Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shoonra
The courts have held that there is no "right" to operate a motor vehicle on the public roads. There is a "privilege" which requires complying with the traffic laws, including qualifying for and maintaining a DL. The "right to travel" does not include a right to insist on a particular mode of transport, much less the right to be the one piloting it.
|
What courts? There are courts in every state. Every state could define opperate differently. What if my state did recognize a right to DRIVE/OPPERATE.
What if the statutes do not require a license. What if the statutes allow for unlicensed driving?
This falling back into crappy land arguing.
Everyone should have noticed how I did NOT try to just place california law into "All of the states." But that is exactly what Shoonra is doing.
Shoonra can say "The courts" but no court outside of California has the authority to rule on state issues. So a decision from "The courts" had better be a state court and then that decision on ly applies to that state and usually within the context of only that case.
Secondly, I see a shift to crappy arguing because there are all of the sudden LISTS of US Supreme courts Citations appearing around here but there is no law to which they evidence. I am guessing that they all evidence some federal right or statute. If you are not driving in DC I do not see how Shuttlesworth would apply to you. You can cite cases until you are blue in the face. The US Constitution provides protectiond to state citizens ONLY through the fourteenth amendment. You have no right to that legislation therefore the 14th gave "privliges and immunities." It did not create any new rights. There is a reason why Federal csaes are lways discussing travel in an interstate perspective... It is the only jurisdiction they have. The Federal Government has no right to tell a state how its internal operations are going to be handled. You simply cannot rely on a Federal decision reviewing a case from a certain state and then apply it to your situation in another state. I mean you can... but I don't.
There are probably hundreds of threads on Suijuris.net which contain huge conversations about all the supreme court cases on travelling. Please go post your comments there. This is a code, statute, and SMJ thread. Court cases make for bad law. Now you all are starting to go back to your secure little cases that NEVER EVER win. Good Luck!
Why don't you try listening to Shoonra. I have learned a few things from her posts in the past. To auto-attack her does nothing. Make sure your arguments are good and sound. USE LAW as a base and stop using EVIDENCE of law to support your contention based upon NOT LAW but more evidence of the law.
At somepoint one should think "Hey there are Supreme court cases which say I have the right to drive." Now how does that fit in with your whole argument?
Also lets not keep posting the difference between Drive and Operate AS THEY WERE DEFINED ALONG TIME AGO. Most of these cases talking about driving vs. operating occured so long ago that the words do not even have the same statutory definitions anymore. I actually saw a case cite on here from a California court where the court was talking about a section of motor vehicle code THAT HAS SINCE BEEN REPEALED. Thus cases like that have NO bearring on any case at all anymore.