Right to Travel Court Cites

[redy2fiyt]

Originally Posted by Codee

My point is that in california "drive" means precisely what she said it did. You need to look at the code definitions.

10-4. Will do.

[redy2fiyt]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

As far as I can tell, none of the cases you cited addressed the topic of drivers licenses.

The Chicago Motor Coach case (for which you gave an erroneous cite) involved a city's attempt to give one bus line a monopoly to the exclusion of other bus companies.

The other cases didn't even mention anything with wheels:

The Shapiro case was about welfare laws that tried to exclude newcomers to the state.
The Murdock (not Murdook) case involved a city's attempt to require a license and fee for house-to-house missionary activity by Jehovah's Witnesses.
Shuttlesworth involved the legality of participating in a civil rights sit-down demonstration in segregated restaurants.
Miranda involved the police sweating a confession out of a suspect.

So Shoonra, are you implying that although the Murdock case (not Murdook - thank you for the correction) involved...

Originally Posted by Shoonra

a city's attempt to require a license and fee for house-to-house missionary activity by Jehovah's Witnesses.

are you then stating that the statement below only applies to house-to-house missionary activity by Jehovah's Witnesses?

“A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution..."

Shall I continue with Shuttlesworth?

“If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it, you can ignore the license and a fee and engage the right with impunity.”

Does this only apply to sit-down demonstrations in segregated restaurants? Can the state then convert my right into a privilege and then issue a license and fee for it? What if I then ignore the license and fee and continue to engage my right with impunity? Am I then subject to criminal punishment?

Do I need to go into detail on Miranda?

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."

Abrogate: To annul, cancel repeal or destroy.

Now, if my constitutional rights were abrogated in some other situation aside from the police sweating out a confession, could I use Miranda as a cite, as a defense? I think so.

Your arguement is falling apart quickly.

[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.

[Codee]

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.

[Codee]

Well maybe MRG can help out on this one. I think Shoonra again has hit on a strong point that I wish to comment on. WHat are you doing to your car? Are you "driving" the car? Are you "travelling" the car? Are you "Moving" the car? I have tried to get you guys to look into freedom of movement, right of way and actually looking at the statute,,, but you keep reading these irrelevant opinions as gospel. Do you think they write hude ellaborate oppinions for your bennifit? NOPE. They are all for their own gain. So you can every now and then find some good evidence that you are lookking for... but rarely.

You are definitly not "travelling the car." So again... maybe you all want to read the code and discover that it is OK to "DRIVE" your car while moving about and then tell the judges who spew this myth crap to go to hell. Travel is so often used with interstate travel I hesitate to accept any citation suggesting such a right unless hte citor does a good job of framing it.

[Shoonra]

I am not quite sure what to make of Codee's contributions. Sometimes he seems to be taking my side.

I have used court decisions from a variety of states -- I am not in, and did not confine my research to, California -- but NO STATE has ever recognized a "right" to drive a car on the public roads without a DL. The US Supreme Court has, however, held that states have the authority and the duty to require DLs as a safety measure.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I am not quite sure what to make of Codee's contributions. Sometimes he seems to be taking my side.

I have used court decisions from a variety of states -- I am not in, and did not confine my research to, California -- but NO STATE has ever recognized a "right" to drive a car on the public roads without a DL. The US Supreme Court has, however, held that states have the authority and the duty to require DLs as a safety measure.

Where on earth is the federal law requiring states to license persons who drive?

On the other note it sometimes appears as if I am agreeing with you because I am not using the same convention of arguing that you are used to. It must be easy to sit there and smack down opinions that were poorly written. But I am arguing law here and not opinion.

Shoonra I a will point out that the actual analysis on the other threads of actual statutes is virtually non-existent. I assume it is because you do not know of arguments against the root of SMJ.

You have been arguing against personam jurisdiction for so long you forgot about the force of a good SMJ.

Cody.

P.S. I am not going to argue any cases. you go ahead. I feel they are weak.

[Ice]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

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.

There is, cited somewhere within this forum, a S.C. case that states the right to travel exists with ANY FORM of CURRENT TRANSPORTATION. (which totally rebuts your above statement).

But, as Codee points out, it is useless to argue with "evidence" such as this because THERE ARE TOO MANY CONTRADICTORY DECISIONS handed down.

Best stick to SMJ.

[redy2fiyt]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I am not quite sure what to make of Codee's contributions. Sometimes he seems to be taking my side.

I have used court decisions from a variety of states -- I am not in, and did not confine my research to, California -- but NO STATE has ever recognized a "right" to drive a car on the public roads without a DL. The US Supreme Court has, however, held that states have the authority and the duty to require DLs as a safety measure.

I am by far, not an expert on any of this and I offer my apologies to Shoonra if I came across as “attacking”. Either way, I do see Cody’s and Ice’s point regarding the use of statutes versus case law and I have to agree with them. Shoonra, I have to assume that this is probably what you have been hinting at throughout our discussion and I now see your point. At this time, I have to respectfully bow out of this discussion and do further research.

Cody, I do have a question for you though. Why choose the Tax Code as a statute to cite and is that actually relevant when attempting to prove SMJ in court? This is truly a sincere question, not sarcastic.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by Codee

Where on earth is the federal law requiring states to license persons who drive?

As far as I know, no federal law (altho Congress has established a national DL registry which obviously expects every state to have a DL requirement, and possibly Congress also enacted some DL requirement for driving on federal highways and such, and enacted a DL requirement for DC before home rule). But the US Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the authority of the STATES to enact DL requirements, such as in the Hendrick case.