Right to Travel Court Cites

[Akira-]

I 2nd your "DUH" Codee

If Shoonra can't find it, it doesn't exist?

If the courts didn't say it was okay, then it can't be done?

If Shoonra can save just one sheeple from thinking for themselves... her whole life will be worth it. lol

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Duh to you too. Dismissals frequently turn into published opinions, explaining why the case is being dismissed. No such dismissal for "non-commercial" driving. Not a single one.

But they are not required to. Why would the court explain away their only sorce of revenue? Are they are sick of putting food on the table?

[Codee]

Originally Posted by http://www.ifes.ge/files/laws/criminal_code.html

CHAPTER 3
Ground For Criminal Liability; Categories Of Offenses
Art. 7. Ground for criminal liability
1) Offense, i.e. an illegal action committed guiltily under this Code, is a ground for criminal liability.

2) The action, which formally contains the elements of any action provided by this Code, but due to its insignificance has not caused any damage, or has not created a risk of any damage, which would necessitate criminal prosecution of a perpetrator, shall not be considered an offense.

There is pattern here to the codes... who sees it?


This all just my opinion however and all should think for themselves.

[ezrhythm]

“The activity licensed by state DMVs and in connection with which individuals must submit personal information to the DMV - the operation of motor vehicles - is itself integrally related to interstate commerce”.
Seth Waxman, Solicitor General
U.S. Department of Justice
BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERS
Reno v. Condon, No. 98-1464, decided January 12, 2000
Supreme Court of the United States

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

“The activity licensed by state DMVs and in connection with which individuals must submit personal information to the DMV - the operation of motor vehicles - is itself integrally related to interstate commerce”.
Seth Waxman, Solicitor General
U.S. Department of Justice
BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERS
Reno v. Condon, No. 98-1464, decided January 12, 2000
Supreme Court of the United States

This is an accurate quotation from the US brief in Reno v. Condon, however (1) the brief cites no direct authority for the sentence, and (2) the Supreme Court did not repeat this sentence in its opinion.

The case of Reno v. Condon (Jan. 12, 2000) 528 US 141, 145 L.Ed.2d 587, 120 S.Ct 666, 28 Media L.Rep. 1281, upheld the Drivers' Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (18 USC sec 2721 et seq). The DPPA was enacted because many state govts were selling the personal information on Drivers License applications to mailing list companies and other commercial enterprises, as a means of earning money for the state. Congress noted that some of the information on DL applications (such as SSNs and birthdates) was highly personal and releasing it could encourage fraud and other problems. Therefore the DPPA forbids the disclosure of any personal info obtained from any motor vehicle record; however, it did allow individuals applying for DLs to affirmatively permit the state to peddle their personal info, and it did allow the disclosure of vehicle accident information for statistical and insurance purposes and the like.

South Carolina and other states had made quite a bit of money from selling the DL information and those states sued to have the DPPA declared invalid under the 10th and 11th Amendments. 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.

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).

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.

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.

[redy2fiyt]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[rentiap]

Originally Posted by redy2fiyt

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.

Yes this has always been her MO and is why I choose to never comment or reply to any of her Dichotomous nonsensical postings.

[Shoonra]

No, I don't say "traveling" because that is not specific for being behind the steering wheel. I could be "traveling" when walking, sledding, or in the back seat of a vehicle.

At least one court case made it clear that the judge was not persuaded by the attempt to describe unlicensed driving as "traveling in my personal property".

It's worth pointing out that the traffic laws apply to vehicles put on the public streets, not on vehicles used exclusively on private property (such as tractors and golf carts or formula-1 race cars). The govt is responsible for the public streets - paving them, marking them, clearing them of snow, etc - and it has the duty and authority to keep the streets as safe as possible. So, in that capacity the govt puts a few conditions on people who bring a vehicle onto the streets, and whoever wants to bring a vehicle onto the streets must comply.

Nobody has pointed to a legal authority for a particular word that describes operating a vehicle for (specifically) noncommercial purposes.

Despite all the talk about "the right to travel", the courts have not said that this refers to or creates an enforceable right to operate a motor vehicle on the public roads without a DL.

[Codee]

I use the term driving and driver too. Shoonra could be correct. Each state has different definitions for these terms. So someone saying what the term means without doing a carefull analysis of the code the term appeared in has made a serious presumption as to the definition of the term.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

“The activity licensed by state DMVs and in connection with which individuals must submit personal information to the DMV - the operation of motor vehicles - is itself integrally related to interstate commerce”.
Seth Waxman, Solicitor General
U.S. Department of Justice
BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERS
Reno v. Condon, No. 98-1464, decided January 12, 2000
Supreme Court of the United States

I do not believe that this quote is accurate. I believe it is an opinion of someone's who read the case. I maybe wrong, but I do not think that this phrase appears in the text of the case cited.