Letter To DMV Rescinding Reg

[Shoonra]

Apparently the "1914" Supreme Court decision in question is Hendrick v. Maryland (argued on Nov. 11, 1914, decision onn Jan. 5, 1915) 235 US 610, 59 L.Ed 385, 25 S.Ct 140.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...=235&invol=610

This was the first, or at least one of the first, Supreme Court decisions to deal with regulation of highway traffic. The Court upheld a Maryland state law requiring motorists -- even those from outside the state (Hendrick was a resident of DC) -- to have (from either Maryland or their home state) a DL and car registration tags. The Supreme Court said that motor vehicle operation on the public streets involved risks to the public, was a proper public safety concern, and therefore the state had the right to legislate reasonable measures to try to reduce the risks.
The Court additionally held that the Maryland laws did not interfere with the right of Americans to pass through Maryland.

It's still good law and cited as precedent down to the present day.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

-----
*QUESTION: Since so many of you seem to think that "driving" is a loaded word that applies only to "commercial" operation of a vehicle, kindly supply me with the appropriate term for steering a vehicle on the public roads for non-commercial purposes. "Traveling" has been repeatedly used but it doesn't convey any distinction between sitting behind the wheel or sitting in the back seat.

"Motorist" in his automobile "moving" freely.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Apparently the "1914" Supreme Court decision in question is Hendrick v. Maryland (argued on Nov. 11, 1914, decision onn Jan. 5, 1915) 235 US 610, 59 L.Ed 385, 25 S.Ct 140.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...=235&invol=610

This was the first, or at least one of the first, Supreme Court decisions to deal with regulation of highway traffic. The Court upheld a Maryland state law requiring motorists -- even those from outside the state (Hendrick was a resident of DC) --

yep he was a resident of D.C. where D.C. has plenary power. So he had no state right to bring with him from his home state. But the 14th amendment cleared that up.

He is and then was a citizen of the United States, resident and commorant [235 U.S. 610, 619] in the District of Columbia. On that day he left his office in Washington in his own automobile and drove it into Prince George's county, and while temporarily there was arrested on the charge of operating it upon the highways

Now "Operating" does not mean "steering" either. A car operator might be a taxi cab owner who sends out a driver. The operator still needs an operators license because operation is/was then a commercial activity.

The Maryland legislature, by an act effective July 1, 1910 (chap. 207, Laws 1910, p. 177), prescribed a comprehensive scheme for licensing and regulating motor vehicles.

The record fails to disclose that Hendrick had complied with the laws in force within the District of Columbia in respect of registering motor vehicles and licensing operators...
Only those whose rights are directly affected can properly question the constitutionality of a state statute, and invoke our jurisdiction in respect thereto.

The movement of motor vehicles over the highways is attended by constant and serious dangers to the public, and is also abnormally destructive to the ways themselves. Their success [AT WHAT? COMMERCE?]depends on good roads, the construction and maintenance of which are exceedingly expensive; and in recent years insistent demands have been made upon the states for better facilities, especially by the ever-increasing number of those who own such vehicles [WHAT SUCH VEHICLES?]. As is well known, in order to meet this demand and accommodate the growing traffic the state of Maryland has built and is maintaining a system of improved roadways.

And here is what really stands out in the case and am not sure why Shoonra missed it

In view of the many decisions of this court there can be [235 U.S. 610, 624] no serious doubt that where a state at its own expense furnishes special facilities for the use of those engaged in commerce, interstate as well as domestic, it may exact compensation therefor.

Why would this be in the case if it was not relevant?

What is also funny is that it is not the autos that are concidered dangerous. It is the commerce which is concidered dangerous, the "driving" and "operating" the motor vehicle.

[aksis]

I am expressing plainly, so kindly spare me the symantical bullsh!t...

The licence and registraton has zero to do with protecting people from each other on the roads. If getting a licence and having registration prevented accidents, then there would be none.

The idea (in the minds of the people terminating their d.l. and reg.) that not having a licence and registration allows people to be reckless on the roads, or would allow someone to ignore the "rules of the road" is even greater bullsh!t. i.e. because you learned of the right to travel, terminated you reg. and dl., fly the civil flag of peace, posted a proper notice in the window, attached lawful identification tags, etc... you can therefor drive drunk, or speed through a school zones (or even in town) and all manner of other activity that would be endangering the population, and an agent for the local municipal corporation has to leave you alone, is popy****. I really don't give a **** how well you think you drive/travel or what you think you have a right to do. Ultimatly, you don't have the right to endanger people. This is the main points from the anti "freedom to travel" movement.

The main argument from the pro "freedom to travel" movement is that we don't need permision (licence) from the government to excercize a common right. The Registration is another aspect of the DMV's nickel and dime scam.

On a citation with 5 charges (spare me the lessons on the validity of "refused for cause"/"accepted for value"):

1) No licence.
2) No registration.
3) Speeding.
4) Reckless driving.
5) DUI.

The first 2 are void, (or can be).

The later 3, regardless of if you are "traveling" in your private property, and have "terminated" the registration & drivers licence with the DMV, would still be valid charges prusuant to protecting people from the recklessness of others, (if in reality, you were doing those things).

After becoming aware of how many people are ploting to abuse the right to travel, and teaching people some pretty flawed prespectives about this right, I can see why the courts are ignoring People... regardless of the FACT that you have the right to travel, and are NOT required to register the vehicle and obtain a drivers licence, (unless you are going to function in a commercial capacity), the People themselves are not going to allow a door to be opend that will ultimatly allow People to endanger the population.

The servents of the People are enforcing this because it is the Peoples will, and while the People have no authority to delegate to government agencies the power to licence a common right, they do have the authority to delegate the power to protect the population from reckless endangerment and various disturbances of the peace...

The several state's rights & duties to regulate the roads still exists. i.e. Traffic lights, respect & enforcement of the right of way, speed limits (I would argue that on a highway outside of city limits, this is void), basic "rules of the road" type statutes.

To say to People that, the Code & revised statutes that relate to driving is not law, (though a valid statement in a technical sense), simply gives People the wrong impression. There are parts of the code that are not valid due to the fact they are an intrusion of common rights (and ultimatly not even needed to protect people), and parts of it that should have been enacted properly.

just a few passing thoughts on this thread...

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by aksis

The licence and registraton has zero to do with protecting people from each other on the roads. If getting a licence and having registration prevented accidents, then there would be none.
.....
After becoming aware of how many people are ploting to abuse the right to travel, and teaching people some pretty flawed prespectives about this right, I can see why the courts are ignoring People... regardless of the FACT that you have the right to travel, and are NOT required to register the vehicle and obtain a drivers licence, (unless you are going to function in a commercial capacity), the People themselves are not going to allow a door to be opend that will ultimatly allow People to endanger the population.
.....
The several state's rights & duties to regulate the roads still exists. i.e. Traffic lights, respect & enforcement of the right of way, speed limits (I would argue that on a highway outside of city limits, this is void), basic "rules of the road" type statutes.
......

A current drivers license is, at least, nominal evidence that the holder has, relatively recently, proven an ability to drive safely. (If the motorist had got into serious trouble since his driving test for his first DL, he might not have been able to get a renewal of his DL). And current vehicle tags similar are evidence that the machine meets certain standards for roadworthiness.

In this way, the DL and the tags do serve to reduce accidents.

If there were no DL requirements, then there would be no way to take repeat offenders off the road -- except maybe to imprison them, for as long as they are supposed to not drive, at enormous expense to the taxpayers. Additionally, DL requirements discourage vehicle theft.

I don't know of any remedy that would be perfect but this is a reasonable way of keeping unfit drivers and unfit machines off the road.

I might add that, statistically, a majority of drunk driving and reckless driving accidents, including fatalities, occur with "noncommercial" driving. People who are on the job driving usually can't get away with being drunk or reckless on the job or in a company vehicle. And being struck by a car driven by an unemployed, uninsured, unlicensed motorist is just as damaging as being struck by a licensed, insured, and professional driver; maybe worse, since the unlicensed and uninsured twit is more likely to turn it into a hit-and-run. So there is considerable reason to require a DL for every motorist, any day and any hour.

If you're going to insult people, I suggest you spellcheck your messages first.

[rottweiler]

We could all become state nationals and build our own roads and autos that run on water with our own materials on our patented lands and call them Sui Juris roads and then flip off the Cops while carrying .50 cal machine guns and a giant bong for a hood ornament!

[Codee]

There is case law in California that states that the primary purpose of the vehicle code is revenue and not protection of the publi.

There is also case law, maybe same one... theat states that private automobiles are not a danger to the public. I will try to post them tommorow.

There is no way around the original intent with re-enactments. They need to publish a new code and make it aplicable to who they want. The code right now is for common carriers and employees og the DMV

[aksis]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

A current drivers license is, at least, nominal evidence that the holder has, relatively recently, proven an ability to drive safely. (If the motorist had got into serious trouble since his driving test for his first DL, he might not have been able to get a renewal of his DL). And current vehicle tags similar are evidence that the machine meets certain standards for roadworthiness.

I am sure the record kept on such events would be more accurate then the licence is.

As to road worthiness, things that have passed inspection break all the time.

Life is a "use at your own risk" type of thing.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

In this way, the DL and the tags do serve to reduce accidents.

Prehaps many people need the illusion of security. Not saying you are one of them.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

If there were no DL requirements, then there would be no way to take repeat offenders off the road -- except maybe to imprison them, for as long as they are supposed to not drive, at enormous expense to the taxpayers. Additionally, DL requirements discourage vehicle theft.

Ahh, so your position is that because the licence was taken, people who arn't supposed to drive won't? Those same people, if told that they have been baned from traviling on the roads for a set period of time, would respect such a court order.

Either way, those who disregard would be jailed regardless...

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I don't know of any remedy that would be perfect but this is a reasonable way of keeping unfit drivers and unfit machines off the road.

No its not. It is a crime aginst the people to require them to get a licence to excercize their common right.

No wonder the rise in crime has been steady, the very enforcement of the laws dosn't follow them... look what you teach the children... not that the governments employees are a good example of leaders or an ideal emulate.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I might add that, statistically, a majority of drunk driving and reckless driving accidents, including fatalities, occur with "noncommercial" driving. People who are on the job driving usually can't get away with being drunk or reckless on the job or in a company vehicle.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

And being struck by a car driven by an unemployed, uninsured, unlicensed motorist is just as damaging as being struck by a licensed, insured, and professional driver; maybe worse, since the unlicensed and uninsured twit is more likely to turn it into a hit-and-run. So there is considerable reason to require a DL for every motorist, any day and any hour.

Even more reason that the insurance system should be designed only to cover the one with insurance.

The idea that having a licence or registration would have any effect upon such an event, is baseless.

You (other people) give far to much power to paper ink & plastic.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

If you're going to insult people, I suggest you spellcheck your messages first.

I was not looking to be insulting, just frustrated with the foul state of affairs present on earth in this day and age.

I didn't really care to spell everything correctly, simply to convey a few simple points.

Why are you fighting me on this?

[rottweiler]

Common Law is too harsh for the sheeple that's why they want admiralty. They don't want strict liability, they want tontine insurance. They don't want to bring back stoning for adultery or a eye for a eye and a tooth for a tooth. Do you guys that want to drive around without licenses want the sheeple to follow your example and give up their admiralty god? They hate the Creator and will never allow that. Give up the damn car if you don't like it and live and let them die.

[aksis]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

They don't want to bring back stoning for adultery or a eye for a eye and a tooth for a tooth.

Take your inquisitionish, burning people at the stake churchian elletist crap.... and shove it up your ass.