What is a drivers license ?

[squirrel]

Does anyone have a way to check and see if these are true ??
Please post your findings if you do.



Here is how the Appellate Criminal Courts of Texas have answered this request: "The court has held that there is no such license known to Texas Law as a "driver's license." (Frank John Callas v. State, 167 Tex. Crim. 375; 320 S.W. 2d 360.)

"We have held that there is no such license as a driver's license known to our law." (Claude D. Campbell v. State, 160 Tex. Crim. 627; 274 S.W. 2d 401.)

"An information charging the driving of a motor vehicle upon a public highway without a driver's license charges no offense, as there is no such license as a driver's license known to the law." (Keith Brooks v. State, 158 Tex. Crim. 546; 258 S.W. 2d 317)

"There being no such license as a "driver's" license known to the law, it follows that the information, in charging the driving of a motor vehicle upon a highway without such a license, charges no offense." ( W. Lee Hassell v. The State, 149 Tex. Crim. 333; 194 S.W. 2d 400)

[rentiap]

I seem to have read somewhere that they only have an Operators license and a Cheufers license.
I will try to find where I read this.

Cheers,
Craig.

[UGA Lawdog]

True but misleading. The point of these old cases (none are more recent than 1959) is that, under Texas law at the time, they did not use the term driver's license. That meant that an accusation of "operating a vehicle without a driver's license" was technically incorrect.

From the Hassell decision, 194 S.W.2d 400:

"(a) No person, except those hereinafter expressly exempted, shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway in this State unless such person has a valid license as an operator, a commercial operator, or a chauffeur under the provisions of this Act.

"(b) Any person holding a valid chauffeur's or commercial operator's license hereunder need not procure an operator's license.

Texas used the term "operator's license" instead of driver's license. They also had two other classes....commercial operator and chauffeur. Clearly, then, an operator's license is equivalent to what other states call a non-commercial driver's license.

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by UGA Lawdog

Clearly, then, an operator's license is equivalent to what other states call a non-commercial driver's license.

What if, in your legislative statutes (state's statutes at large) - NOT JUST THE CODE; there was only a Commercial Drivers License Act prefaced with "be it enacted" but none such for "non-commercial" drivers' licenses?

First, when their statutes are applied as written, even they cannot live by them.

But most important is that their law usurps paramount law, which is clearly written in Acts 17:28.

I have no rights but those that are God-given.

I started reading some cases on right to travel based on my reading of this thread, and the one thing that stuck out in my mind were the following words:

"Petitioner argues"

What is the law of Jerseee?

Never Argue.

[mrg]

deleted duplicate post.

new computer has a hair pin trigger.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by HenryBowman

First, when their statutes are applied as written, even they cannot live by them.

But most important is that their law usurps paramount law, which is clearly written in Acts 17:28.

I have no rights but those that are God-given.

You say a lot in very few words.
Very good to see this one.
Thanks.

For in him we lyve move and have oure beynge as certayne of youre awne Poetes sayde. For we are also his generacion.

[David Merrill]

Indeed there is the most comprehensive treatise on citizenship beginning there in the book of Acts. Interestingly there is a plain-sight/plain English codification in the KJV:

Act 17:16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry.

Act 19:21 After these things were ended, Paul purposed in the spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying, After I have been there, I must also see Rome.

Act 20:22 And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there:

Act 21:4 And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem.

Act 23:9 And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees' part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God.

One finds that there are general spirits (ours) and of course the Holy Spirit mentioned in specific. It was Paul's spirit that ignored warnings from the Holy Spirit to stay out of Jerusalem. Many Jew's including James the Just were to become very angry with Paul, not so much for teaching the law (as given to Jews) was dead and replaced with the Seven Noachide Laws - the Jews understood that to be true. They were annoyed with Paul for spending a large amount of alms intended for the Ebionite widows (wives and families of the missionaries teaching First Advent in Asia Minor [Turkey]). Paul spent this on a get-out-of-flogging card, citizenship into the municipal structure (Paul declared Tarsus, not Celicia) and then lying about it. Well as convincing testimony came in, like from Mnason the Cypriot Jew (Paul had told James that the ship steered completely clear of Cyprus) many Jews became so mad at Paul he had to flee out windows by rope and several even entered a starvation pact to kill the filthy coward.

Understanding citizenship under the biblical model renders Romans 13 to mean exactly what it says and exactly what the 501(C)(3) Christians believe it says. Paul was fashioning from house arrest/captivity in the heart of the Roman Empire, the passive-resistant weapon that quite nearly brought Rome to extinction within 300 years. [Delivered a severe headwound and moved the capital from Rome to Istanbul (Constantinople)].


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by squirrel

Does anyone have a way to check and see if these are true ??

"We have held that there is no such license as a driver's license known to our law." (Claude D. Campbell v. State, 160 Tex. Crim. 627; 274 S.W. 2d 401.)

"There being no such license as a "driver's" license known to the law, it follows that the information, in charging the driving of a motor vehicle upon a highway without such a license, charges no offense." ( W. Lee Hassell v. The State, 149 Tex. Crim. 333; 194 S.W. 2d 400)

Yes they're real ... but they don't say that people can drive in Texas without having some official permission for that purpose. It's just that Texas has its own nomenclature for what everyone else - even Texans - call a driver's license. The Hassell case (in 1946) made a point of this, that a traffic ticket for driving without a driver's license used the wrong jargon and therefore did not sufficient apprise the motorist of the charge against him. There were three kinds of motoring permits under the Texas law - the general motor vehicle operator's permit, the commercial motor vehicle operator's permit, and then chauffeur's permit. They are the things that other states call drivers' licenses, but the Texas court was being anal about the official terminology.

[weishaupt1776]

What if the DL Class which everyone is presumed to be required to have is only found in the Uniform Classified COMMERcial Drivers license Act?