Right to Travel Part 100

[Shoonra]

.... even shoonra knows not to argue ....

O how proud I am to have become the eponym for simple-mindedness! I am a rumor in my own lifetime.

Someone cited the decision of Packard v. Banton (1924) 264 U.S. 140, 68 L.Ed. 596, 44 S.Ct. 257 earlier in this thread ... except that the decision says the opposite of what is claimed for it. The Supreme Court in Packard UPHELD a NY law requiring any motorist whose business includes carrying passengers for hire to have liability insurance; despite the fact that, at that time, no such insurance was required for motorists of private cars, bus drivers, and streetcar motormen. The Court noted that the law permitted alternatives to conventional insurance, such as surety bonds.

With reference to the previously mentioned case of Thompson v. Smith (1930) 155 Va. 367, 154 S.E. 579, 71 A.L.R. 604, which someone quoted for talking about a "right" to use the public streets: I had already pointed out that the decision itself did not dispute the validity of the requirement of a state drivers license but only of a local law attempting to empower the local police chief to revoke a state DL at his whim and without anything resembling legislated standards or due process. There were some fairly recent cases in which unlicensed motorists tried to use the words in Thompson to justify driving without a license....

City of Spokane v. Port (1986) 43 Wash.App. 273, 716 P.2d 945, review denied 106 Wash.2d 1010:

Although the Thompson court declared the right to travel public highways an individual's "common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty," the court also noted that the exercise of such a common right may be requlated under the city's police power if in the interest of public safety and welfare. .....

Commonwealth of Virginia v. Ellett (1939) 174 Va. 403, 4 S.E.2d 762:

The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways is a common right, but the exercise of that right may be regulated or controlled in the interest of public safety under the police power of the state. The operation of a motor vehicle on such highways is not a natural right. It is a conditional privilege, which may be suspended or revoked under the police power. The license or permit to so operate [a motor vehicle] is not a contract or property right in the constitutional sense. [citing Thompson]

Same language used in Nulter v. State Road Comm'n (W.Va. 1937) 193 S.E. 549, and in Law v. Commonwealth of Virginia (1938) 171 Va. 449, 199 S.E. 516.

State v. Gordon (1985) 108 Idaho 178, 697 P.2d 1192 app. dismissed 474 U.S. 803:

Gordon believes the state should issue, without charge to him, a "certificate of compentence" instead of a driver's license; that the state should also issue to him license plates free of charge; and that he is not responsible for insuring against loss that might result from his accidents. Gordon is consititutionally entitled to his special status, he argues, because he owes nothing on his vehicle and he is not engaged in commercial travel. He principally relies on quotations from ... Thompson v. Smith ... to support his position.
Although the Thompson court declared the right to travel public highways to be an individual's "common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty...", the court also stated that "the exercise of such a right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare...." [citing Thompson] .... Only by lifting statements from context and by ignoring difficult language does Gordon make Thompson ... and other cases support his position.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Originally Posted by Akira

Judge Robert Bork said, over 80 percent of all people in jail today volunteered to be there.

Government by consent? Administrative tribunals?

(I had specifics on that quote, but am unable to find them, currently)


For HIS Glory,
Akira

I'm not sure that one was Bork's....but I would agree that in the main, people who end up as convicts did whatever it was they were found guilty of under their own power.

Also, I spoke too broadly (and without more contemporary numbers in mind) in the use of the term "vast," but here are the ugly Federal numbers by year on drug infractions:

(S/US = Sentenced and Unsentenced in Custody)
(S = Sentenced)

Year Tot S/US Total S Drug O DrugO%
1970 21,266 20,686 3,384 16.3
1971 20,891 20,529 3,495 17
1972 22,090 20,729 3,523 16.9
1973 23,336 22,038 5,652 25.6
1974 23,690 21,769 6,203 28.4
1975 23,566 20,692 5,540 26.7
1976 27,033 24,135 6,425 26.6
1977 29,877 25,673 6,743 26.2
1978 27,674 23,501 5,981 25.4
1979 24,810 21,539 5,468 25.3
1980 24,252 19,023 4,749 24.9
1981 26,195 19,765 5,076 25.6
1982 28,133 20,938 5,518 26.3
1983 30,214 26,027 7,201 27.6
1984 32,317 27,622 8,152 29.5
1985 36,042 27,623 9,491 34.3
1986 37,542 30,104 11,344 37.7
1987 41,609 33,246 13,897 41.8
1988 41,342 33,758 15,087 44.7
1989 47,568 37,758 18,852 49.9
1990 54,613 46,575 24,297 52.2
1991 61,026 52,176 29,667 56.9
1992 67,768 59,516 35,398 59.5
1993 76,531 68,183 41,393 60.7
1994 82,269 73,958 45,367 61.3
1995 85,865 76,947 46,669 60.7
1996 89,672 80,872 49,096 60.7
1997 95,513 87,294 52,059 59.6
1998 104,507 95,323 55,984 58.7
1999 115,024 104,500 60,399 57.8
2000 123,141 112,329 63,898 56.9
2001 131,419 120,829 67,037 55.5
2002 139,183 128,090 70,009 54.7
2003 148,731 137,536 75,801 55.1
2004 154,706 143,864 77,867 54.1

Obviously, there's been some slight improvement in the percentages since the mid 90's.

[idknow]

wow, those are completely stunning numbers.

how sad it is.

[marksgirl]

Originally Posted by ISAIAH

Sorry to tell you but here In Washington if it rolls you can get plates. Heck even if it doesn’t ( I had to get new plates/tabs for one of my cars that was sitting dead or the landlord would have it towed for being out of date)

LOL I was just about to respond in a similar manner! I do know there are certain portions of Washington that want inspections...smog certification, etc.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Someone cited the decision of Packard v. Banton (1924) 264 U.S. 140, 68 L.Ed. 596, 44 S.Ct. 257 earlier in this thread ... except that the decision says the opposite of what is claimed for it. The Supreme Court in Packard UPHELD a NY law requiring any motorist whose business includes carrying passengers for hire to have liability insurance; despite the fact that, at that time, no such insurance was required for motorists of private cars, bus drivers, and streetcar motormen. The Court noted that the law permitted alternatives to conventional insurance, such as surety bonds.

Emphasis added.

You seem to ignore the fact that the license/privilege is for those in commerce, or hire.

Most of the other cites are not from the U.S. supreme court. They don't overturn Packard v. Banton. Thus, Packard v. Banton has much more weight!

Of course, the viewers may decide for themselves.

Thanks for your input shoonra, what else do you have?

By the way, is your "so-what" light still on JRB? Maybe you want to comment, I don't want your batteries to run down. LOL.

[charlesa6]

Very sad, indeed.

[charlesa6]

Originally Posted by Akira

Charlesa6,

Although I seem to remember it differently, I was prepared to give the benefit of the doubt regarding the context of the above quote, as it seems to be a very logical possiblity, and because I am unable to find my copy of the original quote, in it's original context. (I have it somewhere, and did try to find it before posting.. lol)

But, since you are certain that what Shoonra suggests is correct, could you please provide a source for the quote?

Thanks !


For HIS Glory,
Akira

Sorry, Akira, I don't have the copy or URL either. Maybe Shoonra can provide the copy or link.

[Shoonra]

BobT,
You assume things not in evidence.

Yes, the Packard case dealt with an insurance requirement that was specific to drivers for hire (those carrying passengers, not cargo), because the plaintiff was one of those drivers for hire affected by the law. But that does not mean that another law did not or could not require insurance from non-commercial drivers.

The US Supreme Court has upheld the requirement of liability insurance or some other form of financial responsibility as a condition for a non-commercial driver's license or car registration in a number of cases:

Bell v. Burson (1971) 402 U.S. 535, 29 L.Ed.2d 90, 91 S.Ct. 140; Kessler v. Utah Dept of Public Safety (1962) 369 U.S. 153, 7 L.Ed.2d 641, 82 S.Ct. 807. In Ex parte Poresky (1933) 290 U.S. 30, 78 L.Ed. 152, 54 S.Ct. 3, the US Supreme Court declined to see federal jurisdiction in a dispute over the Massachusetts law requiring insurance for (non-commercial) drivers licenses but mentioned other Supreme Court decisions upholding restrictions on driving privileges such as Hendrick v. Maryland (1915) 235 U.S. 610, 59 L.Ed. 385, 35 S.Ct. 140.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Originally Posted by BOBT12

.....
You seem to ignore the fact that the license/privilege is for those in commerce, or hire.

That is not a fact. That is a small part of a mythology that seeks to confuse people into trying stupid things in court to get out of tickets.

Originally Posted by BOBT12

.....By the way, is your "so-what" light still on JRB? Maybe you want to comment, I don't want your batteries to run down. LOL.

It flashes regularly, but the glare from the "Bovine Scatology" warning light often hides it.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

BobT,
You assume things not in evidence.

Yes, the Packard case dealt with an insurance requirement that was specific to drivers for hire (those carrying passengers, not cargo), because the plaintiff was one of those drivers for hire affected by the law. But that does not mean that another law did not or could not require insurance from non-commercial drivers.

I did not assume anything, Shoonra.

Look at Packard again:

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.

Emphasis added.

Futher:

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

AMENDMENT TEN

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.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The US Supreme Court has upheld the requirement of liability insurance or some other form of financial responsibility as a condition for a non-commercial driver's license or car registration in a number of cases:

Look, Shoonra, if your citations are on point, please provide a quote that proves your case. Otherwise, I think that it will serve as an admission that the cites are not on point.

As for you JRB, you offer nothing but your opinion. Surely, you can do better than that, can't you? Maybe not! Just more talking down (from the bench) to the People. However, you could convince me with reason, you simply don't try. Please remember you don't have any bailliff's here. REASON STANDS SUPREME!