Right to Travel Part 100

[Idoknow]

BOBT12 - You can quote the case out of context and add your own opinions to it, but it doesn't change the meaning of the case - and it does not mean what you say it does!

"The contention most pressed is that the act unreasonably and arbitrarily discriminates against those engaged in operating motor vehicles for hire in favor of persons operating such vehicles for their private ends, and in favor of street cars and motor omnibuses. If the state determines that the use of streets for private purposes in the usual and ordinary manner shall be preferred over their use by common carriers for hire, there is nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment to prevent. The streets belong to the public and are primarily for the use of the public in the ordinary way. Their use for the purposes of gain is special and extraordinary, and, generally at least, may be prohibited or conditioned as the Legislature deems proper. Neither is there substance in the complaint that street cars and omnibuses are not included in the requirements of the statute. The reason, appearing in the statute itself, for excluding them is that they are regulated by the Public Service Commission Laws, and this circumstance, if there were nothing more, would preclude us from saying that their noninclusion renders the classification so arbitrary as to cause it to be obnoxious to the equal protection clause. Decisions sustaining the validity of legislation like that here involved are numerous and substantially uniform. Among them we cite the following: Nolen v. Riechman (D. C.) 225 Fed. 812, 818; Schoenfeld v. Seattle (D. C.) 265 Fed. 726, 730; Lane v. Whitaker (D. C.) 275 Fed. 476, 480; Huston v City, 176 Iowa, 455, 468, 156 N. W. 883; City of Memphis v. State, 133 Tenn. 83, 89, 179 S. W. 631, L. R. A. 1916B, 1151, Ann. Cas. 1917C, 1056; Ex parte ****ey, 76 W. Va. 576, 578, 85 S. E. 781, L. R. A. 1915F, 840; Melconian v. City of Grand Rapids, 218 Mich. 397, 403, 188 N. W. 521; State v. Seattle Taxicab & Transfer Co., 90 Wash. 416, 423, 156 Pac. 837; Donella v. Enright et al. (Sup.) [264 U.S. 140, 145] 195 N. Y. Supp. 217; People v. Martin, 203 App. Div. 423, 197 N. Y. Supp. 28, where the statute now under review was sustained against the attacks here made as to its constitutionality. And see Fifth Avenue Coach Co. v. New York, 221 U.S. 467 , 31 Sup. Ct. 709; Pacific Express Co. v. Seibert, 142 U.S. 339, 353 , 12 S. Sup. Ct. 250

It is asserted that the requirements of the statute are so burdensome as to amount to confiscation, and therefore to result in depriving appellant of his property without due process of law. The allegation is that the rate of premium fixed by insurance companies operating in New York amounts to about $18.50 per week for each taxicab, while the net income from each is about $35 per week. The operator, under the statute, however, is not confined to this method of security, but instead may file either a personal bond with two approved sureties or a corporate surety bond. Appellant says that he cannot procure a personal bond, but it does not appear that he might not procure the corporate surety bond at a less cost. Affidavits filed below on behalf of appellees tend to show that insurance policies in mutual casualty companies may be secured for $540 a year, and that operators of upwards of a thousand cars have furnished personal bonds. The fact that, because of circumstances peculiar to him, appellant may be unable to comply with the requirement as to security without assuming a burden greater than that generally borne, or excessive in itself, does not militate against the constitutionality of the statute. Moreover, a distinction must be observed between the regulation of an activity which may be engaged in as a matter of right and one carried on by government sufferance or permission. In the latter case the power to exclude altogether generally includes the lesser power to condition and may justify a degree of regulation not admissible in the former. See Davis v. Massachusetts, 167 U.S. 43 , 17 Sup. Ct. 731.

Affirmed."


Referring to the part I put in bold, the Court is saying that, in its opinion, regulatoin of the taxi cabs is not unconstitutionally discriminatory because "not for hire" or private cars are regulated by another government entity. The Court then gives you a whole list of decisions that support the regulation of private cars!

Furthermore, the Court never siad in this opinion that driving on the public roads was a right. What you quoted in bold does not say that at all. The Court said quite the opposite. It said that there is a distinction between a right and an act that the government gives you permission to do. The court said if the government gives permission to do something that is not a right, then it can regulate that activity. The Court did not say that driving on public roads was such an activity. Far from it. The Court then cited to a case where it ruled that a city government could regulate what a private person said in a commons area if the person was there by the permission of the government.

So, you may know people who drive without a license in unregistered cars and they may get away with it. Furthermore, if they contest a ticket if they are stopped and go to court they will get out of it on average 1/3 of the time because the officer does not show up. That does not mean that those people are legally driving without license and registration.

Furthermore, there are all kinds of claims of "wins" in court here. I don't believe any of them. I think a few folks here might have gotten out of a traffic ticket because the officer did not show up, but I don't believe any of you has gotten out of one based on the ridiculous arguments espoused on this forum. It is easy to prove a win, all you have to do is redact a court order and post it.

All of you are going to jump all over me because I won't go along with your nonsense - but it is nonsense just the same and it probably leads some folks down a path that leaves them worse off because of it.

[Shoonra]

Emphasize bits of quotations as much as you want. Reading the whole of the Thompson decision shows it upheld the notion of state-issued DL and the Packard decision upheld the notion of requiring proof of financial responsibility as a requirement for a DL.

In the Hendrick decision, the Supreme Court explicitly upheld the state's authority and responsibility for limiting the operation of motor cars on the public streets to people who had obtained a DL. No court decision ever said the opposite.

Do I have to repeat that German quotation?

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by Idoknow

BOBT12 - You can quote the case out of context and add your own opinions to it, but it doesn't change the meaning of the case - and it does not mean what you say it does!

"The contention most pressed is that the act unreasonably and arbitrarily discriminates against those engaged in operating motor vehicles for hire in favor of persons operating such vehicles for their private ends, and in favor of street cars [Trolleys run by the city, or non-profit entity]and motor omnibuses [Buses run by the city, or non-profit entity]. If the state determines that the use of streets for private purposes in the usual and ordinary manner shall be preferred over their use by common carriers for hire, there is nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment to prevent. The streets belong to the public and are primarily for the use of the public in the ordinary way. Their use for the purposes of gain is special and extraordinary, and, generally at least, may be prohibited or conditioned as the Legislature deems proper. Neither is there substance in the complaint that street cars and omnibuses are not included in the requirements of the statute. The reason, appearing in the statute itself, for excluding them is that they are regulated by the Public Service Commission Laws, [these are the bodies covered by such Commissions, not private people] and this circumstance, if there were nothing more, would preclude us from saying that their noninclusion renders the classification so arbitrary as to cause it to be obnoxious to the equal protection clause. Decisions sustaining the validity of legislation like that here involved are numerous and substantially uniform. Among them we cite the following: Nolen v. Riechman (D. C.) 225 Fed. 812, 818; Schoenfeld v. Seattle (D. C.) 265 Fed. 726, 730; Lane v. Whitaker (D. C.) 275 Fed. 476, 480; Huston v City, 176 Iowa, 455, 468, 156 N. W. 883; City of Memphis v. State, 133 Tenn. 83, 89, 179 S. W. 631, L. R. A. 1916B, 1151, Ann. Cas. 1917C, 1056; Ex parte ****ey, 76 W. Va. 576, 578, 85 S. E. 781, L. R. A. 1915F, 840; Melconian v. City of Grand Rapids, 218 Mich. 397, 403, 188 N. W. 521; State v. Seattle Taxicab & Transfer Co., 90 Wash. 416, 423, 156 Pac. 837; Donella v. Enright et al. (Sup.) [264 U.S. 140, 145] 195 N. Y. Supp. 217; People v. Martin, 203 App. Div. 423, 197 N. Y. Supp. 28, where the statute now under review was sustained against the attacks here made as to its constitutionality. And see Fifth Avenue Coach Co. v. New York, 221 U.S. 467 , 31 Sup. Ct. 709; Pacific Express Co. v. Seibert, 142 U.S. 339, 353 , 12 S. Sup. Ct. 250

It is asserted that the requirements of the statute are so burdensome as to amount to confiscation, and therefore to result in depriving appellant of his property without due process of law. The allegation is that the rate of premium fixed by insurance companies operating in New York amounts to about $18.50 per week for each taxicab, while the net income from each is about $35 per week. The operator, under the statute, however, is not confined to this method of security, but instead may file either a personal bond with two approved sureties or a corporate surety bond. Appellant says that he cannot procure a personal bond, but it does not appear that he might not procure the corporate surety bond at a less cost. Affidavits filed below on behalf of appellees tend to show that insurance policies in mutual casualty companies may be secured for $540 a year, and that operators of upwards of a thousand cars have furnished personal bonds. The fact that, because of circumstances peculiar to him, appellant may be unable to comply with the requirement as to security without assuming a burden greater than that generally borne, or excessive in itself, does not militate against the constitutionality of the statute. Moreover, a distinction must be observed between the regulation of an activity which may be engaged in as a matter of right [while traveling in a private not-for-hire capacity] and one carried on by government sufferance or permission. In the latter case the power to exclude altogether generally includes the lesser power to condition and may justify a degree of regulation not admissible in the former. See Davis v. Massachusetts, 167 U.S. 43 , 17 Sup. Ct. 731.

Affirmed."


Referring to the part I put in bold, the Court is saying that, in its opinion, regulatoin of the taxi cabs is not unconstitutionally discriminatory because "not for hire" or private cars are regulated by another government entity. The Court then gives you a whole list of decisions that support the regulation of private cars!

Furthermore, the Court never siad in this opinion that driving on the public roads was a right. What you quoted in bold does not say that at all. The Court said quite the opposite. It said that there is a distinction between a right and an act that the government gives you permission to do. The court said if the government gives permission to do something that is not a right, then it can regulate that activity. The Court did not say that driving on public roads was such an activity. Far from it. The Court then cited to a case where it ruled that a city government could regulate what a private person said in a commons area if the person was there by the permission of the government.

So, you may know people who drive without a license in unregistered cars and they may get away with it. Furthermore, if they contest a ticket if they are stopped and go to court they will get out of it on average 1/3 of the time because the officer does not show up. That does not mean that those people are legally driving without license and registration.

Furthermore, there are all kinds of claims of "wins" in court here. I don't believe any of them. I think a few folks here might have gotten out of a traffic ticket because the officer did not show up, but I don't believe any of you has gotten out of one based on the ridiculous arguments espoused on this forum. It is easy to prove a win, all you have to do is redact a court order and post it.

All of you are going to jump all over me because I won't go along with your nonsense - but it is nonsense just the same and it probably leads some folks down a path that leaves them worse off because of it.

The Public Service Commission (s) has no power over the public, at least not while the public are not on the buses and trolleys they run, because the public did not elect them. The legislature must enact law, based on the constitution, regarding the people. Apparently, the court understood the concept of authority of law that we don't generally perceive today.

[Idoknow]

Why do you continue to misquote and add your own language (shown in red):

The contention most pressed is that the act unreasonably and arbitrarily discriminates against those engaged in operating motor vehicles for hire in favor of persons operating such vehicles for their private ends, and in favor of street cars [Trolleys run by the city, or non-profit entity]and motor omnibuses [Buses run by the city, or non-profit entity.

The Court clearly included private vehicles. Furthermore, if you look at any of the case cites following this quote, they are opinions that the government can regulate private vehicles on public property. Why are you being obtuse? Why do you add language not added by the Court? It is not in the opinion. Why do you try so hard to change what the Court said?

You also added the following (in red) to what the Court said:
"Moreover, a distinction must be observed between the regulation of an activity which may be engaged in as a matter of right [while traveling in a private not-for-hire capacity and one carried on by government sufferance or permission."

If the Court had meant what you added, it would have said that. There is nothing ambiguous about what the Court said - and nothing in what it said supports your added language.

The Court did not say that the Public Service Commision had no authority to regulate private individuals driving on public streets. You can add all the language you want to these cases, but pulling phrases out of thin air and addint them in bold simply misleads people. I'm of the opinion that that is your mission.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by BOBT12

The Public Service Commission (s) has no power over the public, at least not while the public are not on the buses and trolleys they run, because the public did not elect them. The legislature must enact law, based on the constitution, regarding the people. Apparently, the court understood the concept of authority of law that we don't generally perceive today.

in PENNSYLVANIA, the original enabling act, of the legislature which made the Public Utilities Commission (PA-PUC), makes it very clear who the PUC has over-sight of; and private citizens are NOT listed!

[Idoknow]

Id[on't]know:

Really? Post your proof. You, just like almost everyone else here, post these "conculusions" all of the time without backing up conclusions with actual factual proof of how you came to that conclusion. And, do not give me a link to someone else's crackpot web page. Post the actually legislative history and your analysis of it that led you to conclude what you say.

Furthermore, the Court case cites are about government regulation of private people driving cars on public roads. So, even if in PA what you say is true, what does it add to the discussion?

Aren't you a little concerned about BobT12's continuous mis-quotation of statutes and cases? Or, like most here, if what he mis-quotes or states bolsters your tenuous position, you just don't care?

[squirrel]

Great, just what we need, more treasonous traitors spewing garbage.

Lets ignore these scumbags, and continue the fight for freedom.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by Idoknow

Id[on't]know:

Really? Post your proof. You, just like almost everyone else here, post these "conculusions" all of the time without backing up conclusions with actual factual proof of how you came to that conclusion. And, do not give me a link to someone else's crackpot web page. Post the actually legislative history and your analysis of it that led you to conclude what you say.

Furthermore, the Court case cites are about government regulation of private people driving cars on public roads. So, even if in PA what you say is true, what does it add to the discussion?

Aren't you a little concerned about BobT12's continuous mis-quotation of statutes and cases? Or, like most here, if what he mis-quotes or states bolsters your tenuous position, you just don't care?

Thank God I'm only visiting this state that I can say,

idoknow, NO, wanna know why?

PENNSYLVANIA doesnt post the acts of legislature!

thffpt on you.
LOL

[charlesa6]

Originally Posted by idknow

Thank God I'm only visiting this state that I can say,

idoknow, NO, wanna know why?

PENNSYLVANIA doesnt post the acts of legislature!

thffpt on you.
LOL

Hhehehehehe!!!!

[Idoknow]

Great, just what we need, more treasonous traitors spewing garbage.

Really? I'm comitting treason by pointing out that BobT12 is misstating what the SC held in a decision? What part is treason? What did I do that make me a traitor?