NO LICENSE - PERFECTED LEGAL ARGUEMENT

[Akira]

Originally Posted by RickA

Akira, I wasn't disputing that accidents/fatalities do not occur, they do. I was questioning how someone, who does not have a license, in and of it self, is the cause of the dangerous streets.

I quite agree...

A surgeons knife can kill, or cure... it all depends on the mindset (not skill) of the one wielding the blade.

An auto is no different...


For HIS Glory,
Akira

[cowboytroll]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

This argument is far from "perfected".

It assumes, erroneously, that the "right to travel" includes a "right" to pilot a motor vehicle on the public highways. The courts have repeatedly said No; the right to travel is merely the right to get from point A to point B - but does not encompass the choice of a means of transportation, much less sitting at the controls of that means of transportation. In other words, you have a right to travel to NYC - but not a right to insist on gettingthere by dogsled nor even by jet, much less letting you personally pilot the jet or run the dogsled on the public highways.

Having made the fundamental error about the right to travel, everything else in this argument is a waste of ink.

The Supreme Court, no less, has said that the States have a right - and a responsibility - to try to keep the highways safe and efficient by requiring that drivers be qualified and licensed and that vehicles be inspected and registered. It has refused to recognize a "right" to put either a driver or vehicle which lacks current proof of qualifying as roadworthy on the streets.

No disrespect but you are wrong the II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135 Has decided otherwise!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."
II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135
ANDso has
"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579
ALSO
"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business."
Thompson vs. Smith, supra.;
Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784
INCLUDING the orignal law
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Sincearly
cowboytroll

[cowboytroll]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

By the way, your particular questions do have answers. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers got its start when the mother of a girl killed by a drunk driver sued the local police for something akin to dereliction of duty; they had stopped this particular drunk driver ... and, knowing he was unfit to drive, let him get back behind the wheel and allowed him to drive off, only minutes before he killed her daughter. As the police had a specific duty to keep some they knew to be drunk from driving, she sued them and, I think, won a hefty amount.

the drunk driver also violated someone elses fourth and fifth ammendment rights therefore she had every right to sue for a "real crime."

[cowboytroll]

Originally Posted by sabredrivr

a city attorney once posed an interresting question to me;
if you don't believe speed limits are law do you believe it is ok for an individual to go flying 100 mph thru a busy school zone full of kids?
of course not!
but, if someone had a mind to do such a thing, a sign or a law will not prevent that someone from doing it!
only personal responsability & respect for life would.

there would be no need for testing if people would take responsability for their own actions.
this should be construed to mean; know what your doing behind the wheel before you take that machine on the road!
it's not the states responsability to ensure i am competent in/on my machine, it's mine!
responsability;the other side of the liberty coin.without one the other is gone.

i can recall no duty assigned to my government beyond providing for the common defense & protection of liberty.can you?
remember; if it's not written in the constitution, they can't do it!

all of this is just so much hubbub anyway.

the aforementioned "duties" of government have been perverted into excuses to further control & enslave the populace.
one step at a time OUR servants are further enslaving us.
first security camera's then redlight camera's. now speed control camera's on freeways.
imagine whats next: moral enforcement camera's in your home?
all it will take is a few favorable opinion polls & some more "liberally construed"
duties of the government......

brovo well said

[Codee]

Originally Posted by cowboytroll

No disrespect but you are wrong the II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135 Has decided otherwise!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."

The state has effectively navigated this topic as well. Please do not over look the "AT WILL" statement. They do not revoke the right "at will." The general rule is everyone gets a license unless you are too impared to get one. Also if the state tries to take your license you have the right to a hearing on that. These safeguards do effectively rebut "AT WILL" Then the cop who pulls you over must have probable cause to believe you were doing something. Also you can be interupted for non-safe conduct which the assembly in your state has already spelled out what is considered safe in a collection of codes called the vehicle code.

[snowy1]

Originally Posted by Codee

The state has effectively navigated this topic as well. Please do not over look the "AT WILL" statement. They do not revoke the right "at will." The general rule is everyone gets a license unless you are too impared to get one. Also if the state tries to take your license you have the right to a hearing on that. These safeguards do effectively rebut "AT WILL" Then the cop who pulls you over must have probable cause to believe you were doing something. Also you can be interupted for non-safe conduct which the assembly in your state has already spelled out what is considered safe in a collection of codes called the vehicle code.

the cops DO NOT have to have probable cause , that is a joke . 19 years ago when I worked at a lumber mill I would sometimes drop a friend off after work (at 2:30 pm), he lived within 2 blocks of a bar , I was pulled over almost every night I took him home . they would make up some phony excuse like my license plate light or taillight wasn't working. I drove a 64 VW bug but I made sure everything worked all the time . ( I rebuilt the motor etc myself)
Bottom line if you can't afford a newer vehicle you will get harrassed a lot more . I still see it happening with people I know today.

[Codee]

They do need probable cause.
That is why they keep making up an "excuse" to pull you over.
see freedom F.I.G.H.T v. Hannigan (commisioner for CHP)

[Codee]

I do not know where the notion that Carl Miller won 99% of his cases came from. I have heard of the fellow for almost ten years but have never heard that.

[Shoonra]

There is sufficient "probable cause" in the fact that the person at the wheel, or at least the person most likely to be at the wheel of this particular car, already has a track record for driving w/o a license or DUI or some other chronic moving violation.

[Codee]

Shoonra, You just raped the definition of "fact." And probable cause is "reasoble belief that a CRIME has been committed. Infractions are civil violations.
Don't be so quick to call people names or trash their ideas. If you want to teach someone you got to be at their level.