Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shoonra
THe lower courts sided with the states, but the Supreme Court upheld the DPPA, by finding that the sale of the information (not the driving) was unavoidably part of interstate commerce and therefore Congress could, under Art.I,Sec.3,clause 8, regulate it.
The use of this quotation from the brief raises the possibility of arguing that driving, motoring, operating a motor vehicle (however you want to call it) on the public roads falls within the category of "interstate commerce" which can be regulated by Congress or of (intrastate) "commerce" which can be regulated by the State govt, so that it could require DLs from EVERYONE who gets behind the wheel, without regard to the purpose or nature of the particular motor trip.
|
This forum has already covered cites and definitions that clarify the difference in engaging in interstate commerce, as you have mentioned above, and traveling in one's personal conveyance. Additionally, Codee has already illustrated that a driver, operator, and motor vehicle as defined in the CVC is quite different than a person traveling in their own private automobile, for their own personal conveyance.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shoonra
The courts have held that conveying anything - a person or property - across state lines is interstate commerce even if done for free; cf. American Express Co. v. US (1909) 212 US 522 (Congress could prevent a commercial carrier from conveying certain packages for free). Interstate commerce includes the transport of people - even if those people are not themselves engaged in commerce (e.g. Greyhound Bus is in interstate commerce when it brings grandma to visit the children).
|
It should be noted that the example you chose to use includes a Greyhound bus which is the property of a commercial corporation. This seems irrelevant since the subject of the discussion is whether or not the CVC and other similar codes apply to persons traveling in their owne personal conveyance. Why choose to use an example of a commercial vehicle carrying passengers for a fee? That, of course, falls under the definition of commerce.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shoonra
Commerce, not necessarily interstate, is always involved in operating a motor vehicle on the public roads. The person behind the wheel, whatever his purpose in going on the road, will be buying gasoline, and possibly meals, lodging or groceries for himself.
|
Shoonra, if I walk to the store to purchase grocieries, during my travel am I engaging in commerce? I believe commerce, as defined by the UCC only applies to the actual transaction. So while I am in the store purchasing my groceries, only then am I engaging in commerce. The post-purchase walk home does not fall under the definition of commerce. If that was true, then the State would have the authority to regulate me walking to and from my home. Since "personal liberty" as noted in the fifth amendment and as defined in Black's Law as "...the right to locomotion" is a right guaranteed by the constitution, the State has no authority to regulate it. To that end, whether or not I choose to walk to the grocery store or travel in my personal automobile, I am exercising my constitutional right. Your statement above does not appear to hold much merit.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shoonra
On a slightly different note, considering the confusion and chaos that would result if traffic laws (including the requirement for qualifying for a DL and the vehicle passing an inspection) applied to drivers only some of the time, depending on the nature of their driving trip, with different times for every driver. Almost anyone stopped for speeding in a private automobile will claim they were only out for the fresh air or some other commercial purpose, etc. On the same highway, wildly different standards would apply to some vehicles in traffic but not vehicles next to them.
|
This makes the assumption that everyone who is traveling is engaging in commerce. This also implies that we are all guilty before proven innocent. Doesn't is seem to you that it is our God-given and constitutionally protected right to "get some fresh air" without being policed or regulated?
I would like the members of the forum to take note that in all of the quotes above, Shoonra is careful to use the terms "driving" and "driver" and never uses the terms "traveling" and "personal conveyance". These terms have drastically different meanings and we are currently comparing apples to oranges with these arguements. If Shoonra did use the latter terms, it would be an admission that the State has diminished the rights of the people and has created a state of "lock down" per say. Personal conveyance and the right to travel without restriction or regulation via fee is one of the foundations of this nation.