1. Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
    Dismiss Notice
  2. There are no markets
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Week of 6/24/2017 Closing prices & Chg Over Last Wk---- Gold $1256.40 Silver $16.64 Oil $43.01 USD $96.94
  4. "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"
    Dismiss Notice

Poll: Drivers Licensing ?

Discussion in 'U.S. Constitution & Law' started by BarnacleBob, May 31, 2017.



?

Does Driver Licensing Violate the U.N. Treaty on Human Rights?

  1. Yes

  2. No

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,695
    Likes Received:
    9,874
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    Does the state drivers licensing scam violate Article 13 of the United Nations "Declaration of Human Rights"?

    Article 13.

    (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
    (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

    http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

    Freedom is the absence of regulation & taxation!
     
  2. 90%RealMoney

    90%RealMoney Midas Member Midas Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Messages:
    4,718
    Likes Received:
    3,865
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Left Flank, Oceana...Locked and Loaded!
    This is how you justify no I.D. to vote, not having to prove citizenship, or even who you are.
     
    BarnacleBob likes this.
  3. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,695
    Likes Received:
    9,874
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." --Article VI, U.S. Const.

    U.S. Finally Ratifies Human Rights Covenant

    The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which establishes universal standards for the protection of basic civil and political liberties, is one of three documents that comprise the "International Bill of Rights."

    In 1966, the ICCPR was adopted by the United Nations, but no action was taken by this country to ratify it until October 1977, at which time I signed the Covenant and submitted it to the Senate for advice and consent as required by our Constitution. The Senate gave this consent in April 1992, and in early June, George Bush signed the instrument of ratification. On June 8, 1992, the US, one of the key players in drafting the Covenant, finally ratified this important human rights treaty.

    https://www.cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc1369.html

    https://www.humanrights.gov/references/chronology-of-human-rights-in-the-us.html
     
  4. Area51

    Area51 Silver Miner Seeker

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    802
    Likes Received:
    477
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Freedom of movement does not include the freedom to be unlicensed and operate a vehicle on public roadways.

    Lots of other options for movement besides driving a vehicle.
     
    Tecumseh and skychief like this.
  5. Professur

    Professur Midas Member Midas Member Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    4,877
    Likes Received:
    4,677
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Many places treat a driver's license as proof of competency to operate a motorized vehicle. Nothing to do with limiting your ability to move. Others treat it as proof of payment of fees for the use of improved roads. In Quebec, it's a little of column A, some of column B, with a sprinkling of public insurance premiums on top ... because operating cars increases the chances of injury.
     
  6. TRYNEIN

    TRYNEIN Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,809
    Likes Received:
    3,542
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    third cove on the right

    WOW, it seems that the courts don't share your interpretation of the law!!!!



    Further, the Right to TRAVEL by private conveyance for private purposes upon the Common way can NOT BE INFRINGED. No license or permission is required for TRAVEL when such TRAVEL IS NOT for the purpose of [COMMERCIAL] PROFIT OR GAIN on the open highways operating under license IN COMMERCE. "The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government."
    SHAPIRO vs. THOMSON, 394 U. S. 618 April 21, 1969.
     
  7. Cigarlover

    Cigarlover Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    2,832
    Likes Received:
    3,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you sure thats the right case? A quick search brings this one up which is a case about welfare and a 1 year waiting period being constitutional.

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/394/618/case.html
     
    Bigjon likes this.
  8. TRYNEIN

    TRYNEIN Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,809
    Likes Received:
    3,542
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    third cove on the right

    Yes, it does touch on the subject of one's right to travel..
    You have to dig for it, but it is there




    "The constitutional right to travel from one State to another . . . has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized."United States v. Guest, 383 U. S. 745, 383 U. S. 757. This constitutional right, which, of course, includes the right of "entering and abiding in any State in the Union," Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33, 239 U. S. 39, is not a mere conditional liberty subject to regulation and control under conventional

    Footnote 2/1]

    "[T]he right to travel freely from State to State finds constitutional protection that is quite independent of the Fourteenth Amendment."

    United States v. Guest, supra, at 383 U. S. 760, n. 17. [Footnote 2/2] As we made clear in Guest, it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. [Footnote 2/3] Like the right of association, NAACP v. Alabama,357 U. S. 449, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, [Footnote 2/4] guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.

    It follows, as the Court says, that

    "the purpose of deterring the in-migration of indigents cannot serve as justification for the classification created by the one-year waiting period, since that purpose is constitutionally impermissible."

    And it further follows, as the Court says, that any other purposes offered in support of a

    357 U. S. 463.

    The Court today, therefore, is not "contriving new constitutional principles." It is deciding these cases under the aegis of established constitutional law. [Footnote 2/5]

    [Footnote 2/1]

    By contrast, the "right" of international travel has been considered to be no more than an aspect of the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Kent v. Dulles, 357 U. S. 116, 357 U. S. 125; Aptheker v. Secretary of State,378 U. S. 500, 378 U. S. 505-506. As such, this "right," the Court has held, can be regulated within the bounds of due process. Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U. S. 1.

    [Footnote 2/2]

    The constitutional right of interstate travel was fully recognized long before adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. Seethe statement of Chief Justice Taney in the Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283, 48 U. S. 492:

    "For all the great purposes for which the Federal government was formed, we are one people, with one common country. We are all citizens of the United States, and, as members of the same community, must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own States."

    [Footnote 2/3]
     
  9. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Site Supporter ++ Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    6,553
    Likes Received:
    3,006
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    I see the revisionists at the search engine have stifled knowledge by instrumenting a goose chase.

    you should use something like this: https://www.courtlistener.com/
     
    BarnacleBob likes this.
  10. Goldhedge

    Goldhedge Moderator Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    28,742
    Likes Received:
    32,852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Planet Earth
    To be clear the meaning of 'driving' should be defined.

    We all believe it means 'traveling' by any conveyance one chooses, however, there is the rub.

    According to Bouvier's 1856 legal dictionary it means:

    DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals.

    2. Frequent accidents occur in consequence of the neglect or want of skill of drivers of public stage coaches, for which the employers are responsible.

    3. The law requires that a driver should possess reasonable skill and be of good habits for the journey; if, therefore, he is not acquainted with the road he undertakes to drive; 3 Bingh. Rep. 314, 321; drives with reins so loose that he cannot govern his horses; 2 Esp. R. 533; does not give notice of any serious danger on the road; 1 Camp. R. 67; takes the wrong side of the road; 4 Esp. R. 273; incautiously comes in collision with another carriage; 1 Stark. R. 423; 1 Campb. R. 167; or does not exercise a sound and reasonable discretion in travelling on the road, to avoid dangers and difficulties, and any accident happens by which any passenger is injured, both the driver and his employers will be responsible. 2 Stark. R. 37; 3 Engl. C. L. Rep. 233; 2 Esp. R. 533; 11. Mass. 57; 6 T. R. 659; 1 East, R. 106; 4 B. & A. 590; 6 Eng. C. L. R. 528; 2 Mc Lean, R. 157. Vide Common carriers Negligence; Quasi Offence.

    Of course, we don't 'drive' with horses, mules, or other animals these days, but the term has carried forward with the same meaning of one being 'employed for hire'.


    Blacks Law

    Screen Shot 2017-05-31 at 7.31.03 PM.png


    The 'violation of human rights' occurs out of ignorance of the law from all parties involved.

    Challenging the assumption that the law applies to everyone is 'challenging' and one must know the law better than those who practice it.
     
    TAEZZAR, solarion, Mujahideen and 3 others like this.
  11. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Site Supporter ++ Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    6,553
    Likes Received:
    3,006
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    Bingo

    edit: gots ta get....
     
  12. Area51

    Area51 Silver Miner Seeker

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    802
    Likes Received:
    477
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Your comments on this subject are baseless and
    completely asinine.

    The right to travel without restriction does not include the right to drive without a licence.

    One is a right, one is a privilege. But you've decided to try an insist they're both rights. What a ridiculous position. Almost as laughable as that totally unrelated case you referenced from nearly half a century ago.

    No US court in the past century has struck down the requirement of a drivers licence to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways. Take a good look if you want, but you're not going to find one. Because the difference between a right and a privilege understood by the courts - - as it is by most reasonable people with half a clue.

    Reference the case of Miller v. Reed:

    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1054787.html
     
  13. Cigarlover

    Cigarlover Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    2,832
    Likes Received:
    3,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”
     
    TAEZZAR, southfork and Mujahideen like this.
  14. Cigarlover

    Cigarlover Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    2,832
    Likes Received:
    3,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. “The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.” People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”

    There a whole bunch of these at this addy
    https://wearechange.org/u-s-supreme...o-drive-automobile-on-public-highwaysstreets/
     
  15. Area51

    Area51 Silver Miner Seeker

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    802
    Likes Received:
    477
    Trophy Points:
    63


    Nowhere does it mention you have the right to drive without a licence.

    Of course you have the right to drive on a public roadway - - provided you have a valid drivers licence.

    Your argument is nonsensical. Are you going to try and insist people should be able to drive while intoxicated? After all, they have the right to drive on public roadways.
     
  16. Cigarlover

    Cigarlover Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    2,832
    Likes Received:
    3,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Maybe you don't understand the difference between a right and a privilege? A right is something that cannot be converted to a privilege. See the above quote where it says it is not a mere privilege?
    I think this thread was about a license so why are you trying to divert this into something else. Of course you cant drive while intoxicated. Although I suppose you can but your rights end where others begin so if you cause damage or harm another while intoxicated you are definitely held liable as you should be. Do I think roadside checkpoints are legal and should be allowed? No, that's a fishing expedition and the police are insinuating everyone is guilty until proven innocent.. On the other hand if you do something unsafe on the road then you most definitely should be stopped for it.

    In the link about it does say, in one of the cases, that you have a right to drive in a safe manner.
     
    TAEZZAR and Mujahideen like this.
  17. Cigarlover

    Cigarlover Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    2,832
    Likes Received:
    3,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    NO STATE may convert a RIGHT into a PRIVILEGE and require a LICENSE or FEE for the exercise of that RIGHT!!! Please see MURDOCK vs. PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105, and if a STATE does erroneously do require A LICENSE OR FEE for exercise of the RIGHT, the Citizen may IGNORE THE LICENSE AND OR FEE and exercise the RIGHT WITH TOTAL IMPUNITY!!! Please see SCHUTTLESWORTH vs. BIRMINGHAM 373 U.S. 262. YOU CAN NOT BE PUNISHED FOR THE EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT!!! Please see MILLER vs. UNITED STATES 230 F.2nd 486.
     
  18. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Site Supporter ++ Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    6,553
    Likes Received:
    3,006
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    DUH, no one has the right to commercially ply the right of ways without license from the fiction that stole the right to take your land and give free trespass.

    So there 51/50 if you are traveling down the right of ways with a load of drugs for sale and slip off of that way then you commit trespass against the fiction if you "do not have LICENSE" from it. Do you commit trespass against me; no but it you do.

    What is so hard to understand?
     
  19. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,695
    Likes Received:
    9,874
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    I agree with the court, "motor vehicles" are constitutionally regulateable & subject to the body of motor vehicle rules, regs & statutes.

    That said you better look up the legal & statutory definition of "motor vehicle". A motor vehicle is any vehicle used in the transportation of passengers or cargo or passengers & cargo for PROFIT & HIRE... A motor vehicle is used in COMMERCE, commerce is a PRIVILEGE, travel is not.

    Lexicon terms such a "operating", "operator", "passenger", "driving", & "driver" are terms denoting commercial use.

    The courts have opined & ruled that there are 3 uses for the publicly paid for & financed roads & highways. The #1 use is in the protection of the nation in the transport of military equipment & personnel, the #2 reason is the use by the American people for the personal pleasure & business, #3 is the extraordinary use of conducting commerce for profit. Commerce is a PRIVILEGE and regulateable by the legislatures police power.

    The entire drivers licensing & registration racket is a legislative for profit scam created by legal wizards, lackeys & stooges hoisted upon a jurally & constitutionally ignorant public built around lies, fraud & deception.....

    My RIGHT & FREEDOM to locomote as I choose unimpeded by any means available predates the formation of .gov.... On foot, bicycle, boat or airplane!

    If the licensing & registration scheme was even to be justified as LEGITIMATE, a one time license & fee to insure the person was capable of safely operating a vehicle would be the only requirement along with a one time transferable registration & tag.... The licensing, registration & regulation racket is just another unconstitutional for profit tax.

    Have you ever considered that AUTO INSURANCE is a very dangerous scam to every traveler & driver on the highways & biways? A person with insurance can drive fast & recklessly wihout any responsibility, for if he crashes his car into another persons car or property he is off the hook, insurance picks up the tab! How would people operate automobiles if they were held completely financially responsible for safely operating their machines? I suspect most would terminate texting while operating, speeding, DUI, reckless operation, etc...
     
    stoli, solarion and Cigarlover like this.
  20. Aurumag

    Aurumag Dimly lit. Highly reflective Midas Member Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    7,257
    Likes Received:
    7,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Lightwave Jockey
    Location:
    State of Jefferson
    BB,

    This is why I voted NO:

    Tonight, like every night, and every morning, I shared the roadways with thousands of other drivers, many of whom traverse the same routes on a daily basis.

    AND

    Every single day, without fail, there is a minimum of 1 (demonically possessed?) non-driver who creates absolute chaos within a short time-span; speeding, brake-slamming, weaving, swerving, and worst of all - negligently failing to yield the right of way (the final driving offense for which I lost my DL at the age of 18) .

    I have been driving for almost 40 years, and I will not mince words; I am a professional driver because my life and livelihood depend upon my roadway survival as I carry my body and my family members.

    Suffice it to say that I am a libertarian in most respects, but when it comes to tight borders and driver registration, my life and livelihood depend upon accountability when some "unaccountable" decides to share the neighborhood and roadways with yours truly and his kin.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2017
    BarnacleBob likes this.
  21. Area51

    Area51 Silver Miner Seeker

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    802
    Likes Received:
    477
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Your rights end where someone else's begin, my friend.

    Motor vehicles and airplanes are way to dangerous and deadly to have some incompetent jackass or unlicensed alien operating them. Next thing you know, the incompetent jackass is driving the wrong way down a highway or the illegal alien is flying an airplane into the side of a building.

    You can "locomote" by any means you want - - provided you're competent enough to operate the mode of transport without killing someone. That's where the requirement for a drivers licence comes in. Or a pilots licence. Obtaining your licence means you have the basic level of competency.
     
  22. Bigjon

    Bigjon Silver Member Silver Miner Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    2,095
    Likes Received:
    1,873
    Trophy Points:
    113
    and no license has ever stopped idiots from being idiots.
     
    TAEZZAR, solarion, Scorpio and 5 others like this.
  23. viking

    viking Silver Member Silver Miner

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,261
    Likes Received:
    964
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Kinda weird, but I have been on the same few forums for many years now. And this gets brought up again and a again in new threads. Search function is that bad?


    Anyway, it is pretty clear you have the right to travel, by any conveyance without government approval as long as it is private, non-commercial.
     
  24. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,695
    Likes Received:
    9,874
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    My rights cannot be subjugated & abrogated because you FEAR that my operating a machine on a public conveyance may cause personal or property damage to you and/or your property. Compulsory auto insurance is just a financial scam by local, state & federal legislatures & pension funds.

    If you want a license, reg. & insurance than by all means you should possess the freedom to do so... but using the law perverted to force me into the scheme to limit your risks & the risks to the lenders & institutional investors while you travel derogates my rights, liberties & freedom.

    As I previously stated if the DL scam was even legitimate the need for testing ability would occur once, for there is no legitimate need to renew a DL every 4 or 6 yrs... same can be said for registration, there is no legitimate reason that can justify renewing registration anually except to admit these are just gravy taxes to enrich local & state .govs.

    If you want to protect your property by purchasing insurance then your free to do so, you have no right to force me into the scheme which basically enrichs the insurance industry & creates profits for the investors... which is a quasi ponzi industry.

    On an aside I figure the insurance ponzi is nearing demographic collapse brought on by the Boomer die-off & life ins. pay outs when they first made auto ins compulsory then the ACA.... The current new car & auto finance bubbles are hidden defacto insurance bail-outs as each new & used vehicle financial contract demands full-coverage insurance to be maintained over the life of the contract.

    Who are some of the biggest institutional investors in the ponzi insurance scheme? Why its the various federal, state, county & municipal pension funds... And why are these pension funds so important? Because their financial investments are hypothecated as financial collateral to the bond lenders....

    And once again we may observe that the DL, reg & insurance rackets are never ending compulsory financial income generating products designed to feed the bond markets while limiting the bond investors risks!

    There is nothing constitutional, extra-constitutional or legitimate about any of it, except to say that the schemes provide addition income, leverage & cash flow to the various .govs to increase borrowing capacity.

    No license, reg or insurance has ever protected or decreased the risks of travelers operating vehicles, on the contrary these schemes have increased risks & created even more need for these financial products, and its by DESIGN! The scam is presented as a Public Safety measure, but underneath the lies & deception is finance & cash flow!

    On the very face of the matter, it is fraudulent & deceptive to trick the common person by force & compulsion into registering their personal property as units of commerce to gain commercial regulatory police powers & taxing authority where none exists!

    The state is taking the MSO (Manufacturers Statement of Origin), the allodial deed & trading it for a state issued title, the MSO is then mortgaged & used as financial collateral! You trade allodial unencumbered nonregulateable ownership for the PRIVILEGE of mere usership! ONLY an ignorant man would trade ownership for usership, No man that understands this scam would knowingly, willingly & voluntarilly enter such a scheme!

    mortgage of the people.jpg
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2017
  25. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Site Supporter ++ Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    6,553
    Likes Received:
    3,006
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    Some people drink the koolaid, some people stay away from it but the one's you have to watch out for are the ones making and distributing it. Now ask yourselves "who would do such a dastardly thing?" The originators of the "License" and how can they do such a thing? They were formed by charter.

    I want to do an Einstein thought exercise. Every one ready? How come the Wright Brothers did not have a pilots license? Come on no "Bubbb-but's" How come they did not get issued an experimental pilot license from the koolaid makers?

    Answer: Because they had freedom and YOU don't. So go ahead blame an "Alien" because you got in his way. blame him for not having some stupid license, but what you should be blaming him for is not having insurance. Seems to me there are some people on this board/thread who cannot differentiate between the two of them; they are not tied together as they are two different things.

    Ice Cubes to go with that koolaid?
     
    TAEZZAR, stoli, Bigjon and 1 other person like this.
  26. Scorpio

    Scorpio Скорпион Founding Member Board Elder Site Mgr Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    23,858
    Likes Received:
    25,564
    Trophy Points:
    113
    there is a half decent reason for renewals, in that eyesight is checked as most persons eyes change over time.

    how many times have you seen certain drivers out there that are clearly a risk to those around them?

    society is a balance

    Having said that, all of it is put out as public safety, but in effect it is just another form of taxation. Hunting licenses, boat licenses, atv's, vehicles, fishing, all of them are nothing but taxes.

    Now of course, they state the funding (tax) is used for public safety and to manage the resources when it comes to hunting and fishing licenses.

    We all know instances of poaching of fish or animals, or laying waste to animals just because they can, etc.

    We have all seen drivers on the road acting like they own it, texting or driving drunk or whatever.

    We have also read the stories of the destruction of the bison herds, the destruction of wolves to protect chickens or just because they can, etc.

    It just is what it is guys, due to the lowest common denominator of human behavior.

    Honestly, it isn't high on my list of things to worry about when we factor in the things that really are more consequential, the corruption, the money, etc.
     
    Cigarlover and Bigjon like this.
  27. Cigarlover

    Cigarlover Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    2,832
    Likes Received:
    3,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just to be clear on insurance. Its your responsibility to insure yourself properly. If someone is driving a 500 dollar junk car do you really expect him or her to have enough insurance to cover your mercedes? What if you own a 200k R8? Do you get the minimum and expect anyone that runs into you to have enough coverage?
    Only you know what coverage you need and that's why its a personal responsibility thing.
     
  28. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,695
    Likes Received:
    9,874
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    Rights are like bites, you cannot eat an elephant in one bite, the consumption thereof requires an ongoing series of small bites to consume the elephant....

    The abrogation & derogation of rights has been a slow manipulative process... and it was not initiated by exploding onto the scenery, it began by taking small bites at constitutional rights, liberties & freedoms.

    It always begins small and grows into a monster until one day you wake up & say WTF happened. If we cannot defend even the smallest encroachments upon our rights, liberties & freedoms we cannot anticipate nor expect to defend ourselves against larger outright thefts & abuses by the money powered commercial monopolies, institutional investors & their guardian police powers of the state!

    The thefts of these morale, social, political & economic rights by the Centralized Bolshevic model were slowly & methodically introduced upon a jurally ignorant, peaceful & law abiding public... now we find that almost all of our activities require permission by the state in the form of a license regulated via the police powers.

    The centrist economic monopolist model built & constructed upon the illusion of capitalism is failing... Real capitalism requires nonviolent voluntary activities to remain healthy & viable, not compulsion & violence via the law perverted to maintain & support the socioeconomic & sociopolitical organization.

    Communism, facism, tyranny, oligarchy, etc. did not, could not & will not operate as a permanent sociopolitical organization, they only operate temporarily because they & their administration of justice is immorally supported by violence & compulsion, not voluntary association & voluntary activity!

    Any thing other than voluntary activity & association is slavery & servitude served up on many levels of enforcement! Compulsory economic & political servitude is still slavery!
     
    stoli, solarion, Bigjon and 2 others like this.
  29. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,695
    Likes Received:
    9,874
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    In words, the neocontemporary form of institutionalized slavery & servitude via economic & financial money powers enforced via the states police powers is collapsing. "Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered"! The money power has employed a global ponzi scheme built upon the sands of leveraged credit to support its slavish monopolus activities... The scheme is in its final dieing stages as technology progresses, innovates & is discovered. IOW the institution of slavery in its many forms is fastly becoming obsolete.
     
  30. TRYNEIN

    TRYNEIN Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,809
    Likes Received:
    3,542
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    third cove on the right

    Sorry, but I have seen the ASSinine Bullc--t game that you play and I just don't have time to play your games...

    There is plenty of case law that proves you wrong, but you won't except any of it regardless of what is put out there...

    So these quotes are for everyone else who wants to have the knowledge of the truth

    YOU, as a U.S. Citizen, can disregard them.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    "Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen."

    Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27

    "Users of the highway for transportation of persons and property for hire may be subjected to special regulations not applicable to those using the highway for public purposes."
    Richmond Baking Co. v. Department of Treasury 18 N.E. 2d 788.

    The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. ..." Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872

    "The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts."
    People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971)

    “A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.”
    Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)

    "One who DRIVES an automobile is an operator within meaning of the Motor Vehicle Act."
    Pontius v. McClean 113 CA 452

    "The word 'operator' shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation."
    Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.833


    "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, and affirmed by the Supreme Court in Thompson v. Smith 154 S.E. 579.



    The definition of 'Unalienable Rights' is....
    'I don't need your f--king permission'
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2017
    southfork, Bigjon and Cigarlover like this.
  31. TRYNEIN

    TRYNEIN Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,809
    Likes Received:
    3,542
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    third cove on the right

    "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no 'rule making' or legislation which would abrogate them."
    Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 426, 491; 86 S. Ct. 1603


    “All codes, rules and regulations are applicable to the government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God’s laws. All codes, rules and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking in due process.

    Rodriques v Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor), 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985)




    “Waivers of constitutional rights not only must be voluntary but must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.
    Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 749, 90 S. Ct. 1463, 1469 (1970):
    See also
    Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972);
    Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 6 (1966);
    Empsak v. U.S., 190 (1955); and,
    Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 58 (1938):



    Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Staub v. Baxley, 355 U.S. 313, 322:
    “It is settled by a long line of recent decisions of this Court that an ordinance which, like this one, makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official - as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official - is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms.” And our decisions have made clear that a person faced with such an unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with impunity in the exercise of the right of free expression for which the law purports to require a license.”
    Shuttlesworth v Birmingham (Alabama), 394 U.S. 147 (1969).
     
    Scorpio and Bigjon like this.
  32. Area51

    Area51 Silver Miner Seeker

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    802
    Likes Received:
    477
    Trophy Points:
    63

    It's cute that you took the time to reference all of those cases, but not one of them states that you can drive without a valid drivers licence.

    Why don't you drive on the left side of the road? The constitution doesn't say anything about that either, does it?

    So based on your misguided reasoning you have the "right" to drive on the left side of the right side of the road, correct?
     
  33. nickndfl

    nickndfl Midas Member Midas Member Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2011
    Messages:
    11,457
    Likes Received:
    9,107
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Florida
    You are free to move however you feel, but if you want to drive you need a license. There are some dumb Fs out there who should be banned from driving. Requiring a license guarantees if they do not obey the law the police have the right to F them up.
     
  34. Mujahideen

    Mujahideen Black Member Midas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    8,402
    Likes Received:
    12,759
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Silver stacker
    Location:
    America!
    No such things as rights. If they decide to throw you in a cage or take your money/property they are.
     
    BarnacleBob likes this.
  35. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    4,866
    Likes Received:
    4,574
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land

    I'm kinda torn on this issue. While I agree with the "it's your Right" argument, too many people have shown themselves to be utterly irresponsible when conducting themselves in public and/or have no regard at all for the Rights of others. I get to deal with those types on a fairly regular basis and can atest to the fact that some people should NEVER be trusted behind the wheel.

    In fact, seeing as we have the licensing system in place, I'd be ok if the test was made so hard that 20-30% of those taking it would not be able to pass it. If nothing else, the roads would be safer.
    ...but then they'd say it still violates their Rights because all people do have the Right to travel in the conveyance of the day, just like our Right to bear arms is not limited to the kind of weapons available in 1791. Hence the minimal licensing requirements where as long as you can pass a simple written test, drive around the block and pay your fee, they'll give you a license. Making it easy also ensures that most will do it. Thereby giving us roads with a good percentage of poor drivers.


    On the other side, I can see where my great great grand pappy didn't need no stinkin' license to "drive" his wagon that was being pulled by a team of horses weighing thousands of pounds that could gallop out of control at a moments notice and run people over. If safety is THE issue, why didn't he need a license too?
     
    Cigarlover likes this.
  36. solarion

    solarion Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    4,250
    Likes Received:
    6,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We have licensing for "driving" and "operating" a motor vehicle now and the roads are still deadly. Licenses do not convey common sense or responsibility.
    http://fortune.com/2017/02/15/traffic-deadliest-year/

    ...and the problem with weeding out the "bad drivers" via licensing controls is who makes the rules? I mean if you want to be safe then the very young and the very old should not have a license right? Except some old people are fine, some young people are fine, and some middle aged people can't drive for sh1t. I don't know who is going to be a sucky driver until I'm in the car with them. Worse, some people get emotional when they drive and then start driving like retards...the rest of the time they're fine. Licensing will never address that either.
     
    Bigjon, stoli, michael59 and 2 others like this.
  37. Cigarlover

    Cigarlover Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    2,832
    Likes Received:
    3,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you drive you still need to follow the rule, a license doesn't insure anything other than steady income for the state.

    Lots of people have been fooled into believing you can trade in freedom for safety. I have yet to see any examples of that working.
     
    Bigjon and stoli like this.
  38. Cigarlover

    Cigarlover Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    2,832
    Likes Received:
    3,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You seem to be the only one with misguided reasoning. This is the 2nd time you bring something else into the conversation and like I replied in your drinking and driving comment, you do need to obey the common rules of the road.
    If your doing something unsafe like drinking or traveling at an excessive speed than expect to be pulled over and have your rights suspended. I'm not sure why you are having such a hard time with this concept. Don't equate my right to travel with it being an open invitation to break the common rules of the road and travel in an unsafe manner.
    If I ride through downtown LA on horseback at a full gallup putting people at risk I would expect to be stopped and have my right to travel suspended as well.

    You might have missed this quote
    “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”

    Simple comprehension skills is all that is needed to read the above quote and realize that if i don't need a license to ride a bike or horse or waLK down the road then i also don't need one to drive down the road. down the road.

    Your fighting this tooth and nail and bringing a whole bunch of nonsensical arguments into this and i understand, you illusion is being shattered right before your eyes and its hard to grasp. Give it time and read the court cases sited and you'll begin to understand. Grasping a simple concept like freedom and inalienable rights is not easy to do. In fact inalienable rights maybe the hardest of all since they aren't listed in the constitution.
     
    stoli, viking and solarion like this.
  39. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    4,866
    Likes Received:
    4,574
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    No, they don't.


    Yea, probably not. I was thinkin' along the lines of just making the drivers test harder then it currently is and that it's done in real World driving conditions as opposed to driving around the block or something.


    Also, making people re-test every four years as opposed to simply paying a fee, so that they get a refresher on the rules of the road and are informed of any changes to the traffic code in the past four years would help.
    ....but I realize they are not going to to do any of that, so therefore IMHO, it's all about the money. Safety takes a distant 2nd or even 3rd place.



    What about people who have voluntarily encumbered their Rights by applying for and accepting a license? That's where I've always assumed that the "driving is a privilege" thing comes into play.
    ...and on a side note, I actually had a cop tell me one time that using a bike on the road is a sovereign Right.
     
    Bigjon, solarion and Cigarlover like this.
  40. Cigarlover

    Cigarlover Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    2,832
    Likes Received:
    3,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you safer because a restaurant has a license? I know the argument is its a public safety issue and the kitchens need to be inspected to protect the public.

    So if my kitchen gets inspected today and tomorrow you get sick at my restaurant who is liable? Does the state assume liability because they performed the inspections and gave my kitchen a clean bill of health? They should be since they performed the inspection and gave the illusion of safety but when seeking redress for your sickness you will sue the restaurant. No license or inspections will prevent anything. In fact if you've ever working in the restaurant biz you know the state calls a day or 2 ahead to let you know your inspection is coming up.

    Now if I own a bookstore why do I need a license to do so? How about a carpenter or any number of other trades out there. The bottom line is if you aren't competent you aren't going to be in business for very long and will be sued or shut down at some point.
    When I was younger and just starting out in life I was a carpenter in Ct. A couple years in and the state required a license to be a carpenter. 180.00 fee. No test to take just go up and pay the fee and get your license. It didn't make me a better carpenter, just a little broker every year.

    Most business licenses arent required but few will fight it and just pay the extortion fee to get along since the state is like the mafia and will f your day up for not paying the vig.
     
    TAEZZAR, Bigjon, stoli and 1 other person like this.

Share This Page