[DCLXVI]

Originally Posted by gldskr

The privilege is to use your motor vehicle upon the streets and highways as opposed to exercising your fundamental right to travel. There are classes of vehicles that may rightly be regulated.

I do not mean to be difficult. Are you saying that the privilege is "Use" "Use on the highway" or "Use of motor vehicle" or "Use of motor vehicle on the highway" that is the privilege? Isn't travel just a part of Liberty?

The license applies to the driver and the registration applies to the vehicle. If you drive in a registered motor vehicle you must have a license. If you drive in an unregistered vehicle the license is not necessary. Registration is the nexus not the license.

So I must be licensed to drive a motor vehicle. If the privilege is to drive a motor vehicle then you are saying that the term "motor vehicle" is what is regulated or the term "drive" that is regulated? Which between the two is the nexus for hte state to regulate? And that I must be licensed to use it and it must be licensed/registered to be used?

Also you state that the act of registering the car gives testimony as to it being a motor vehicle. If that is that case then would not every court case against those in new vehicles never registered be easily won by attacking the complaint failing to allege that one was driving a motor vehicle?

There is no swearing involved. It is an application not a mandate. It is assumed that you know what you are applying for. The fact that so many are ignorant is what they count on.


First testimony always involves swearing or verifying.

Second if it is a mere assumption that I knew what I was applying for then I can rebut it with "testimony" that I did not know and that the context in which you seem to suggest it is so, is not found in any statute or rule or regulation so it was not reasonable at all in the slightest for me to know that I was applying for something with characteristics beyond what was ascribed to it by statute which is the expression of the legilature and therefore the law. I would feel comfortable with that if that were the way it worked. But I doubt it would work.

I still do not know what I am applying for. I am applying for a license to drive a motor vehicle. I do not know what a motor vehicle is however other than the your statement that my car became one by my own testimony. What if I were in someone else’s car and they never showed me their registration? Suppose I hopped in their car and was driving around and got pulled over. Would not my argument in court that I had no way of knowing if the car was under a contract and had no reasonable way of ascertaining the knowledge first hand be an absolute defense?

Based upon our founding documents, the rulings of the Supreme Court and the statutes themselves there is no other logical conclusion. Once the impossible has been ruled out, the truth remains.

What is that conclusion?

What are "the founding documents"?

gldskr

Thank you.

: )