WA - driving is a PRIVILEGE they GRANT to you

[NarrowPathPilgrim]

Originally Posted by palani

And they are doing a very good job! I don't believe I have ever seen or heard of an injured highway.

LOL! I think she was referring to these:


Sincerely, Zach Doty

PS. Driving without a license makes me a safer driver

[Dillon Hunt]

There is a separation of powers. Judicial courts cannot enforce statutes. Only legislative courts enforce statutes. "Courts enforcing statutes do not act judicially"
Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579; FRC v. GE, 281 US 464; Keller v. PE, 261 US 428.

Driving is a Right secured by the Constitution because Driving is not prohibited by it. (except driving in commerce) Again " 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. "

[AndyK]

Originally Posted by Dillon Hunt

There is a separation of powers. Judicial courts cannot enforce statutes. Only legislative courts enforce statutes. "Courts enforcing statutes do not act judicially"
Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579; FRC v. GE, 281 US 464; Keller v. PE, 261 US 428.

Driving is a Right secured by the Constitution because Driving is not prohibited by it. (except driving in commerce) Again " 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. "

The Constitution also doesn't prohibit manufacturing Sarin and releasing it in public transit systems.

Try again, that's an extremely poor argument.

[Shoonra]

The Constitution doesn't prohibit polygamy, kinky sex, marijuana, kiddie porn, lotsa stuff.

[Dillon Hunt]

The Constitution secures Rights and not Wrongs, things are not good or bad it's how they are used that counts. Also is interstate commerce involved?

"Where a private statute exists of which the intent is regulation of commercial common carriers, the particular agency enforcing that private statute, shall not apply it by trickery and deceit, to persons who are not noticed by the statute as persons regulated and taxed, nor should it permit any party to do so in violation of a person's right to stay out of compelled license/contract, when he is not a person subject to the statute, unless clearly within its words." State v. Ebershart, 179 P 853, 246 P 2d 1011.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489.

Courts also recognized that PRIVATE TRAVEL IS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT: "The right to travel on the public highways is a constitutional right." Teche Lines v. Danforth, Miss. 12 So 2d 784, 787.

"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Slusher v. Safety Coach Transit Co., 229 Ky 731, 17 SW2d 1012.

"No statutory duty lies to apply for, or to possess a driver license for personal travel and transportation as defendant is not within the class of persons for whose benefit or protection the statute was enacted." Routh v. Quinn, 20 Cal 2d 488.

"The right to travel is part of the 'liberty' that a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law." Kent v.Dulles 357 U.S. 116; U.S. v. Laub 385 U.S. 475

"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163.

"Operation of a motor vehicle upon public streets and highways is not a mere privilege but is a right or liberty protected by the guarantees of Federal and State constitutions." Adams v. City of Pocatello 416 P2d 46.

"The right to travel is part of the 'liberty' of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958).

"Where activities or enjoyment, natural and often necessary to the well being of an American citizen, such as travel, are involved, we will construe narrowly all delegated powers that curtail or dilute them ... to repeat, we deal here with a constitutional right of the citizen," Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941).

http://proliberty.com/observer/20010213.htm

[Shoonra]

FreeMartha:

None of these cases say it's OK to drive a motor vehicle on the public streets without a drivers license. And most of them don't even discuss driving or drivers licenses.

Also, many of your citations were screwed up.

I couldn't find an Ebershart decision nor any using the words you quoted.

The Miller case should be cited 230 F.2d 486, and it had nothing to do with driving, it dealt with police attempt to search a home without a search warrant.

The Safety Coach and Chicago Motor Coach cases dealt with monopolistic and anti-competitive regulations against bus companies, not the licensing of drivers.

The Dulles case dealt with passport applications. The Edwards case dealt with state welfare benefits to newly arrived residents.

The Routh case dealt with property taxes and tax auctions, and didn't mention driving or licenses.

The Pocatello case dealt with the habeas corpus of a repeat offender unlicensed driver, but the court upheld the suspension of his license and the enforcement of the licensing law. In fact the court cited several precedents when it said: "The right of a citizen to operate a motor vehicle upon the public streets and highways is subject to reasonable regulation by the state in the exercise of its police power." The court expressly upheld the state law that automatically suspends a drivers license for noncompliance with the financial responsibility provisions.

No a single decision that addressed the issue.

http://www.6towns.com/driving/brief.html

In the instant case, the proper definition of a "license" is:

"a permit, granted by an appropriate governmental body, generally for consideration, to a person, firm, or corporation, to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business which is subject to regulation under the POLICE POWER." Rosenblatt vs. California State Board of Pharmacy, 158 P.2d 199, 203

Since no notice is given to people applying for driver's (or other) licenses that they have a perfect right to use the roads without any permission, and that they surrender valuable rights by taking on the regulation system of licensure, the state has committed a massive construction fraud. This occurs when any one is told that they must have a license in order to use the public roads and highways.

The license, being a legal contract under which the state is empowered with policing powers, is only valid when the licensee takes on the burdens of the contract and bargains away his or her rights knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily.

Few know that the driver's license is a contract without which the police are powerless to regulate the people's actions or activities. Few (if any) licensees intentionally surrender valuable rights. They are told that they must have the license. As we have seen, this is not the case.

No one in their right mind voluntarily surrenders complete liberty and accepts in its place a set of regulations. ?
"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

"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment." Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.

In striking down a law that required people to show "credible and reliable" ID on demand, the Supreme Court held that void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a law be drafted "with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage?arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. An ID requirement constitutes a "serious intrusion on personalsecurity" that is more serious than a pat down search. " Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 (1983);

[planetmark]

I'm completely baffled by the comments I'm seeing here, by those attempting to defend state oppression.

Originally Posted by AndyK

The Constitution also doesn't prohibit manufacturing Sarin and releasing it in public transit systems.

Try again, that's an extremely poor argument.

Huh?? What planet did you fall off of? Murder is wrong. The constitution provides for criminal prosecution of murderers. Intentionally killing someone with malicious intent is always wrong, legislation, statutes, and wacko lawyers notwithstanding. How does this compare or relate to a human being traveling on a paved throughway while in control of a motorized and self-propelled piece of machinery? The right to move around is a common law, basic, ancient, forever-existing RIGHT. The constitution does not forbid it, therefore it remains a RIGHT that I posess and retain. Killing doesn't quite measure up to that standard...

Originally Posted by shoonra

None of these cases say it's OK to drive a motor vehicle on the public streets without a drivers license. And most of them don't even discuss driving or drivers licenses.

We don't need a judge to tell us it's "ok" to operate an automobile. We have already, and very verbosely, seen it established beyond argument that "driving a motor vehicle" does indeed require a license, as this is the specifically defined terminology in the US Code for a commercial endeavor that they are given the right by the constitution to regulate. The case cites given, however, DO seem to lay a very solid foundation for the case of a human to protect their right to travel and move about in their natural and personal capacity. "Driving a motor vehicle" is commerce. Traveling is not. Quit trying to obfuscate the issue by manipultive semantic games and trickery.

Originally Posted by shoonra

The Constitution doesn't prohibit polygamy, kinky sex, marijuana, kiddie porn, lotsa stuff.

One would therefore have to give careful consideration to the true legality of "laws" that prohibit such activity then, wouldn't they? Would you care to state, for the record, that you believe these items are fundamental rights that a free-born Sovereign posesses? Again, you are playing semantic games. We speak of "rights" that we maintain because the constitution does not prohibit them. You attempt to shift the paradigm by suggesting people here are saying "rights" = "lawlessness", and that we therefore need big brother to shackle us in order to protect the public from the rampages of depravity.

If a person were to snatch my daughter, violate her, and take pictures... neither laws, rights, or a suit of armor will protect that person from ME retaliating. Is it worth it to this person? Now we're off topic, and into vain philosophy and jangling words, which illistrates what you so******t nanny-state promoters are doing here.

[rentiap]

Originally Posted by NarrowPathPilgrim

LOL! I think she was referring to these:


Sincerely, Zach Doty

PS. Driving without a license makes me a safer driver

That would be makes me a safer Traveler