Know Your Constitution...

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by rodman652

Also, your claim "that the unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle on the public highways has NEVER been held to be one of the rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.", lacks merit.

Perhaps you should brush up on the 9th & 10th amendments to the constitution.

Shoonra is correct. It is YOUR position which lacks merit.

Perhaps you should brush up on something. Namely, Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610 (1915), wherein the Supreme Court ruled that under their general police power, states may indeed require that all drivers be licensed and that all automobiles be registered. This case is sometimes cited by the court when a "sovereign" nutball argues he has an inherent right to drive on public roads with no license, tag, insurance, etc.

Any argument that "I have the right to drive on public streets without obeying the laws regarding driver licensing, registration and insurance because [insert your pet theory here]", is a guaranteed loser.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Go Fish.

While you are at it, find us a case that actually contradicts my premise.

Motor vehicle statutes apply to ALL automobiles on public roads.

dysfunctional literacy at its worst.

[Lawdog]

Your writing style is so poor and garbled that at times it is difficult to decipher what your "premise" is.

This is one such instance. I know you're arguing yet again that there's some loophole in the motor vehicle laws you can use. You keep doing this even though you can't cite any cases to support you, whereas I and other have cited many, many cases that show you're wrong.

Other than that, I'm not entirely sure what your premise is.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Motor vehicle statutes apply to ALL automobiles on public roads. Period, case closed.

Always fun to see you're in complete denial concerning the reality of the world most people live in:

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/1587-post2.html


PS. Motor vehicle statutes apply to MOTOR VEHICLES and not "ALL automobiles in public roads" as you ignorantly state.

[Lawdog]

And if you think that your car, being driven on a public street, is not a "motor vehicle" as defined by (and subject to) your state's code (or any state's, for that matter), then you are in for a rude awakening.

I imagine my state's definition is fairly typical. From Georgia Code 40-1-1:

As used in this title, the term:

(33) "Motor vehicle" means every vehicle which is self-propelled other than an electric personal assistive mobility device (EPAMD)

A motor vehicle is every self propelled vehicle other than an electric wheelchair. Looks pretty comprehensive to me.

[Shoonra]

Among the decisions that have explicitly held that unlicensed driving on the public roads is NOT one of the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution (i.e., not a civil right) is

US ex rel Verdone v. Circuit Court for Taylor County [Wisc.] (WD Wis. 1993) 851 F.Supp. 345 affirmed (7th Cir 1995) 73 F3d 669.

New Hampshire v. Bentley (1st Cir 1968) 406 F2d 1064 cert.den 394 U.S. 1018

Nelson v. State (1953) 87 Ga.App 644, 75 SE2d 39.

State v. Getzschman (D.Neb Sept 1997) which apparently is unpublished; the same litigant was later convicted of multiple counts of fraud for trying to use "leroy checks" purporting to be US Treasury sight drafts as part of a Redemption Theory scheme of the sort encouraged by some on this website, US v. Getzschman (8th Cir 2003) 81 Fed.Appx 619.

Just counting the published court decisions, rodman is 0 for 3.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by FreeFromContract

Motor vehicle statutes apply to MOTOR VEHICLES and not "ALL automobiles in public roads" as you ignorantly state.

I can readily understand that the category of Motor Vehicles includes stuff other than conventional automobiles (e.g., buses, trucks), but I don't see how automobiles themselves are anything but motor vehicles.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Your writing style is so poor and garbled that at times it is difficult to decipher what your "premise" is.

actually jealous, or mere envy?

Methinks he doth protest too much!

Originally Posted by Lawdog

A motor vehicle is every self propelled vehicle other than an electric wheelchair. Looks pretty comprehensive to me.

If you lack reading comprehension then how do you ever win cases? Bribes? It can't be your personality.

Here's the part you missed, next time be more patient and learn about words:

TITLE 40. MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC
CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS O.C.G.A. § 40-1-1 (2007)

(75) "Vehicle" means every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, excepting devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.

plug "automobile" into "device" and check back when you figure out the premise.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Among the decisions that have explicitly held that unlicensed driving on the public roads is NOT one of the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution (i.e., not a civil right) is

US ex rel Verdone v. Circuit Court for Taylor County [Wisc.] (WD Wis. 1993) 851 F.Supp. 345 affirmed (7th Cir 1995) 73 F3d 669.

New Hampshire v. Bentley (1st Cir 1968) 406 F2d 1064 cert.den 394 U.S. 1018

Nelson v. State (1953) 87 Ga.App 644, 75 SE2d 39.

State v. Getzschman (D.Neb Sept 1997) which apparently is unpublished

Just counting the published court decisions, rodman is 0 for 3.

You'd do well to research the natural (or inherent rights, if you prefer) that existed before the 14th amendment (or the Constitution for that matter). Because that's what we're talking about here Bernie, not the civil rights you're referencing.

You may want to research the historical material available which yield the distinction between the two (especially you lapdog).


Here are a few references to help you out:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/am...tions_1765.htm

The RIGHTS OF PERSONS.

BOOK I.

1.
The rights of persons that are commanded to be observed by the municipal law are of two sorts ; first, such as are due from every citizen, which are usually called civil duties ; and, secondly, such as belong to him, which is the more popular acceptation of rights or jura. Both may indeed be comprised in this latter division ; for, as all social duties are of a relative nature, at the same time that they are due from one man, or set of men, they must also be due to another.
.....
PERSONS also are divided by the law into either natural persons, or artificial. Natural persons are such as the God of nature formed us : artificial are such as created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government ; which are called corporations or bodies politic.

THE rights of persons considered in their natural capacities are also of two sorts, absolute, and relative. Absolute, which are such as appertain and belong to particular men, merely as individuals or single persons : relative, which are incident to them as members of society, and standing in various relations to each other. The first, that is, abfolute rights, will be the subject of the present chapter.

[b]BY the absolute rights of individuals we mean those which are so in their primary and strictest sense; such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy whether out of society or in it.

If you don't like that reference, there are other references to natural and inherent rights which are more current.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/pa08.htm

Originally Posted by Constitution of Pennsylvania

WHEREAS all government ought to be instituted and supported for the security and protection of the community as such, and to enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and the other blessings which the Author of existence has bestowed upon man; and whenever these great ends of government are not obtained, the people have a right, by common consent to change it, and take such measures as to them may appear necessary to promote their safety and happiness.

I. That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

XV. That all men have a natural inherent right to emigrate from one state to another that will receive them...whenever they think that thereby they may promote their own happiness.

So let me ask, what do those cites you provide rely on as the authority for the statutes being challenged? I'll make a guess. I'd guess police powers and the presumption that the safety of society would be compromised without them.

The licensing schemes you support presume that without such licensing schemes the safety of the community would be compromised.

That is a red herring.

It is the violation of traffic rules and carelessness of the man or woman behind the wheel which may compromise the security and safety of those in the immediate vicinity (and even then, to state it is a threat to the community or society is an absolute fraud). There absolutely zero assurance that the community will be safer simply because that man or woman has acquired a license.

The licensing scheme is nothing more than a revenue scheme.

[Shoonra]

The US Supreme Court saw police power and public safety considerations as entirely plausible for having laws for licensing drivers and registering vehicles.

I don't have all those documents you mention close at hand, but I do have the Federalist Essays (and more than one edition) and, try as I might, I cannot find Hamilton or Madison or Jay saying that anyone had a Constitutional right to drive an internal combustion vehicle on city streets. But I'll keep looking.

The invention of the automobile created an entirely new situation as regards road safety. There was a definite limit to how stupid or destructive a horse would be, no matter who was holding the reins or how drunk, senile, immature, or blind that person was. The invention of the motor car eliminated at least half the brains that had previously been governing vehicles.