land to do some act that would otherwise be
illegal, such as hunting game. See SERVITUDE(1). PP 2691 Blacks Law 8th
VEHICLE
1. Something used as an instrument of conveyance. 2. Any conveyance used in transporting passengers or things by land, water, or air."Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) , Page 4822
passenger – n. a rider on a train, bus, airline, taxi, ship, ferry, automobile, or other carrier in the business of transporting people for a fee
(http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Passenger)
TRAFFIC – traffic,n.1. Commerce; trade; the sale or exchange of such things as merchandise, bills, and money. 2. The passing or exchange of goods or commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money. 3. People or things being transported along a route. 4. The passing
to and fro of people, animals, vehicles, and vessels along a transportation route.
Black's is created by a private Canadian corporation, Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. and is not mentioned in a state or federal constitution as having judicial powers. Black's follows and generalizes about a wide variety of courts, not the other way around. When a legislature defines a word in an act, chapter, subchapter, etc., it stands for interpretation of that act or applicable sections. If a legislature does not define a word, the court decides for use within its jurisdiction. You don't go into a court telling the court how to interpret the law. You go to a court to find out the court's interpretation of the law, and thereby how the force of the state will be applied. If you don't like a court's decision you can appeal to a superior court. After those opportunities are exhausted there's nothing you can do but try again or seek to have the law changed by a majority through your representatives.
What's your point? Those are recommended definitions published by a private corporation, not the ones used in transportation laws.
"There is not a constitutional right to drive a car on public roads."
Agreed but ….
There is no restriction in the constitution to driving or traveling in a automobile on public roads either !
Therefore the matter is a states matter!
The CVC section 260 defines who or what is a commercial driver/travelor vehicle and who/what is not required to register a motor vehicle!
It clearly states in plain language those vehicles used in commerce are "required"to be registered and those not engaged in commerce are NOT reqipuired to be registered.
I just won my court case on 3 counts, no licence, no registration and speeding. The first two were dismissed before the trial, the radar speeding was dismissed at trial! One thing is certain, if you don't fight these thieves you will lose every time! I'm 2 for 2 now as I won my pervious speeding ticket at court as well.
Btw, as defined by the Calif. Constitution Common Law is the superior law to use in Calif courts! That makes it easy peasy to get your case dismissed since there is no valid complaint of damages or a right violated!
Also a sovereign is recognized by the state are every person in that state so enough with the paranoia of the Judicial demonizing its own citizens with their sovereign citizen nonsense!
Yup. And all fifty states require driver licensing and vehicle registration.
No, Bill. CA Veh Code § 260 defines what a commercial vehicle is. It has nothing to do with the drivers. It has been interpreted to include pickup trucks
No, it does not. Read it again, Bill.
Good for you, but that doesn't change the licensing, registration, or speed requirements in the state of California.
Good luck, but statutes are and have always been a binding part of common law.
I have no idea what this sentence means, but I assume it fits in with your Alex Jones antisemitic nutjob lifestyle. Please don't murder any cops, Bill.
It clearly states in plain language those vehicles used in commerce are "required"to be registered and those not engaged in commerce are NOT reqipuired to be registered.
No, it does not. Read it again, Bill.
I read it to the judge as published and he dismissed the count! So, read it, Ken!
I just won my court case on 3 counts, no licence, no registration and speeding. The first two were dismissed before the trial, the radar speeding was dismissed at trial! One thing is certain, if you don't fight these thieves you will lose every time! I'm 2 for 2 now as I won my pervious speeding ticket at court as well.
Good for you, but that doesn't change the licensing, registration, or speed requirements in the state of California.
No but by using the CVC code as it is written as I did in both trials, one can win without changing the code, which FYI, only the legislature can do, Ken!
Btw, as defined by the Calif. Constitution Common Law is the superior law to use in Calif courts! That makes it easy peasy to get your case dismissed since there is no valid complaint of damages or a right violated!
Good luck, but statutes are and have always been a binding part of common law.
None of your luck needed here Ken, as the common law is superior to statue law as per the Calif Constitution. Sorry if that is at odds with your opinions. The judge in my case apparently agreed as well! I use only SCOTUS or state Supreme Court decisions in my defense which is why I have perfect willfulness and can't be punished for that but get those case dismissed!
Sure beats your advice about killing cops, doesn't it Ken ?
Please don't take on any clients to defend Ken,or give any advice, they all deserve better!
Wait, are you saying that it's bad advice when I recommend that you don't kill cops????
By the way, the "blockquote" tags would make that comment so, so much easier to read. Please look up the Disqus formatting tags.
Study English in general, too. What the heck is "perfect willfulness" and why do you think it would be a good thing?
I have no problem reading the way I post here and my eyes are almost 70 years old!
"Willfulness"is a legal term. You can look it up to learn for yourself, the best way to learn they say, Ken
Word meaning are especially important in a courtroom. I always define mine when needed and site the most current and superior definitions which are a surprise to some on occasion.
When state courts are dealing with a state vehicle code charge the definitions in play are found at the top of the subchapter, chapter, title, etc. with the nearer, more specific, definition overriding all the others. Courts can't ignore these definitions. If a definition is not legislated, then the court decides what the words mean, and it applies as precedent throughout that court's jurisdiction. The courts, not individuals, not dictionaries made by Canadian corporations (Black's), have a monopoly on interpreting the state and federal constitutions and laws made thereunder.
with the nearer, more specific, definition overriding all the others
Or "if absent of any other federal definition, " is the way I got Round that. Using their own codes language again to win!
A real win involves having rights clearly and unequivocally elucidated by the court, being paid damages and having unlawful state laws struck down. What court and case number are you referring to? State and federal jurisdictions are fairly independent. Read Hendrick v Maryland again.
In the absence of …
That's how I got them, I found they had to use the Federal definition which was NOT absent! It just requires some research, nothing you could find out asking an officer of the court an attorney sadly! Btw, these statutes masquerading as "safety" have been proven to not be for public "safety" but for a public derived source of revenue for localities and the states budget! The State of Montana proved that decades ago!
Police powers may belong to the state but they still can't violate a citizens Federal rights
Means, states have to protect our rights and follow the supreme law of the land the Federal Constitution. Police powers don't suspend the Constitution or our rights and neither does "martial law" !
A real win …
This was traffic court not state or federal appeals court! I got the "real" win with the dismissal. If I hadn't been dismissed I would have grounds for an appeal, then I could win on violation of my rights, that's federal rights! I'm surprised you acting as a lawyer/officer of the court, here don't know that?
What do state courts care about federal definitions? It doesn't matter whether there's a federal definition or not. Federal definitions apply to federal law, not state.
Apparently the courts agree and are now doing away with the 4th and 5th amendments for a traffic violation.
The Calif. traffic courts have done away with our constitutional right to a jury trial,
now they are doing away with the prosecuter saying that the ticketing revenue officer being a part of the executive branch is able to take the place of the prosecutor!
This is an obvious violation of the "separation of powers" but hey, as you said, state courts don't have to follow Federal rules, the constitution or definitions other than their own.
Again, realize you are dealing with criminals when going to court and take the neccessary precautions to protect yourself. Btw, I haven't paid bail in my last two trials! Don't ever give these thieves your 💰 is my motto! If I don't get my jury trial, they don't get my bail money !
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEHsectionNum=15210.
Vehicle Code – VEH
DIVISION 6. DRIVERS' LICENSES [12500 – 15325] ( Heading of Division 6 amended by Stats. 1961, Ch. 1615. )
CHAPTER 7. Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Program [15200 – 15325] ( Chapter 7 added by Stats. 1988, Ch. 1509, Sec. 9. )
ARTICLE 2. Definitions [15210- 15210.] ( Article 2 added by Stats. 1988, Ch. 1509, Sec. 9. )
15210.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, as used in this chapter, the following terms have the following meanings:
(p) “Serious traffic violation” includes any of the following:
(8) Driving a
commercial motor vehicle while using an electronic wireless
communication device to write, send, or read a text-based communication,
as defined in Section 23123.5.
In the absence of a federal definition, existing definitions under this code apply.
Perhaps you can read through your typos and bizarre grammar, but it's pretty tricky for me. If you don't even know what common law is and believe that private publishing companies have supreme judicial power, I'm not particularly impressed by your interpretations of legal terms.
Your probably to used to reading "legaleez" [?] then as I have the same trouble reading it as you have reading my plain English! That you question what a common legal term means lends me to having little confidence in your opinions expressed here.
I'm a little confused. Are you saying that you "willfully" obey the law as you misunderstand it? I'm a bit confused that you would use an adjective for unlawful conduct while claiming that the law is on your side.
That's because I use the law as written and courts published legal decisions.
How do you do it?
That's kind of like saying "I egregiously took a shower and wantonly shaved." If you believe your conduct is lawful, why drag willfulness into it?
Ken just does NOT GET that once he says "driver" and "vehicle".. that those are the magic words they want people to be sooo brainwashed with that they automatically associate them with traveling, not understanding that those are all commercials terms ONLY and ONLY apply to someone making the public highways his place of business and profit. NOT to the majority of people traveling to and from work, for pleasure or personal business.
For the purpose of licensing and registration, they're defined in each state's transportation code. They are not limited to commerce.
You claim this but provide no proof of this court appearance. Please provide a docket number and jurisdiction as well as the month and year. so I can go to the clerk of court and look it up. I have seen this issue arise in the past where a cop wrote up a citation using the wrong Vehicle Code section. In fact it has happened to me. The court can only refer to the code section cited on the citation or in an indictment and f the facts do not support a conviction under that code section then he has to dismiss the action.
That said Ken S. is correct that the code section you cite to are not proof of what you claim. California as all states has code sections which apply specifically to commercial vehicle and defines that classification. It also has Vehicle code sections which apply to private vehicles and non-commercial drivers
Correct.. as it's also recognized by the courts that all Americans are sovereigns with the same authority formerly belonging to the king.
"The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative." Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY).
"The Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity is one of the Common-Law immunities and defenses that are available to the Sovereign…" Citizen of Minnesota. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, (1988) 491 U.S. 58, 105 L.Ed. 2d. 45, 109 S.Ct. 2304.
Good luck using that defense to nullify a criminal prosecution or discharge a debt.
I never said you could. But that highlights a faar more disturbing problem that's at the heart of all of these discussions… which is the fact that the United States but longer recognizes Americans as being The Sovereign kings that they are but has tricked everyone into believing that their 14th Amendment slaves when they're not period
Do you not know that the constitution speaks of four different kinds of law and not all of them apply to everyone. This is why the founders kept the British Bar Association with his Maritime admiralty law out of the United States until the mid-1850s because with it comes all of its ridiculous policies legal definitions and terms that are used to enslave populations as they've done for hundreds of years in Europe. It's why America was founded on simple common law and biblical law not the convoluted legalese of the bar. The Constitution was made so that the average person could understand it because we were the Kings and the government as recognized by the cases that I cited which was the point of them.
Just because the courts no longer recognize these things or allow them as defenses doesnt mean that they're not true. If you judge the accuracy of the knowledge by whether or not it works in the courts then that is flawed thinking because the courts are no longer courts of United States but are of British royalty which is how the British were able to subjugate America once again after the Civil War when America had to be incorporated so It could borrow money from the banks of Rothschild and avoid complete bankruptcy… Which was finally declared in 1933.
There is no such thing as individual sovereignty in any society. What murderer would agree to a state law against murder? Laws being optional would be chaos, not order. The US is and always has been based on popular sovereignty, where the majority, not individuals make the rules that bind everyone. Furthermore, English common law and statutes were clearly received subject to the legislature(s) and have since been heavily modified separately in each state. All power devolves from the state and federal constitutions that comprise the internationally-recognized sovereign nation-state of the US/USA. Oh and legislators don't have to be lawyers. State legislation made the Bar in each state. You can't put the created before the creator. Sorry, but random people on the internet lied. Try a university course.
That's meaningless drivel, RichSpirit. You're mixing up anarchism, misunderstandings of English common law, fiction about historical events that never occurred, and conspiracy theories about lawyers and royalty.
ok Ken with that logic there is a constitutional right to free speech (no law shall be made that infringes on that right), however there is not a constitutional right to speak your language of choice in public parks. Showing me that there is a right to free speech is not an argument against laws that would restrict language of expression and regulation of public places for the privelege of free expression.
As seen in the first paragraph of the article, the constitutional right to travel the courts created is more often referred to as the right to Freedom of Movement, which is the right to enter and exit the several states. The states using their police power to regulate the highways for public safety does not infringe on that. Speech and other more explicit rights, such as the right to bear arms, can also be limited so-far as they may infringe on other rights.
There's a very big difference between speaking a language and hurling thousands of pounds of steel mere inches from other cars, cyclists, and pedestrians.
Freedom of speech isn't absolute, either, ya know!
Your problem is that you refuse to understand legal terminology. YOU keep using the words driving and driver's license in lieu of traveling! Driving and driver have legal definitions that you refuse to accept, which includes employed, for hire, or commerce. Driving does NOT have anything to do with traveling. You are so indoctrinated that whenever you get into a car you are driving, and it is NOT correct.
Many state vehicle codes define "driving", "driver", "motor vehicle", etc. explicitly. When you perform an action, such as "being in control of a self-propelled vehicle on the public roads", as the definition may be, you are captured by the definition for purpose of interpretation of that law. Have at look at your state codes. What state are you in? Maybe I'll find them for you.
Not in the codes that govern licensing, registration, and traffic law, they don't. Black's from 1910 is not controlling authority.
Please at least google to confirm your claims before posting them here. Every state funds the roads with a different combination of fuel and many other fees and taxes.
Wrong! https://wearechange.org/u-s-supreme-court-says-no-license-necessary-to-drive-automobile-on-public-highwaysstreets/
The state eventually came down hard on the guy in that video and, as I recall, he narrowly avoided prison time and may now have a felony on his record for covering his VIN. He has also since sold his car and stopped "traveling."
…and where did you get this alleged "information" concerning this driver, traveler or whatever the fuck you want to call him???
I was following the guy on Facebook.
Again…..https://wearechange.org/u-s-supreme-court-says-no-license-necessary-to-drive-automobile-on-public-highwaysstreets/
Chris, I'm deleting your posts until you read the first case on that page for yourself.
Just because you make a final false statement of : "And no, "driving" is not exclusive to commerce",does not make it true. There is a legal system for a reason (even though it rarely works as it is supposed to), and that is to render decisions based on FACT and ESTABLISHED LEGAL DEFINITION! The legal definition of "driving" includes "for hire"/commerce!
No state vehicle laws require commerce for driver licensing, vehicle registration or financial responsibility laws. This is clearly ascertainable by reading the laws themselves and studying court decisions that have directly engaged the argument. All courts admit lack of commerce is no exception to the requirements of those laws and that your consent is not required. Dig around in your state decisions on Google Scholar and you will find the same. The requirements are upheld as part of constitutional state police power.
"The legal definition" includes it, but it not exclusive to it. The codes that govern licensing, registration, and traffic law define "drive," "driver" and "driving" for these purposes, not a 109-year old copy of Black's Law Dictionary.
Once again. Taking cherry-picked quotes out of cases, ignoring the context of the quote is a logical fallacy not proof of anything. Your points have been addressed in prior posts here and shot down. Just repeating the same drivel, ignoring the prior posts isn't going to work. Let me know when you have some actual valid points with supporting caselaw.
Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618
(1969), was a Supreme Court decision that helped to establish a
fundamental "right to travel" in U.S. law. Although the Constitution
does not mention the right to travel, it is implied by the other rights
given in the Constitution.People like you are the ones who pick what part you want .No doubt you live off the backs of the working people and took an oath to uphold the constitution and break your word when it comes to the peoples rights and life so you can have government paid medical, pensions and wages. While the people who pay you to have these things do without and the oath you take is breach of contract.People are the masters not the hired servants that live like kings off the people.I will take their oath in court with me when I go and make sure it is upheld for my benefit not theirs,They work for me not me for them.The United States Constitution is supreme law of the land like stated in Marbury vs. Madison and the Supreme court has judicial Jurisdiction of all law and statutes in all states.
I repeat my prior statement, once again. Taking cherry-picked quotes out of cases, ignoring the context of the quote is a logical fallacy not proof of anything. Your points have been addressed in prior posts here and shot down. Just repeating the same drivel, ignoring the prior posts isn't going to work. Let me know when you have some actual valid points with supporting caselaw. No one says that people do not have the right to travel from one state to another. That is clear. The issue has to do with your drivel about driver's licensing.
You take facts out of a case not cherry picked items,the fact remains the supreme court made a decision on the issue and made it clear in the cases stated ,that is how lawyers do their job. Remember what is is in Clinton case. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHlt1W83JFU, why don't you get it,It was good enough for Clinton its good enough for we the people.
You are wrong…..https://wearechange.org/u-s-supreme-court-says-no-license-necessary-to-drive-automobile-on-public-highwaysstreets/
"Each state has its own laws and under those laws defines the terms used
in the statute. Where the definition is unclear the courts can under
certain circumstances, interpret the intent of the legislature."
Is it Okay to cite a definition of a term from January 1, 2016? directly from the CVC
State of California
Vehicle Code – VEH
DIVISION 6. DRIVERS' LICENSES [12500 – 15325] ( Heading of Division 6 amended by Stats. 1961, Ch. 1615. )
CHAPTER 7. Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Program [15200 – 15325] ( Chapter 7 added by Stats. 1988, Ch. 1509, Sec. 9. )
ARTICLE 2. Definitions [15210- 15210.] ( Article 2 added by Stats. 1988, Ch. 1509, Sec. 9. )
15210.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, as used in this chapter, the following terms have the following meanings:
(p) “Serious traffic violation” includes any of the following:
(8) Driving
a commercial motor vehicle while using an electronic wireless
communication device to write, send, or read a text-based communication,
as defined in Section 23123.5.
*In the absence of a federal definition, existing definitions under this code apply.*
(Amended by Stats. 2015, Ch. 303, Sec. 540. Effective January 1, 2016.)
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH§ionNum=15210.
Are you a plain dimwit? A Statute is not, I repeat IS NOT, a law!
The military and police and courts exist to enforce constitutions and statutes. Force makes the law. Your interpretation is irrelevant.
Again you make bogus statements. The military is NOT to enforce constitutions. The military is "supposed" to be for the security of our nation, and they take an oath to protect the people and the Constitution, not to enforce it! Remember the Posse comitatus Act? Problem is, the military is being misused, and has been since the civil war, by an authoritarian/tyrannical government, the same type of government that our forefathers sought to get us away from!
Force does NOT make laws. Force and intimidation is necessary to enforce illegal laws, because the people refuse to obey them.
The Posse Comitatus Act is not absolute. There are situations where the military may be used for law enforcement. See for example H. Con. Res. 274 – 109th Congress, wherein:
Law inherently requires the use of force. If you didn't force murderers to go to prison, they wouldn't.
That's not what the dictionaries or courts have said for the last eight centuries! There's a pretty firm consensus that statutes are indeed laws.
You state " A Statute is not, I repeat IS NOT, a law". Please provide actual, verifiable proof of this claim. After all, Blacks's Law Dictionary which you seem enamored with disagrees with you. It states, "Statute: An act of the legislature; a particular law enacted and established by the will of the legislative department of government, expressed with the requisite for- malities. In foreign and civil law. Any particular municipal law or usage, though resting for its authority on judicial decisions, or the practice of nations. 2 Kent, Comm. 450
http://thelawdictionary.org/statute-n/
a statute is for persons, not natural persons. In commercial law, the all capital letter name is presumed to be a commercial entity and are presumed guilty until you break the presumption
The highest laws in the land are the federal and state constitutions. These constitutions establish legislatures and courts in charge of interpreting the constitution and legislation. The legislation applies to all persons, natural and artificial, within the recognized geography of the state and federal governments. If these laws didn't apply to natural persons there would be lawlessness and chaos. For example, who would hold murderers accountable? There is only the state police power and federal law for that.
The all-capital argument has been tried many, many times and has been thoroughly rejected by the courts.
Where you and most people are wrong, is when you claim that legislatures and courts are in charge of INTERPRETING the Constitution! Interpretation involves OPINION. Our Constitution is written in such a way that there is NO interpretation necessary. Courts and legislatures are in charge of establishing Constitutionality based on facts. This is why there are so many laws in this country that completely violate the Constitution, a great example being the 2nd amendment. ALL "arms" laws are unconstitutional because they INFRINGE on the right to bear arms. The federal government and nearly ALL states are violating this amendment, and sadly, many of these laws remain in effect because the courts refuse to hear the case – the SCOTUS in notorious for refusing to hear cases against the NFA, ATF, and several other state gun law cases. Then you have idiots like justice roberts who change the wording of the bill (Ovomitcare) and claim it to be constitutional. roberts had NO authority to change wording in ANY case being heard. It finally took a separate case, for a federal judge to strike it down as unconstitutional. YOU fail to see that city, state, and federal government is corrupt to the hilt.
What our forefathers failed to envision, is government creating a multitude of laws without anything to verify their constitutionality BEFORE going into effect! In reality, a law should not go into effect until it has been verified by the SCOTUS as constitutional, but even then their decision should be allowed to be challenged, as in what justice roberts did!
Whether the Constitution is open for interpretation and how far interpretation may go is a debate that goes back hundreds of years. Some Justices are more textualist and originalist than others. I think nearly everyone agrees that reasonable limits on rights are necessary for public safety. By your logic every citizen could drive around with a rusty old nuclear bomb in the back of a pickup truck in a populated area. That would not be safe or fair to anyone or conducive to peaceful, ordered society. In general, rights are only able to be limited as far as it protects the rights of others.
The Obamacare individual mandate penalty was narrowly upheld as a constitutional form of tax in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. The penalty was reduced to $0 in a 2018 GOP tax bill, though, so Obamacare is basically dead going forward and the decision is moot.
Yes, the way new laws work is they are enacted then tested and refined in the courts. This does mean that unconstitutional and bad laws are often enacted. It's a pain but arguably necessary for the law to evolve quickly in light of technological and societal developments.
That is a lovely opinion. Not based on any actual fact but a lovely opinion.
@juanjo54:disqus , take Notice of the current HIGHWAY OCCUPANCY PERMIT OPERATIONS MANUAL, using 1938 case law to explain a situation; IT'S NOT ABSURD! And speaks about >travel rights>The travelling public has the right to reasonably safe passage.<>The travelling public has the right to reasonably safe passage.<< A balance must be struck between these public and private rights, and the exercise of police power must not unreasonably intermeddle with the rights of the abutting property owner.
9. Seitzinger v. Department of Transportation, Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County, Civil Action No. S- 1522-1991, April 23, 1993.
Read the damn case. The issue there is a basic Constitutional Law issue, the taking away or ownership or the rights of an owner to land ownership rights without just compensation under the law. This is a right guaranteed under the 5th Amendment takings clause – "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation". There is no word anywhere in this case about anything remotely related to operating a private vehicle on the public roadways, other than the property owner here was complaining about not being allowed access from the road to his property.
Juanjo54 – look at your own paragraph 3 which does not reference personal property automobile but rather what? Come on, say it – Motor Vehicle! Now, don't try to strain your brain too much, look up the legal definition of Motor Vehicle!
It's been covered in other comments. The definition of motor vehicle used on a state vehicle code charge can be found in the vehicle code itself. The courts can't ignore those legislated definitions.
"(11) "Motor vehicle" means a self-propelled vehicle or a vehicle that is propelled by electric power from overhead trolley wires. The term does not include an electric bicycle or an electric personal assistive mobility device, as defined by Section 551.201."
Yes, paragraph 3 references motor vehicles. So what? The laws of Texas like the laws of any state or the federal statutes for that matter are not reade as if each and every section or clause is a stand alone law to be read independent of all other sections of the law.
See Texas Transportation Code 601.002
(5) "Motor vehicle" means a self-propelled vehicle designed for use on a highway, a trailer or semitrailer designed for use with a self-propelled vehicle, or a vehicle propelled by electric power from overhead wires and not operated on rails. The term does not include:
(A) a traction engine;
(B) a road roller or grader;
(C) a tractor crane;
(D) a power shovel;
(E) a well driller;
(F) an implement of husbandry; or
(G) an electric personal assistive mobility device, as defined by Section 551.201.
Not quite the right definitions, but close! The ones in 601.002 only apply to Chapter 601, "Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act," as opposed to the definitions in 541.201, which apply "In this subtitle," i.e. the Vehicles and Traffic title of the Transportation Code.
Juan its no use these people are fucking brainwashed and they think changing or interpreting words in their own way is law.
What I am seeing on this site is a bunch of people who see a law and determine that it stops there. How many laws are still on the books but are unconstitutional? Someone needs to go to court first before these laws that do violate liberty are repealed . And nine times out of ten , the laws are not repealed just amended. Usually a law has a provision in it to make clear if one section is found unconstitutional the rest is unaffected. Even this article you provided states the license and registration laws and fees violate liberty, so just because the laws are written and enforced does not mean the RIGHT to locomotion is void or nonexistent. So you all are wrong. Wrong and apparently to scared to fight in court for your rights, and therefore you have none and therefore you allow others to have their rights trampled. The right does exist ,and the right is being violated. What other right is regulated and licensed and taxed in such a way and is still called a right not a privilege? ????? Thought so.
any proof for your claims. I am seeing none.
1. Pursuant to U.S. Constitution Article VI paragraph two This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. See Gioia v. Gioia, 435 So.2d 367, 368 (Fla.4th DCA 1983) (“We are bound by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court when those decisions invoke a provision of the United States Constitution”) . [T]he federal Constitution . . . represents the floor for basic freedoms; the state constitution, the ceiling. Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So. 2d 7, 17 (Fla. 2000) (quoting Traylor, 596 So. 2d at 962).
2. Pursuant to Constitutional law: The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the public roadways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a "COMMON RIGHT" which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under the Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public roadways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with, not disturbing another's "RIGHTS," he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct. (Emphasis added) See: 11 American Jurisprudence 1st., Constitutional Law, 329, page 1123. Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579
3. This “freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic freedom under the Constitution” as well. In fact, “this freedom of movement is the very essence of our free society, setting us apart. Like the right of assembly and the right of association, it often makes all other rights meaningful-knowing, studying, arguing, exploring, conversing, observing and even thinking.” Aptheker v. Sec'y of State, 378 U.S. 500, 520, 84 S.Ct. 1659, 12 L.Ed.2d 992 (1964) (Douglas, J., concurring); see also Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 498, 119 S.Ct. 1518, 143 L.Ed.2d 689 (1999) (describing the constitutional right to interstate travel as “firmly embedded” in the Supreme Court's jurisprudence); see also Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 638, 89 S.Ct. (1969)
4. In State v. J.P.,907 So. 2d 1101, 1113 (Fla.2004), the Florida Supreme Court concluded that the “right to intrastate travel in Florida is clear.”
5. Pursuant to Fl. Stat. 775.021 Rules of construction.— (1)The provisions of this code and offenses defined by other statutes shall be strictly construed; when the language is susceptible of differing constructions, it shall be construed most favorably to the accused.
6. Pursuant to Florida Statute Ch. 322.01 (17)“Driver license” means a certificate that, subject to all other requirements of law, authorizes an individual to drive a motor vehicle and denotes an operator’s license as defined in 49 U.S.C. s. 30301.
7. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30301 (5) “motor vehicle operator’s license” means a license issued by a State authorizing an individual to operate a motor vehicle on public streets, roads, or highways.
8. Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. 523.2 and U.S.C. 329101 except as provided in section 32908 of this title (49 U.S.C.), “automobile” means a 4-wheeled vehicle that is propelled by fuel, or by alternative fuel manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways and rated at less than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight.
9. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30101 Purpose and policy, The purpose of this chapter is to reduce traffic accidents and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents. Therefore it is necessary—
(1) to prescribe motor vehicle safety standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment in interstate commerce;
10. Under Constitutional interpretation, motor vehicles are different in terms of rights compared to privileges. As evidenced above, the term motor vehicle deals with commerce. Conclusive evidence can be found in Title 18 where all Federal Crimes are listed:
18 U.S.C. 31 – Crimes and Criminal Procedure Definitions part 1 Chapter 2 (6) Motor vehicle.— The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.
11. Title 49 U.S.C. Department of Transportation is for manufacturing standards of motor vehicles and automobiles; also, to protect the peoples’ right of traveling in their automobiles from the traffic of people exercising the privilege of operating motor vehicles transporting in commerce.
12. Pursuant to Fl. Stat. 316.640 Enforcement.—The enforcement of the traffic laws of this state is vested as follows: (2)COUNTIES.— (a)The sheriff’s office of each of the several counties of this state shall enforce all of the traffic laws of this state on all the streets and highways thereof and elsewhere throughout the county wherever the public has the right to travel by motor vehicle.
13.. If automobile is included in Florida’s definition of motor vehicle, then construing the statutes in favor of the accused, the State clearly recognizes the right to travel by automobile as noted above in Fl. St. 316.640, and is distinct compared to the privilege of driving a motor vehicle
14.. Federal legislation and all U.S. Supreme Court rulings are very specific in terms of traveling versus driving and automobile versus motor vehicle. Florida legislatures, whom have knowledge of inalienable, fundamental rights protected by the Constitution, also make a careful distinction between the privilege to drive (Fl. Stat. 322.34), and right to travel (Fl. Stat. 316.640). The Department of Transportation is to regulate traffic of motor vehicles operating in commerce as is noted in 49 U.S.C. 30101 and is irrefutable in 18 U.S.C. Federal Crimes that the term motor vehicle is reserved for commerce.
15. A final piece of evidence of the word traveling to be utilized when not in commerce and distinct versus the term driving to be used while in commerce is in Title 49 Subtitle B Chapter III Subchapter B Part 395 (j) Travel time —(1) When a property-carrying commercial motor vehicle driver at the direction of the motor carrier is traveling, but not driving or assuming any other responsibility to the carrier, such time must be counted as on-duty time unless the driver is afforded at least 10 consecutive hours off duty when arriving at destination, in which case he/she must be considered off duty for the entire period.
16. Drive, drivers license, motor vehicle, operator, and carrier are all legal terms, as noted by the Federal Code and all U.S. Supreme Court rulings, reserved for the privilege of driving in commerce and are legally distinct from the terms travel, traveler, and automobile which are utilized when describing inalienable rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) when not operating in interstate or intrastate commerce.
17. "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491. "The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489 "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24
See 18 U.S.C. 242 which provides criminal penalties for a deprivation of rights under color of law.
If you actually read those cases in full you'll see that having a right doesn't mean the right can't reasonably be regulated. Consider that you have the right to free speech but it doesn't mean you have the right to defame people, call for direct violence or violate copyright law. Similarly you have the right to bear arms, but you don't have the right to bear arms as a felon, or bear nuclear arms or machine guns without numerous strict conditions.
The first right to travel case you cited, Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367 – Va: Supreme Court 1930, shows you the lie:
I won't take the time to debunk every single thing you said, but the statements about commerce being required are wrong. State police power is not, and never has been, limited to commercial activity.
The problem for you is simple. None of what you posted supports your claims regarding anything.
They seem to forget that the Supreme Court is who decides the interpretation of the Constitution. – Hendrick v. Maryland 235 US 610 (1915) – Hess v. Pawloski 274 US 352 (1927) – Reitz v. Mealey 314 US 33 (1941)
In common law countries, statutes do not have to be clear or unambiguous. That's what common law is for. If statutes are silent or vague then the court decides. Legislatures can be lazy and leave much to common law, if they like. See Interaction of constitutional, statutory and common law. Nevertheless, most states do enact clear definitions for use with their legislation. "License" is commonly defined as a license authorized by the state. "Motor vehicle" is commonly defined as any self-propelled vehicle on the public roads. "Operator" or "driver" is commonly defined as anyone in control of a motor vehicle, etc. You have to look closely at the definitions in the section any individual charge is brought under, and its parent parts, chapters and titles, to find exactly which definitions apply for that charge.
Here's a guy who tried to argue he wasn't covered by 201.904 because he wasn't operating in commerce: Flores v. State, Tex: Court of Appeals, 1st Dist. 2014. The court did not disagree per se, but found he was still covered by the speed restrictions in 545.351 (the guy may have failed to read the section(s) quoted on his citation properly).
The sections up to 545.365 are also relevant to the state's ability to determine speed limits.
Yes, the state can enact speed signs for commercial operators, as in 201.904, but the state may also enact speed limits for others, too, as in 545.351 to 545.365.
This isn't entirely true, and it brings up the interesting topic of "unconstitutional vagueness." Not the subject of this discussion, but a fun one anyway.
Re: Driver's License requirement. Instead of trying to decipher definitions in the admittedly confusing Texas statutes, we can search for the licence requirement section on Scholar and see exactly how the courts might rule.
There we find decisions like Hicks v. State, 18 SW 3d 743 – Tex: Court of Appeals, 4th Dist. 2000, wherein:
and MARZETT v. McCraw, Tex: Court of Appeals, 5th Dist. 2015, wherein:
and Taylor v. State, Tex: Court of Appeals, 9th Dist. 2009, wherein:
As you can see, the argument that not everyone must have a state license to operate a self-propelled vehicle on the public roads doesn't work in real life.
A driver is a commercial term, for, one employed, paid, or hired, as a driver of livery, delivery, or a vehicle which serves a special unusual or commercial purpose, for which certain qualifications to operate are necessarily required, such as a big rig, backhoe, bus, etc. A driver gets PAID TO DRIVE, a traveller needs no license to "drive", for, "driving" is a commercial activity, and subject to governmental regulating, where, travelling, is absolutely not within the authority of the "state" to regulate. Or, does fraudulent-law think he knows more about actual Law, than, state and federal supreme Court justices…I highly doubt that he knows much about actual Law, I.e. the Organic Constitution ratified by all thirteen original Colony/States. P-L, u fail so hard!!! Don't you ever lie to me, and suggest that I try to refute, what I long knew to be absolute TRUTH…
Good luck trying to get that one past a Texas state trooper. Just sayin…
Where is the law that states that just because I am in any geographical location I am subject to its laws? When were any of us asked if we wanted to be "citizens?" How can it be assumed that simply because I was born in any geographic location, I am owned or part of a group, I may not wish to be associated with? For example. I detest that our monetary system is owned and controlled by private Bankster citizens, who pulled a financial coup on our government in 1913 and have been openly subverting our Bill of Rights ever since! I detest the wars these Bankster scumbags have had us mired in and profiteered by since the Battle of Waterloo! I hate that their control of our monetary system has allowed them to subvert our Constitution, which was ratified fully interpreted and etched in stone, yet suddenly requires interpretation and scholars to "help us" understand the plain meaning! I am for NONE of the terrorism our country has been forcing upon the planet, nor am I for the genocide! I want nothing to do with it! I don't even want to get started on their illegal,immoral and unconstitutional war on drugs which is simply a tool of control!
One last point…If I was not born with any special, (God given ,if you so believe) right to command you, and you were not born with any special authority to command me,and NO ONE ELSE was born with any special authority to command another , then how do two or more combine their "NON-EXISTENT" authority and tell the third what they can and cannot do,beyond the law of trespass? Zero authority plus zero authority equals ZERO authority! Voting should be considered a criminal act whenever it violates another's right to do anything solong as it does not violate the law of trespass against another's property or self! A shakedown is a shakedown! There will be no involuntary servitude!
Jurisdiction is assumed by the state police power and international law. Courts, presidents, founders all understand and admit your consent is not required. Ultimately, the police and military simply control the area by force and unless you can resist physically it is in your best interest to abide as an equal under the law like everyone else. How many tanks do you have?
So, go fight it in court. Ultimately, that is what the courts are for, it does not matter what your personal opinion is. The funny thing, is the rest of us have no problem understanding what a driver is, what a speed limit is, etc – pretty clear language. So are these Supreme Court rulings – Hendrick v. Maryland 235 US 610 (1915) – Hess v. Pawloski 274 US 352 (1927) – Reitz v. Mealey 314 US 33 (1941)
This is the same fucking logic that thinks it’s ok for illegals to come across the border and drive on our roads and they entered the country illegally. You are a fucking resident of a state where you live. The Constitution reserves rights to the states to regulate not only commerce but safety requirements within their states your bullshit logic thinks it’s ok to drive like a jackass with no damn insurance and even drive drunk on the roads Fuck you and your bullshit. Either comply wit the law or get off the fucking road.
I was reading what you wrote until i got to "Nut Case Brigade" and you lost me. Name callers lose all credibility.
Too bad. I woul possibly be butt hurt and all if it were not for the fact you are a troll using the name "victurus libertas". A quick on line check of your posting indicates you rant and rave on every every far right kook conspiracy ever written about. So I don't care what a founding member of the Nut Case Brigade has to say on any subject. If you were to announce that the sun rose in the east and set in the west, I would verify it before agreeing.
You seen to be very good at name calling at least. Pat yourself on the back cause that's about all you got going for you. You sure like the word NUTCASE I'll carve it in stone and you can hang it in your man cave
I stand by my previous comment. You are a nut case troll who as is so common with your kind, ignores reality, sees conspiracy behind everything, distorts basic facts to fit you fantasy, and just generally is a piece of shit.
You are the nutcase you love your governmentd restrictions because your weak. You applaud the police with their pals in the Court system and call it reasonable and just. But it's not freedom is just an illusion we pretend we have in this country we've always had the right to travel or right to move about freely without government restrictions. It's an unwritten law just like freedom of speech or the right to protect ones self and family with whatever means is available. Inalienable rights, unwritten cause they are natural God given, the Constitution spells them out so our corrupt leaders don't forget. Yes I want freedom to travel unrestricted without plates and license but that's because I love liberty. But for insecure people government is like their big brother to protect them they love to use government to punish people who disagree with them. They love their police and their perceived role as 'protectors'. There will always be people like you that claim you are patriotic but give more and more power to a out of control corrupt system. Bottom line traffic laws were created for the revenue they generate and not for public safety as you love to believe. So continue to be weak and pathetic.
Un-a-lien-able rights. Not inalienable, un-alien-able.
Un-a-lien-able, as a legal term, means, in a fkn legal dictionary, that it cannot be taken from you by your being sued, or by a lien being placed on your property, earnings, holdings, etcetera. As Sir Francis Bacon, aka, William Shakespeare said some four-five hundred years ago, "First thing we do, is, kill ALL the lawyers." The organic US Constitution strictly forbids ANY lawyers from holding ANY governmental positions, including both/either house of Congress, the Presidency, or the Vice Presidency. Pseudolaw, FALSE-LAW said that the US Constitution was NOT rewritten for corporate purposes just after the civil war, when the fake government used the NEW 14th Amendment, to enslave the entire population, after they emancipated, which means in Black's Law Dictionary, s transfer of ownership of wealth or property from one sovereign, to another sovereign. In the slaves case, the false federal corporation posing as a government took ownership of all of the slaves, And, compensated the plantation owners, for their ,"loss of property"…
Well said, we love our slavery. In your opinion was Lincoln the pres we were taught in school or were his policies the beginning of the end for liberty.
Dude, just get your driver´s license
Statutes, are NOT Laws, and have no actual authority over living breathing Natural Persons aka, Human Beings. Statutes are rules and regulations for corporate entities (legal fictions, fictitious persons, corporations). I hope the moniker pseudolaw (false-law, fake-law) is not lost on any who are awake and aware. That 'person' seems to be a dishonest disinformation disseminator, that supports the fully totally corrupt corporation that masquerades as a government, and merely provides governmental services, located in Washington D.C., is registered in Puerto Rico, and is publicly traded on the NYSE, exactly as the corporation posing as the government of New South Wales,(Australia), and many, many others. Just a Google search and three to five minutes should satisfy any curiosity regarding that fact.
So, what is the real solution? For every piece of legislation passed
into law ask the question "to whom does this legislation apply or
pertain?" If it pertains to individual citizens then ask, "by what
authority or provision enumerated in the Constitution do you enact this
law?"
Remember, the high court has declared that if a law is
repugnant to the Constitution, it is not and cannot be a law imposed
upon the Citizenry, it can only be municipal law which has no affect
upon Citizens of the States united.
“Where rights secured by the
Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation
which would abrogate them.” – Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 463
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no
duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal
contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” –
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425
“The Constitution of these
United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant
to the Constitution is null and void of law.” – Marbury v. Madison, 5
U.S. 137
You don't have to be a lawyer to figure this out or to correct the problem. You simply have to ask the right questions.
As is typical of the less intelligent sort who reside on the far right and far left of the political spectrum there is an inability to understand or an unwillingness to understand the law and how it operates. This nonsense where some so-called "sovereign citizen" cherry picks selections of different statutes and court decisions and jumbles them together to make up some bizarre legal theory is just that – nonsense. Mr. Schneider's comment is a good example of this.
Example of this? Hmmm here for the ignorant to learn, if you
refuse to accept the Law of the land is your business, you may
characterize me in any fashion, I live it, I dont just talk it. Your
opinion does not matter, my life experience tells me the truth. I
will never again step foot into a non jurisdictional municipal court
and there will be no general warrants for my arrest because of my
proper actions. You do not need to understand for me to be right.
Moron.
No sovereign argument, no pseudo law just More indoctrination of confusion by government and people suck it right down. When you understand that a license of any kind converts your rights over to be controlled by any government by your own consent then maybe you'll understand on setting yourself FREE. Any moron that believes in government dictating and ignorant to the fact
of life between them and their creator in which was and is the whole pretense of our Founders is foolish. No one has a right to control another. If one has a grievance then present it in
the proper court, murder, thievery, property damage, ect. ect. I cant just go give John a citation and say hey I don't like you or your driving faster than Id like you to, here is a piece of paper
Ill see you Tuesday in a municipal court. Men are flawed and imperfect, and ALL bound by the same Law no matter what position of government they hold. The Constitution is, was, and always will be the True Law of the Land. Just because you won't take time to understand it or know it doesn't make some who know and live it to be true, wrong. I do not drive with a license for its my right to pursuit of happiness. I have been given a few citations . A simple Affidavit correcting
their administrative law and asking the right questions instead of ignoring in silence equals no warrants. General Warrants was the one main reason behind the revolutionary war amongst property ownership IE (LAND PATENTS) not deeds ect. So many so naive to believe
government to be all unquestioned authority. Very foolish. Be courteous to the uniformed officer who swore to uphold the law of the land and should know and honor his oath but if not, why then ignore his/her arrogance. You may sue personally later for you now have a grievance. Proceed 1st with an affidavit with the prosecutor/court clerk by certified mail. Your argument is with them in whatever said court to now show you the grievance, jurisdictional authority, not on the street with a person carrying a weapon whole could cause you severe damage under badge of State. Freedom does not come for free but must be fought for by the knowledge of knowing the true law of the land. A LICENSE OF ANY KIND, leads to their control. Key point
FYI::
Correcting The Unconstitutional Acts Of Government.
The correction to the problem of government usurping the rights of Citizens and States is for all Citizens to realize that the Federal government was never intended to have jurisdiction over or influence upon individual Citizens. Its purposes are to serve the States as enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, clauses 1-18 of the Constitution for the united States. We all need to realize that governments of all stripes will grab hold of as much power as they can by whatever means they
can and that includes the Leviathan in Washington, D.C. We need to realize that the government in Washington is actually two governments in one: First, it is the Federal government of the States united, bound by the yoke and limitations of the Constitution and, second, it is the
municipal government for the District of Columbia and all possessions and territories of the United States such as Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and US military
installations, etc. where such constitutional restrictions do not apply and where the municipal government has the legislative authority to do as it pleases (Article 1, Section 8, clause 17 US Constitution).
We need to realize that the majority of legislators are lawyers practiced in the art of word-smithing (saying one thing while deliberately meaning or implying another).
We need to realize that the majority or laws passed in Washington are municipal laws and do not apply to the Citizens of the States united. We need to realize that the majority of the laws passed in Washington are written in such a way as to deceive us Citizens into believing that they do apply to us. We need to realize that such deceptive laws use customized language – words which
mimic words we use every day but words which, within the law, have very different meanings from the commonly understood meaning. For example, the Title that establishes the Department of Education (for the United States) has within it a section called "definitions". Within that
section it says, when used in this Title, the term "United States" means Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. It does NOT mean the States united
that we usually think of as the United States. Thus, we are deceived into believing that the Department of Education has some legal authority over our private sector schools and school
systems when, in fact, they do not and can not except by our quiet acquiescence to the deception. It is by such deceptions that the power of the people and the States is eroded and usurped. It is by such deceptions that the Leviathan becomes ever larger and more intrusive.
So, what is the real solution? For every piece of legislation passed into law ask the question "to whom does this legislation apply or pertain?" If it pertains to individual citizens then ask, "by what
authority or provision enumerated in the Constitution do you enact this law?"
Remember, the high court has declared that if a law is repugnant to the Constitution, it is not and cannot be a law imposed upon the Citizenry, it can only be municipal law which has no affect upon Citizens of the States united.“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved,
there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” – Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 463
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had
never been passed.” – Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425
“The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant
to the Constitution is null and void of law.” – Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137
You don't have to be a lawyer to figure this out or to correct the problem. You simply have to ask the right questions. And yes Actually, a law that is unconstitutional is enforceable. Congress has every right to pass whatever law they like when they are legislating "municipal law". The power to to exercise exclusive legislative authority is granted in the penultimate clause of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. It is the second mandate of the government in Washington, D.C. Such municipal law applies only to the capitol, its possessions and territories like Guam and Puerto Rico, and areas ceded to it by the States for military installations, ports, federal
buildings, national parks and the like. Now, ask yourself, is obama-care municipal law or federal (pertaining to the States united under the Constitution) law? When congress legislates in its federal capacity, it must adhere to and be bound by the chains of the Constitution and laws so enacted are enforceable upon all Citizens of the States united under the Constitution. When congress legislates in its municipal capacity the Constitution does not come into play because such legislation does not pertain to the Citizens of the States united. Such legislation is enforceable upon citizens,residents, workers and those domiciled in the District of Columbia,
the insular possessions and territories and areas ceded to the federal government. Now, ask yourself, does obama-care pertain to me? In fact, you should always ask and all legislation should clearly state whether it is municipal law or federal law. The difference is huge.
That is not even remotely intelligible. How severely mentally ill are you?
Your comment shows your ignorance of our Constitution, and an example of those who have nothing of factual substance to offer. Which was already established.
Actually I obviously have a far greater understanding fo the Constitution given the drivel you are supporting.
Right, exactly, thats why I am assuming from your comments that you have a drivers license subject to municipal courts jurisdiction, fines, time, and continued slavery as I continue to freely travel without a license to never appear in their courts without warrants or subjection to loss of my hard earned dollars. Yes I am quite sure you have it right. Laughable,not supporting the drivel as you call it but rather living the 1st hand experience. Maybe thats why your confused
Yeah, until a cop stops you and then your world turns to shit. And I will be there laughing when it happens you deluding fuck bait.
Well that was intelligent and explainable. Need anything else be said? You obviously missed where it was explained clearly YOU DO NOT NEED A LICENSE TO TRAVEL!!! I LIVE IT EVERYDAY, when addressed by an officer my world is FREE. I address court by mail, MY WORLD IS FREE. Its happened, I did it and it can only be done because I never consented converting my inalienable rights over by license. Who is the deluding fuck bait? The audience can see for themselves, they can research for themselves. My word need not be taking. Simply write your state legislators, ask them to show where Municipal Laws apply to a Natural private state citizens and see the answer they give you. Supreme Court has also ruled no License to Travel. Who is the deluding fuck bait? Now we all know
If you do it, it's at the government's discretion, not because you're right about some application of law. The only law supported by any force is national, state, county and municipal law and the decisions of judges where the constitutions and legislatures are vague or silent. Show me one instance of someone winning damages for false arrest, etc. when a state enforces its vehicle laws that haven't been struck down. Why can't you find one? It's because there is no actual right, and if you are indeed left alone you have merely bullied the officers in your area enough to not waste any more taxpayer time and money on your minor civil disobedience. Do something more serious or annoying to the public and see how quickly your doing evaporates.
PS Please keep the discussion civil and de-escalate instead of escalate towards ad hominem attacks, name-calling, etc. Thanks
Wrong, governments discretion? You have been duped, tricked, and seem submissive to the fact that government of flawed men are the all authority or corrupt courts by flawed men who sit on the bench. Your mind is closed. One can lead you to water of information but can not make you drink in research. The Constitution and Bill of rights are the only true law of the land. We are not subject to MUNICIPAL LAWS UNLESS one consents by way of license you signed for when received. PERIOD The SUPREME court has even ruled on this in the favor of the Natural Born State citizen. We free men have Inalienable RIGHTS protected by that Constitution, in which to say one may not control another and simply may do as he pleases as so long he/her is not harming or infringing upon another in the confines of their own property. Common sense and brotherly love go a long way. What we do is between ourselves and our creator. Does that give one the right to damage ones property, murder another, steal from another, rape another, bully another ect. ect. Of course not then there will result a grievance of some sort and one will be held accountable for their actions by a jury of their peers. Having said that if one has a license of any kind and does what I and others do, then your screwed in the confines of municipal law because you converted your rights to give them permission to do what they may with you.The article simply states debunking sovereign ways, and you can not and have not done so. One is as free as they wish to be when educated to the only law of the land and no court can rule against that unless you yourself did something to give them contractional consent to do so. You can argue all you want on case law, but with a license your comparing apple to oranges. Many of people across this great land who know the truth and stand on the law keeping in the confines of themselves not harming others do just fine. Government and courts are not the all authority. God is and that was the whole pretense of Our Founders when the country was founded. It was true then and its true today. The problem with most is the indoctrination from birth to believe you need a license to marry, you need a license to travel, you need a license to carry, you need a license for this or that. When you fall down that rabbit whole your now a slave to their authority. Period. What I presented was true and factual and you cant debunk it for many many know otherwise so continue on debating your case laws and the motor vehicle commercial municipal garbage as tho we are the ones who are disobedient. The magic bullet is to treat others the way you want to be treated and to never convert your inalienable rights by way of a license of any kind. Traffic courts are no more than a collection agency and they most certainly are MUNICIPAL LAWS. Officers can and have been sued for false arrests. To find you a case where it involves one without a license of any kind, Ill make effort just because but its rather irrelevant. If I am arrested, my car impound, loss of wages, then I have a grievance and will most certainly seek damages against the arresting officer for violation of my inalienable rights protected by The Constitution. A case has already been brought forward to the Supreme Court where the ruling is in place. They declared that if a law is repugnant to the Constitution, it is not and cannot be a law imposed upon the Citizenry, it can only be municipal law which has no affect upon Citizens of the States united.
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no
rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” – Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 463
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as
though it had never been passed.” – Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425
“The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law
of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and
void of law.” – Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137
You don't have to be a lawyer to figure this out or to correct the problem. You simply have to ask the right questions.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Law is as Congress makes it (Article 1) and the State governments make it and, in the absence of those, as the local collective People decide (Article 6, Clause 2). The Constitution and laws are ultimately interpreted by the Supreme Court (Article 3).
Municipalities are incorporated under State governments. You are subject to State governments and are therefore also subject to municipal governments.
The rights you claim to enjoy don't exist because they aren't supported by the courts or government enforcers. The government doesn't require contract, consent or license to impose its laws upon anyone. There is nowhere meaningful to argue otherwise. Government is a collective creation that can only be modified or destroyed with the consent and will of the collective.
If you want to be generally left alone you could go live in the bush or the desert or at least buy land in an unincorporated area. Why blame the government for your unwillingness to go off grid and live free when there is still plenty of opportunity to do so?
Your some what right but confused
Correcting The Unconstitutional Acts Of Government.
The
correction to the problem of government usurping the rights of Citizens
and States is for all Citizens to realize that the Federal government
was never intended to have jurisdiction over or influence upon
individual Citizens. Its purposes are to serve the States as enumerated
in Article 1, Section 8, clauses 1-18 of the Constitution for the
united States.
We all need to realize that governments of all
stripes will grab hold of as much power as they can by whatever means
they can and that includes the Leviathan in Washington, D.C.
We
need to realize that the government in Washington is actually two
governments in one: First, it is the Federal government of the States
united, bound by the yoke and limitations of the Constitution and,
second, it is the municipal government for the District of Columbia and
all possessions and territories of the United States such as Puerto
Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and US military installations,
etc. where such constitutional restrictions do not apply and where the
municipal government has the legislative authority to do as it pleases
(Article 1, Section 8, clause 17 US Constitution).
We need to
realize that the majority of legislators are lawyers practiced in the
art of word-smithing (saying one thing while deliberately meaning or
implying another).
We need to realize that the majority or laws
passed in Washington are municipal laws and do not apply to the Citizens
of the States united.
We need to realize that the majority of
the laws passed in Washington are written in such a way as to deceive us
Citizens into believing that they do apply to us.
We need to
realize that such deceptive laws use customized language – words which
mimic words we use every day but words which, within the law, have very
different meanings from the commonly understood meaning. For example,
the Title that establishes the Department of Education (for the United
States) has within it a section called "definitions". Within that
section it says, when used in this Title, the term "United States" means
Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.
It does NOT mean the States united that we usually think of as the
United States. Thus, we are deceived into believing that the Department
of Education has some legal authority over our private sector schools
and school systems when, in fact, they do not and can not except by our
quiet acquiescence to the deception. It is by such deceptions that the
power of the people and the States is eroded and usurped. It is by such
deceptions that the Leviathan becomes ever larger and more intrusive.
So, what is the real solution? For every piece of legislation passed
into law ask the question "to whom does this legislation apply or
pertain?" If it pertains to individual citizens then ask, "by what
authority or provision enumerated in the Constitution do you enact this
law?"
Remember, the high court has declared that if a law is
repugnant to the Constitution, it is not and cannot be a law imposed
upon the Citizenry, it can only be municipal law which has no affect
upon Citizens of the States united.
“Where rights secured by the
Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation
which would abrogate them.” – Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 463
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no
duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal
contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” –
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425
“The Constitution of these
United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant
to the Constitution is null and void of law.” – Marbury v. Madison, 5
U.S. 137
You don't have to be a lawyer to figure this out or to correct the problem. You simply have to ask the right questions.
The Constitution never had to bind individuals. It binds the government, limiting their actions towards individuals. Try a basic law course. And stop the ad hominem attacks and repeating the same shit over and over – we heard you the first time. Keep it calm and keep it civil and keep it objective or don't bother commenting. You've been warned twice now.
You've pasted this multiple times already, so I deleted it, and next time it's a ban. Stop wasting everyone's time.
Where in no Federal Law exists the states have the right to create law.
This was an argument that was used in the cases where the Supreme Court ruled against tge mandatory licensing vs the sovereign rights of the citizens. Another phase uses was a quote – Any law which violates the Constitution is void of law and therefore does not have to be accepted by the people nor can any judge be forced to uphold it.
With that said… You are wrong in your opinion. Not all laws are legal. One would have to truly understand law in order to know this not just quote standard laws which clearly violate the Constitution.
You obviously don't understand what I've already wrote..
The articles of confederation are even more supreme than the constitution. Common law is also more supreme than statute.
Not only do you have the right to free travel without license, registration or insurance you also have a right to free travel with a current license. The license contract pertains to commercial driving not traveling by automobile. Furthermore, the drivers license contract does not inform drivers to the restrictions required within that contract making it null and void when you declare your reservation of rights, without prejudice, under the uniform commercial code 1-308. There are several people who have fought and won in every state and in the Supreme Court. Refer to Marbury V Pennsylvania (no state can convert a secured liberty to a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. If the state requires this oh travelers anyways refer to Shuttlesworth V Alabama ( you can ignore the license and engage in your right without impunity. US Supreme Court in Reno V Condon states: "The activity licensed by state DMVs and in connection with which individuals must submit personal information to the DMV is itself integrally related to interstate commerce." There are several other rulings by the Supreme Court that verify that traveling a right not a privilege and any state law requiring licensing, insurance and registration can be ignored without impunity. I myself have fought citations in court and have had ALL of them dismissed. I no longer get citations and carry a document of "constitution travelers license" that refers to ALL my rights and freedom to travel unenroached and without impunity.
So why can't you or any other traveler win a claim for false arrest or trespass to property when a state enforces its vehicle laws that haven't been struck down? It's because there is no actual right to travel without regulation, and dismissals are because the government simply doesn't want to waste time or money correcting minor civil disobedience. It's called prosecutorial discretion. Try doing something more intrusive, like stealing the mayor's parking spot, and see how far you get. lol
Who gave the UCC power in your state? Who decides what contract law is in your state? State legislators and courts. You're putting the cart before the horse. The state made the contract law you're claiming to use to opt out of the state. Legislation isn't a contract, it just applies to everyone in the area by force. The only law that matters is the law that can be enforced, and in the US that's the state and federal constitutions, legislation, and common law made in state and federal courts.
If the federal government deems traveling in a self-propelled vehicle, aka "driving a motor vehicle" according to every state's definition in their vehicle code or common law, an act of interstate commerce to gain jurisdiction you are bound by that. It doesn't exempt you from being obligated to obey state law. State governments have never, ever been restricted to only regulating commercial activity.
You might want to check your sources because the word "integrally" doesn't even appear in Reno v Condon. In fact it was the driver's license personal information that was found to fall under interstate commerce, not the act of traveling or driving itself.
Unfortunately, you are very ignorant about the matter and law itself, including origins of such and precedence– And I don't care if you are possibly an attorney– You are still very ignorant on the matter.
You said: "Show me one instance of someone winning damages for false arrest, etc.
when a state enforces its vehicle laws that haven't been struck down."
Because "lawyers" are part of the rigged game whose first duty is to the court and not their client (see Corpus Juris Secundum Vol. 7). Lawyers make money whether you win, lose or draw in court and the vast majority of lawyers will not buck the system that feeds them. The courts are largely comprised of former lawyers, the same people who largely write laws, the regulation of such which provides the above par standard of living most lawyers enjoy. That, in your view, nobody has ever one such-and-such case is meaningless and in no manner leads one to conclude such law or actions are just. Bogus laws (and even valid ones) are nullified / overturned all the time for political reasons. Legal action against the system is very costly, a regular citizen could not afford or mount such attack, so who is going to fund such? And why? You think some justice loving lawyer is going to fight injustice of this magnitude for free? Hahahahaha!
And for example, let's look at the sodomy law which was declared illegal about a dozen years ago. Until the moment that it was declared unconstitutional, NOBODY had done what you claim to defeat such either. And then it changed, overnight. Hello???
If states had the right to make "traffic laws" (true laws are called "statutes") then why do they not do such instead of using legislative trickery to coerce people to sign up for a "license" forcing them to obey "codes" ("codes" are not "statute")? The Supreme Court decisions declaring a "Right to Travel" have never been overturned and still have precedence, and such exists in much greater volume that your couple cites. Further, BOTH RULINGS CANNOT EXIST, ONE HAS TO FALL. The preponderance of higher court decisions support, and have never been overturned, a Right to Travel.
Their are volumes of other established case law that shreds your arguments, again and again.
"Lawyers make money whether you win, lose or draw in court" so do doctors, whether you die or not. You Sov Cits should get together on your terminology. Each of you has a different opinion as to what a code is or a statue or a law. Combine that with a complete misunderstanding of Common Law and God-given rights or Natural rights you barf up a philosophical dog's breakfast. Let's face it. You are intellectual losers.
I don't think he understands that the people also have the ability and the right to use force. We just allow the courts their process because it's based on reason.
No such right has ever existed in the US or any State as far as applies to legislation that hasn't been struck down by a court. You're thinking of natural law theories which are numerous and varied, and have no physical force backing them up. The US was arguably originally inspired by the Lockean theory of social contract, but the Constitution is the supreme law, and you can't successfully defend yourself by citing anything outside of its purview in any court in the US, or around the world because the US Constitution and resulting nation-state is recognized internationally.
No physical force such as Gravity?
Gravity is a physical force.
Gravity isn't the one making you get a driver's license. The legislatures and the courts, police, national guard, military, etc. they employ are. You're obviously trolling because you can't come up with a meaningful rebuttal…
The right to travel is in much older documents and still in force.
Take article 4 of the articles of confederation for example. This is not pseudo law and all agents of government must abide by the articles of confederation as well.
Articles of Confederation (1781):
… the free inhabitants of each of these states … shall be entitled to privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; and the people of each state shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other state, …
The people just don't have the ability or the guts to enforce their rights under law with the use of force available to them in the second amendment.
Technically, when a police officer stops an interstate traveller, they are breaking this law every time they they are enforcing the traffic code of their state.
The Articles of Confederation are no longer of any force or effect. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The right to ingress and egress to and from States in current US law can be seen here. Why would you think that prevents the States from regulating dangerous modes of travel? The second amendment wasn't meant to be used to overthrow reasonable laws demanded by the people for public safety.
The articles of confederation do have force and effect when the people
decide to enforce them. When these right to travel cases are appealed
beyond the level of the Supreme Court, the states and the federal
government realize they don't have a claim. That's just simple popular
sovereignty as it is found in the 10th amendment of the constitution.
Ultimately it is the right of the people to dismiss government in any manner they
see fit. Especially when their government no longer represents them.
The Constitution is the supreme law and the Constitution says the Supreme Court is the highest court in the country. The military and police only support the Constitutional government. They don't support any Articles of Confederation or whatever personal ideas of law you think are relevant that aren't because they have no force behind them. They haven't since 1778 when the Constitution came into force and the US aka USA became recognized internationally by ~200 other sovereign nation-states.
Yes but that's under statute law. There are also other laws in effect such as natural law and common law. These laws take precedent over the Supreme Law of the Land and the agents that support it. When the Constitution is no longer in effect, the military and the police no longer have any jurisdictional powers beyond the arms they bear. The same goes for those people who are equally and rightfully armed.
The legislatures created the constitutions and courts and pay the judges, military and police. Get a clue.
The legislatures created the constitutions and courts and pay the judges, military and police to enforce the constitutions and legislation. Get a clue.
No it was the people who made the constitution. It's in the preamble as in "We the People.." Are you sure I need to get a clue? Isnt't that an ad hominem attack on me?
According to the preamble, "We the people.." created the constitution.
Who do you think represents the collective People in a republic? Statutory law has always been the highest law. What right would a court or law enforcement agency ever have to overrule its creator and employer?
In today's society, no-one in government represents the people. Why? Because we are an Oligarchy.
Please try to stay on topic. This article is about the right to travel in the existing United States.
The Supreme Law of the Land is just that — supreme. There is no common law, statute law, or natural law that is enforceable above the organic constitutions. That's kind of the point.
The american states began with the formation or continuation of a legislature/assembly that wrote a constitution. English statutes and common law were imported into the states by reception statutes. The legislatures have always retained their superiority, as clearly seen. The state legislature created the constitution, courts, police, etc. and pays police, prosecutors and judges to uphold the constitution and legislation. Common law is continued, modified and made by judges in those courts, and varies by state. Common law, all meaningful law i.e. backed by force, begins inside and is subject to the constitutional state and its legislated laws.
As is typical of the less intelligent sort who reside on the far right
and far left of the political spectrum there is an inability to
understand or an unwillingness to understand the law and how it
operates. This nonsense where some so-called "sovereign citizen" cherry
picks selections of different statutes and court decisions and jumbles
them together to make up some bizarre legal theory is just that –
nonsense. That is all you have done here. As for your claims of what you do ro do not do, well that is just a claim. If you are the same as most all of your ilk you will cry like a bitch when you are finally stopped by a cop who decides he is going to enforce the law and arrest your ignorant ass. Then you can sit in jail like the Bundy clan who though they had a "constitutional right" to seize a bird sanctuary belonging to the People of the United States and vandalize it. Unless of course you are as stupid as the Finicum asshole and you decide to commit suicide by cop. Either way for society it will be a win win situation.
You cannot win an argument simply by way of bullying or unintelligent garbage. What I presented is true and factual, all one needs to do is write their own state legislators asking where they have the authority outside the confines of the State or Federal Constitution. Being a complete utter moron does not win your stance. Any intelligent being can see and read that your a tricked closed minded monkey under the government authority who wishes to continue garbage of slavery.
Sorry junior but you are trying to shift the argument away form the point I made and which stands. You have presented no evidence to support your claim. You have simply posted cherry picked snippets of laws and court cases out of context and then strung them together in an unintelligible mishmash claiming they support your position. No one has argued anything about state legislators being able to operate outside the state and federal constitutions.
To the contrary you have claimed they have done so and not proven anything. Instead you use gibberish.
Hey dumbass your a little late to the table, your falling behind. dismiss yourself, you have nothing intelligent to offer. My claim is and was, Municipal laws do not apply to state citizens and one has a right to travel without a license backed by the Supreme Court on both accounts and the evidence dumbass is in OUR Constitution.
I asked you to stop the excessive ad hominem attacks and repetitive arguments but you didn't so now I'm going to stop them for you.
you probably have to use smaller words and define ones like "ad hominem" for those on the shorter bus
Oh we all know what your opinion is, you have been kind enough to bloviate on it for some time. The problem for you is that you have done nothing to prove it. Cherry picking snippets of this and that with no regard for external or internal context and then loudly announcing you have proven your opinion is a common action among certain types who have no actual proof. But thanks for playing.
Bullshit.
Damon S. Sir you are 100% right, and the reasons why our laws are so corrupt is due to disobedience of the Constitution, backed by greed of making money for self enrichment, License is a way of tracking debtors/ aka government slaves and charging the strawman for not doing what the master told them to do. Clearly these other guys on ur page are still in the system, it's a waist of time talking to them. Ignorance of the law (Constitution) is no excuse. The police in these states swore under oath to uphold the United States Constitution, not codes and statues. I bet these other guys will start registering their snowblowers, and lawnmowers, Just unlearned people.
In accordance with currently-reigning principles of international law, the US aka USA is a sovereign nation-state that enjoys exclusive sovereignty over its recognized geographical area.
Article 1 of the federal Constitution says Congress can make laws, aka statutes. State constitutions create legislatures with the power to create statutes, too. Constitutions also create courts to enforce the constitution and statutes and create common law that only applies where legislation is vague or silent, and legislatures determine the judge's salaries. State police's first duty is to enforce the laws of the state that pays their paycheck. Federal police are employed to enforce federal law.
If you think a law is unconstitutional you have every right to defend yourself in court and appeal any judgment when charged. If the courts agree with you the charges will be dismissed and the law may be struck down, then the legislature can create another law and try again. If the courts don't agree with you it's up to you to rally the people of the state to pressure your representatives in the legislature to change the laws. That's how representative democracy in a republic works.
Yes but the elections are fixed. Our government no longer represents the people.
If you truly believe that there is only one solution and that's violent revolution. Then after all the death and destruction the same thing or worse gets set up all over again. You aren't going to change the global system of international law that says nation-states have sovereignty over geographical areas and can rule them as they see fit. Humanity likes society and the order structured government provides. That's why we have it.
The people delegated their authority to this form of government doesn't mean death and destruction in order to delegate their authority to a new form of government. The death and destruction will come from those institutions that wish to remain in existence.
If there is no government, the people will do as they have done under common law.
Take the anti-state crap elsewhere – this article is about actual rights inside the existing US that don't take a militaristic revolution to enforce.
Pseudo, Smells wasn't taking about a militaristic revolution. I believe Smells was trying to get you to recognize that the plural sovereignty of the people is superior to the supreme law of the land. Since it was the people who delegated their authority to the government that was created by the Constitution. You must realize the people have always had the authority retrieve their authority from the delegated entity.
The people's inalienable rights do not come from any statute. These rights existed at the moment the people came into existence and are protected by these same people by whatever means are available to them. The right to travel is an inalienable right that can not be taken away even if statute fails to enumerate or uphold the absolute right to travel. This is the simple foundation of law.
Never has been, never will be, but keep dreaming.
Pseudo, Smells wasn't taking about a militaristic revolution. I believe Smells was trying to get you to recognize that the plural sovereignty of the people is superior to the supreme law of the land.
Since it was the people who delegated their authority to the government that was created by the Constitution. You must realize the people have always had the power to retrieve their authority from the entity they delegated.
The people's inalienable rights do not come from any statute. These rights existed at the moment the people came into existence and are protected by these same people by whatever means are available to them. The right to travel is an inalienable right that can not be taken away even if statute fails to enumerate or uphold the absolute right to travel. This is the simple foundation of law.
Juan, that's because you don't have any intelligence or have the ability to use reason. You don't need a license to exercise a right. You just need the ability to enforce your right.
Damon they can say what they want. But until they educate themselves and stop following blindly they will be sheep and slaves. I laugh at them because the consider people who are knowledgeable on this issue. Stupid and yet they know nothing other than what they have been indoctrinated off. I study Constitutional law. So call it what ever you want. but until they open their eyes they will be blind.
Let us know when you win a claim as a plaintiff with your epic legal skillz.
According to widely-recognized international law, nation-states have sovereignty over their recognized territory, and any person (men are always considered natural persons) or property within the borders may be regulated. You're putting the cart before the horse. Contract law arises inside nation-states and their sub-states, not outside. Law only matters when it can actually be enforced, by military and police. Constitutionality and lawfulness are for the courts to decide, not individuals. Everyone and everything within a nation-state's territory is automatically bound by ALL of the national, state, county and municipal laws. In the US, some areas are unincorporated and only have national, state and county law, but that's about as good as it gets. The only way out is to leave to another country or overthrow the existing government by military force just like in 1776. So, how big is your military?
Just keep your head in the sand and believe EVERYTHING the government tells you!
Unless You have met and are a psychological doctor who works as such providing diagnosis, HOW DARE YOU DECLARE SUCH A BROAD STATEMENT IN REFERENCE TO SOVEREIGNS, THAT IS SLANDER YOU MORON!!!! Go educate yourself.
Sovereign citizens are nutjobs who left reality miles behind them. They live in a psychotic fantasy world because they're nutty as fruitcakes.
Uhh….Ken…don't you think the truly insane have enough problems without being compared to sovereign citizens?
You are communist and your statements are incorrect. Not only are you incorrect but your examples are extremely poor. They all involve damage to other citizens. The Constitution clearly states that if you do not hurt anyone, damage someone's property or remove it unlawfully, you have committed no crime and that no punishment may be imposed upon you. Read it, know it, live it! This is the United States of America, the only free Bastion left in the world! Quit trying to destroy it. If you don't like it, move to a communist country and enjoy your police state.
Sorry loser but you wasted a bit of space to state an opinion with no facts to support it.
You've been duped by the ignorant socialist masses. You moron, the fact is the Constitution. <—period
Read It and Weep. Stop trying to impede Liberty. I suggest you go talk to Rep. Trey Gowdy. He will certainly set you straight.
I repeat, you are wasting a lot of space on posting unsupported drivel. BTW, I have read the Constitution, repeatedly. I have a degree in Constitutional Law.
I do appreciate your interaction as well as your knowledge (it is valuable to me). Although we may differ on some ideological issues, I will continue to defend Liberty, as all of my forefathers (for over 240 years); and resist government control/oppression. I understand the necessity of government mechanisms to police those that do not police themselves, but not at the cost of Liberty. The travel issue is trivial.
I wish there were more people like you and I, that could come to a more civilized conclusion about how we want to live together; without oppressing and even killing each other.
The masses are always wrong and just because people say or do something, doesn't make it right (moral/ethical).
I will agree to disagree and continue my endeavor to defend freedom in the pursuit of happiness.
May you find prosperity, sincerely.
No, it doesn't. None of the 57 constitutions in the United States say that.
I can think of a classic example…
Drunk Driving is a crime in all 57 constitutions, right?
No, but so far as I know, there are laws against it in every state, territory, and the District.
You wouldn't know a communist if one slapped you up the side of the head with a copy of Das Kapital. As for the rest of your drivel, well it's just silly drivel.
Wow, I thought you're response would have been much more indepth. You probably just Googled Marx or Lennon. Nice display of your derelict cognition.
You need to brace your strawman better than that to conquer truth. Your banter is easily nullified. The conversation nearly lifted my brow, but then it failed to invigorate. Your free will has been trapled by your own ideology. You will fair not against me, nor will you subjugate me with your ignorance. Good day Sir.
Another triggered so called sovereign citizen who thinks he can keep repeating the same drivel over and again without providing verifiable facts to support his opinion, is now upset that I will not play his game.
As educated as you claim to be you're not very bright; because I'm still here and you have not subjugated me. This is a Blog. I'm a national of this country, I belong here just like you. Just because you write something on a piece of parchment and get others to subscribe to it, doesn't make it true or right/ethical. You're a last word kind of guy, I can tell. It gives you a false sense of power (I do however appreciate your service to Lady Justice). You're going to miss everything wonderful in life and die angry. I know I'm playing the antagonist here.
p.s. I'll expect your last word…..
This has gone on long enough and gotten ugly enough. I'm not seeing anything productive from this thread, so I'm gonna go ahead and ask you two to drop it.
As I said, another triggered so called sovereign citizen who thinks he can keep repeating the same drivel over and again without providing verifiable facts to support his opinion, is now upset that I will not play his game.
This has gone on long enough and gotten ugly enough. I'm not seeing anything productive from this thread, so I'm gonna go ahead and ask you both to drop it.
ok
It is apparent juanjo54 that you have absolutely NO UNDERSTANDING as what a "right" is, for if you did you would understand that it cannot be taxed, it cannot be regulated, it cannot be registered! This was settled back in the Magna Carta of 1215, 1216, 1217, and even 1219!
Let's help you with some LOGIC:
example – I'm hired by you to do your lawn, I am thereby your paid servant. We are both sovereigns, but until I finish your lawn I am still a servant, but a paid servant due to are agreement/oral or written contract. Now me as your servant can I decide what color your house can be? How about can I decide to chop down and remove that tree you love in your front yard? Can I decide that you must install a chainlink fence for your own good and safety? Likewise, as your servant can I force you to pay me for those actions?
Your answer of course is no, because I am your servant and a servant has NO AUTHORITY or JURISDICTION to force these actions on me!
SURPRISE!!!! Senators, Congressman, and even Judges are paid servants to us "SOVEREIGNS!".
Thus, no servant can pass a law or statute for which it's master must submit himself/herself to!
You seem to have the belief that servants are masters over there masters, for which that logic has no merit or validity!
Can you please show where I as a sovereign ever agreed to be a servant and give up my inalienable rights, so that I could be taxed, and regulated by my servants in government? Please, show me!
I have the right to do things without permission, yet I will give up my right in order so that now I can pay to ask someone for permission in the form of license to do what I was already entitled to do freely?
I suggest you look up the legal term of license!
When did marriage become illegal?
When did fishing become illegal?
When did hunting become illegal?
When did starting up a business become illegal?
I' m sorry that millions of sovereigns have been dumbed down by the Prussia Indoctrination System, later renamed the American Education System, as put in place by Horace Mann!
Those that Blindly accept the LIE that the government has the authority/jurisdiction over them – deserve to be treated as the chattel of their servants!
There are no absolute rights, "TruthandFreedom." Every right has boundaries and limitations.
By the way, Magna Carta is not American law.
Interesting bit of commentary on the Magna Carta. Which specific version of the Charter are your referring to? There have been a number of them. The 1215, 1216, 1217, 1225, or the 1297 version?
You make a claim that a right " cannot be taxed, it cannot be regulated, it cannot be registered" Please point to the specific clause in the Charter which states this and please identify which version you are using.
Since with only a few exceptions the Charter only applies to "free men", kindly explain how it applies to you. Free Men as that term was used at the time of each of the charters applied only to knights [Esquires], the nobility – barons, earls etc and the King [and his family]. This was roughly 15% of the male population who were permitted to gather in Parliament and to vote. That never changed under British rule until 1867 when the law was changed by Parliament to allow those who owned their own home above a certain value to vote. That allowed almost 30% of the men in the United Kingdom to vote.
Now since I actually hold the title of Esquire and own lands valued in total at more than 1 million US dollars, were I a subject of the United Kingdom and resident therein I would have been able to sit in Parliament and to vote. What title do you hold?
You claim the title of "sovereign citizen" That title is not mentioned nor defined in the Charter. Neither have you defined what you mean by the term. Thus lacking any justification for the term by you, it is irrelevant and nonsensical. Of course if you in the future provide some actual definition not to mention some verifiable proof how it is relevant to the Charter we might discuss it.
Finally, the Charter set forth specific provisions which dealt with grievances the lesser nobility, primarily the barons, had with the king at the time. The barons were upset that the higher nobility were subjecting them to their justice in the courts the nobles ran and not allowing them access to the King's courts. The king also was raising money by extorting bribes in the King's Court for the issuance of a favorable judgment, essentially selling a favorable verdict to the higher bidder. The barons claimed the right under law to be heard for redress of wrongs in the King's Court and could not be taxed [forced to pay a bribe for a favorable verdict].
Henry III in 1225, agreed with the barons in the version of the charter he issued to agree that no taxes could be levied on the nobility without the agreement of the nobility. That meant the nobles gathered in a parliament would discuss the matter with the king and decide the matter.
Please explain how this provision supports your claim.
Finally as interesting as the Charter is in the development of Anglo-American jurisprudence, we operate under the Constitution of the United States of America not the Magna Carta. While courts and judges sometimes do reference the Charter, it is not our Constitution. Please provide specific statutes and case law which support your claim that your present interpretation of the Charter as stated in your post, somehow applies to the situation.
As for your comments about some contract between you and me, that is irrelevant. Contracts for employment as an "independent contractor" proceed under contract law as defined in the jurisdiction where the contract is entered into and where the work is performed unless the contract specifically states some other jurisdiction's law applies. That has nothing to do with the Charter. The US Constitution has limited application as it leaves the specifics of contract law up to the state. Of course under the 13th Amendment as interpreted by the courts, even where there is a valid contract, if you were to renege and refuse to perform the work I could not hold you in servitude because slavery is forbidden in the United States. I can only seek damages in a court of law for you failure to perform. But again this is irrelevant to your argument.
nut case brigade? fruit cake? Smug judgement.
Accurate, too!
Another Domestic Enemy of your Rights above
more gibberish
How many men would it take to properly and democratically vote the panties off an unwilling woman?"
For you Pseudo idiots, I have a question to which I would like a rational response: If I was not born with any special authority to command you, and you were not born with any special authority to command me, and for the sake of argument, NO ONE was born with any special authority to command another, then HOW DO TWO OR MORE PEOPLE COMBINE THEIR "NON-EXISTENT" AUTHORITY TO TELL SOMEONE ELSE WHAT THEY CAN DO, SO LONG AS IT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE LAW OF TRESPASS?
Wow. Although you are right about sacrificing hahaha the right to liberty is sacred. Just a few years ago in Florida a man won 23 thousand in lawsuit for being falsely imprisoned. Now he was arrested properly but when he paid his bail they restrained him in a cell until the paperwork was done instead of letting him sit in waiting room. Now there are several states that do list traffic infractions as criminal but here in new york they are civil, now how do you deprive liberty for a civil infraction? Did you waive rights ? The hogwash that is online about the right to travel is just that for the most part ,but if you actually learn the purpose of government and look at the bill jacket for the legislation on driver license you will come to a different conclusion.read the pictures and explain what has changed and where's the law to prove it? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/35ce293adeaf09c33eb3d1758c735dfe75a00e53e66fc27707f3ec74cad36962.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4199618f78d1faf752f69d24688dc8e1f6384d8e03673022da24dbd87cede45a.jpg
More cherry picking from various cases, typically quite old and in this case mixing them with unsupported drivel on other matters. Here is a hint for you genius – a attorney general opinion from 1909 interpreting New York law at that time is not helping you. That law has been revised and changed in New York numerous times since 1909, a time when automobiles were very expensive and most people owning one hired a chauffeur to drive it for them. I suggest you show us where the current Vehicle and Traffic Code for the State of New York supports your claims.
Well your full of shit and with a name juanjo is a perfect example of a fruit cake who's foreign to this country drunk up to his red neck of criticism lacking jurisdiction arguing a law that was never required or any law, rule, statue, code, what about us who's origin is of this land put here by God with only 10 commandments never expecting some drunk idiots would get lost and proceed to ask for help do to their lack of servivil skills in this native land bound to die as soon as food ran out but just like all non indigenous back stabbers scared as fuck you tricked the natives killed them, raped their wife's and then you restrict them from everything that God gave us all to enjoy this life how can you argue such fucken sin, greed, selfishness, supreccion un human coward actions of deceit with offerings like alcohol and non natural man maid unnecessary junk keeping us controlled and ignorant to Tru life with out loved ones eventually destroying the meaning of our existence and is who are of this land from bloodline of orgine are sovereign because that's what you invented to categories in segregating by class so you build a car score our lands so you could travel create a currency with your government and make it so difficult with bills,laws,codes,rules,fines,jail,courts,cops,citations anything and everything to keep suppressed and from traveling our lands as intended by God is Injustice in your words also inhuman and straight up wrong!!!
BUt You dont require a LICENSE for the Unalianeable RIGHTS. When a license is required ANY activity without it is a CRIME … that is not a RIGHT However as you have said they CAN dictate the manner of the LEGAL activity through legistaltion for saftey etc. But licences would be required for all commerce active travel.
You do not have an "unalienable" right to drive an automobile any more than you have one to fly a plane. But if you wish to produce evidence that the Founders drafted such a right into the Constitution, I am more than delighted to see the proof for your argument. If you wish to exercise your right to travel between states, then by all means the Constitution says you have that right. You can exercise it any time by just standing up and walking. That's what they did.
Its the 5th amendment that allows us the pursuit of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. With out the right to travel on PUBLIC owned roads one could not practice this amendment as a right . Now saying that , Can you see the infraction against that right. I did not say that I have aright to drive ( which is a term used to define commercial activity for HIRE or sale of goods for profit.) An operator is just that a traveler of the public roadways and is a RIGHT and a requirement to LIVE in these states. Do you see it NOW! the US supreme court has upheld that right to travel.
First, you misquoted the 5th Amendment. Second, you have provided only opinion. Cite the SCOTUS case which supports your claims
The SCOTUS has ruled that people have the right to travel between the states. It has never said that this means anyone can operate a motor vehicle with no restrictions whatsoever on their competence to operate a motor vehicle. Likewise it has never said that one can just hop on an airplane and fly without going through security checks and proving who they are.
Stop repeating the same tired argument with no proof of what you are claiming. Repetition does not make it any more valid. The 5th Amendment among other things, states that the government may not arbitrarily take a right or property from an individual with a proper hearing and compensation. It says nothing about any person being able to hop in a motor vehicle and "travel" on a public road any more than it says a person may hop into an airplane and fly off into the sky without proper licensing.
BTW, stop with that BS argument about the definition of driver. It has been addressed numerous times here. The various statutes in the United States as elsewhere have been written and rewritten over time. They now include more than commercial drivers and chauffeurs and have for a long time. It is rather silly to ignore that fact. When the first automobiles were manufactured both in the US and elsewhere, they were extremely expensive. Only the very wealthy or commercial businesses could afford them. They did not drive themselves around, they hired people to do so. After mass production came into mode, the prices dropped and as Ford desired, the average worker could afford to buy a automobile. They had no rules to cover that, no license, no driving test, no rules of the road. My grandfather told me about his first auto. He bought it second hand from a co-worker. He was given a short demonstration from the guy who sold it to him on how to operate it and off he went. States started putting in laws to prevent the carnage they saw on the roads back then.
The fact is that numerous state supreme courts and the SCOTUS have ruled that the right to travel is protected. They have also repeated ruled with regard to automobiles that the right to drive is one granted by the government and is subject to due process concerns with regard to the application of licensing requirements. Thus, driving can be restricted based upon criteria which promote a legitimate state interest. If you have a SCOTUS case out there that says that there is an unrestricted right to travel by automobile, let"s see it.
You are as I stated earlier NOT correct . We have the right to the pursuit of life , LIBERTY and happiness. By forcing a RIGHT to require a licenses then you have determined that driving is a crime UNLESS you have a license. Now we have the right to travel anywhere with out a problem of law. The only time we are liable for actions of driving is when WE hurt someone or cause damage to others property. Then if we do not restitute then we are to go to court to remedy . THATS when the LAW comes into affect. I am not harming anyone when I get a ticket for speeding which ALL driving law is for the control of unusual/ exceptional activity such as BUSINESS profiting from using the PUBLIC roads. They use it excessively and this MUST have rules to reduce that impact on the public costs. This is the remedy , licensing for commercial activity not for me going to the store to get a gallon of milk. Now even of i speed past the speed limit sign does not have any bearing on my free citizenship and constitutional right to travel these roads. YOUS ARE WRONG and need to study this out a bit more. BTW you did know that all district courts are operating on Admiralty jurisdiction which is a UCC corporate control of a FOREIGN agent which is in LONDON thats why the esquires are Shield bearers for the Knights Templar and do not represent AMERICAN constitutional LAW. They ,Rather, represent the COURTS and not the defendant no matter what nor common LAW aka public law. EVEN the admiralty jurisdiction prevents the over stepping of the COMMON law that is still in place by UCC 1-308.4 that cannot over ride the COMMON law , at least not until they remove this provision in the Admiralty jurisdiction.
That is a lovely collection of nonsense with no basis in reality. I note that you have no actual proof for any claims you are making not to mention, now you are shifting the subject AGAIN. BTW I am and have been an attorney for over 35 years and most definitely am not a "shield bearer" for the Knights Templar, whatever that is.
What do you think the word esquire is. Look it up. Also YOU may not be aware but that does not mean its not so. I have all the proof and case law to back it up.I cannot believe that you have been entrenched in that career so long yet dont know about the deliberate deception being done to us. You have not even mentioned about the Admiralty jurisdiction we are under and that all of it is civil law and not criminal . There is a difference . our constitution was written so that we had pure freedom unless we injured or caused HARM. WHo is harmed in violating speed limits And to argue we are safer makes nonsense . For the punishment of the injury or harm will suffice as punishment , we dont need a fence around a fence .
Again, a bunch of claims, dodges and other drivel. You have produced noting to support your original point and now you are simply making claims with no facts or aw cases to support them. Let's get back to your original nonsense. The 5th Amendment among other things, states that the government may not arbitrarily take a right or property from an individual with a proper hearing and compensation. It says nothing about any person being able to hop in a motor vehicle and "travel" on a public road any more than it says a person may hop into an airplane and fly off into the sky without proper licensing. If you have a SCOTUS case to support that claim, lets see it.
BTW given how enamoured you are with Black's Law Dictionary, here is their definition of esquire – What is ESQUIRE?
In English law. A title of dignity next above gentleman, and below knight.Also a title of oflice given to sheriffs, serjeants, and barristers at law, justices of thepeace, and others. 1 Bl. Comm. 406; 3 Steph. Comm. 15, note; Tomlins. On the use ofthis term in American law, particularly as applied to justices of the peace and otherinferior judicial officers, see Call v. Foresman, 5 Watts (I>a.) 331; Christian v. AshleyCounty, 24 Ark. 151; Com. v. Vance, 15 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 37.
https://thelawdictionary.org/esquire/
Since 1938 the Bankruptcy of the Unites sates (a corp) caused the Admiralty law to come into affect the Maritime law yes. They are all answerable to the BAR … British accredited registry ,a foreign corporation based in LONDON. Look it up please. I would like to be wrong on this but I m not.
You keep repeating the same drivel with no proof. It is your burden to prove the veracity of your claims. You have not done so. You have just been working your way through a series of logical fallacies, like the one about, "Since 1938 the Bankruptcy of the Unites sates (a corp) caused the Admiralty law to come into affect the Maritime law yes. They are all answerable to the BAR … British accredited registry ,a foreign corporation based in LONDON."
very true awesome thank you for your comment
Frustrating isn't it? The reason why so many of our fellow USA citizens fight against us to their own detriment even, is because true freedom = equality. Unfortunately they like the class system created by the slavish nature of our current society. They can then boast about their "superior knowledge" of the law and such. Keep up the good work, my friend.
They can thank us later.
A luta continua!
True freedom is anti-social anarchy. What killer would agree to be bound by a law against murder? Every society has rules. There are benefits to the complex interwoven nare-global society we enjoy today. Do you think computer factories, electrical grids and the internet would arise without a global system of relatively stable government? Without government, the cables would be ripped up and sold for scrap.
True freedom does not equal anarchy. Your example doesn't make sense as there are laws against murder, yet murders continue.
You seem to think, like most slavery apologists, that I am anti-government. I'm not…I'm anti-government abuse/over-reach. "For the common good" wasn't to give government unfettered power over all things and all people.
No-one said laws prevented all evil. Laws discourage and punish evil. So you agree laws for the common good are acceptable, but you don't think it's reasonable that 5000+ pound machines that can be easily operated at high speed in public should have some sort of regulatory scheme around them? Driver's licenses are utilized the world over, in probably 150+ countries, to discourage operation of vehicles by those who are inexperienced, incompetent, disabled, drunk, etc. You can read research that proves they and other regulations save lives. What do you know that they don't?
I didn't really say I agreed that "laws" for the common good are acceptable, I recognize the responsibility of the Fed. gov. to provide for the common good…slightly different. Anyway, regulating everything in life is exactly the type of over-reach 'm talking about. I readily admit that there is NO freedom without responsibility and I willfully accept the responsibility of operating a 5000 lb machine, just so many others, in addition to those who acce