• Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
  • There are no markets
  • "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

Poll: Drivers Licensing ?

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

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

Cigarlover

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
3,788
Likes
6,232
#41
Joe we have all been fooled into believing so much of our lives is a privilege and is only allowed at the whim of the state. Not our faults it's the gov controlled schools who dont teach anything about rights and responsibility. Seems the longer the Gov controls the school system the worse things get.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,477
Likes
6,602
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#42
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.
That's an entry fee. An entry to what, you ask? Why an entry fee to your wallet, of course!

What it really is, is an entry fee to be able to market those particular services to the States people.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,477
Likes
6,602
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#43
Joe we have all been fooled into believing so much of our lives is a privilege and is only allowed at the whim of the state.
"Driving" as originally defined has pretty much always been that way. It's when people make the legal determination that it also applied to them, is when they themselves exchanged their Right for privilege.

IMHO, people have done it to themselves by signing and agreeing to things they didn't quite understand and then complaining about it after the fact when the State expects to be able to hold them to the agreement.


A free People who are mostly ignorant of their Rights won't be free for long.
...and we're how many generations into this now?
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,050
Likes
7,617
#44
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.
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.
Try not to take it personally. That particular poster seems to dislike reason based arguments and well established, commonly used definitions. Suggest showing intermittent pictures of squirrels in the background of your well thought out posts when addressing him/her.
 

nickndfl

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Messages
12,798
Likes
11,174
Location
Florida
#45
My step-father is 93 yo and he should not drive. He was not a good driver in his 60s and cannot walk without assistance now. He totalled his new pickup truck last year and it loosened up some plaque in his brain which started dementia. Some people should not have a license. Period.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,050
Likes
7,617
#46
My step-father is 93 yo and he should not drive. He was not a good driver in his 60s and cannot walk without assistance now. He totalled his new pickup truck last year and it loosened up some plaque in his brain which started dementia. Some people should not have a license. Period.
The question is this. Is it the role of the gumbymint to ensure your step-father's safety and the safety of all those that interact with him on the roadway? ...or is it the responsibility of his family to stop him from traveling via automobile? Also, given the fact that your step-father is using an automobile for conveyance, I presume he passed his "rigorous" licensing tests?

My Grandmother was a menace on the road as well. I vividly recall being in the car as a youngling, when she strck the car in front of her three times at one red left turn light. She was just off in her own little world when in the car, but she passed the silly State tests easily and therefore could legally drive.
 

Cigarlover

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
3,788
Likes
6,232
#48
Did any
My step-father is 93 yo and he should not drive. He was not a good driver in his 60s and cannot walk without assistance now. He totalled his new pickup truck last year and it loosened up some plaque in his brain which started dementia. Some people should not have a license. Period.
Did anyone in the family attempt to stop him from driving or did everyone just figure the state will deal with it when he kills himself or someone else? Hopefully no one was injured when he wrecked the truck. You do bring up a good issue though. How do we prevent someone who isn't competent from getting behind the wheel.. In this case the state didn't prevent it so then who should? Perhaps the insurance companies should look into it since they are the ones held liable. The state is never held liable for anything.

Driving really isnt that hard. One trip when I was in Cuba my GF asked to drive and she had never driven before. I told her to watch me closely to see what I do. Then when we got close to the highway I put her in the drivers seat, had her practice using the breaks a couple times and we were off to Havana which was 6 hrs away. I took a nap and woke up at one point she was going 85 LOL. I told her to keep it at 70 and she did. Its really not that hard to drive a car, learn a few rules of the road and anyone can do it.
On the other hand it isnt easy for some people to be a decent human being and there are plenty of idots out there traveling on the roadways. Thats why we buy insurance I suppose since the state just wants the fees for driving, they arent going to ban anyone from doing it unless you really screw up.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
8,223
Likes
4,675
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
#49
First and foremost a "drivers license" is an impaired contract. No, not a contract; an impaired contract. You have excepted something from the state because? I don't know why you accepted it but you did and as such you are bound by it. Me? I am not bound by it and I did not pay a thing. Time ago I purchased an '87 Ford 150, traded it in for a '88/250. All the time I owned the 250 I never had a drivers license, oh my and I paid the truck off and carried the insurance. According to some here I was a law breaker, ewww, shiver me timbers.

I do wonder sometimes if any of you have actually cracked the statute book of the state you are in? Did you notice that the statute book is promulgated by some mysterious corporation. It will be the all caps acronym. Then any corrections are sent to the legislature to be voted on and usually passed. You will notice, if you dare, that most of these statutes are not in the charter law of your state aka the state's constitution. The state's constitution will say something like "freedom of travel" yet the statute law will use commercial words like "drive, driver, vehicle, licenses, tags" and such. This is because as commerce it is forbidden to use the right of ways when commercially plying your trade, unless you have a license granted by the state. Do you know why?

Because, in order for the state to utilize imminent domain across my property it has to be for the good of the public. Not private enterprise for hire but for the travel dictated in the charter because those who engage in the commercial aspect are driving not traveling. So, do you drive when you head down to that store to get yourself a frosty one? Who then pray tell hired you? Why did you not report it as income? You were and did drive did you not? So some one must have paid you.

One of the case laws that were cited actually uses some funky wording. The wording amounts to commercial truck drivers but uses words that designate that the driver does not need a license on the return trip home when not hauling freight. I wonder why this is? Oh, because you now are traveling home as your driving is done. So, so why the disparity? Because there is a difference.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,477
Likes
6,602
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#50
Driving really isnt that hard.
Ironically, that's part of the problem. It's too easy. It's so easy that once people get used to doing it, they start thinkin' they can do other things while driving. That's when the real problems start. Last thing ya need to see in the rear view is a guy juggling a starbux frapacrapawhatever and his phone as he texts away, oblivious to what he's about to hit.

People do all manner of things other than driving while behind the wheel that they have no business doing. I've seen women putting on makeup @60mph on the freeway. That'll scare the he!! outta ya too.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,050
Likes
7,617
#51
People do all manner of things other than driving while behind the wheel that they have no business doing. I've seen women putting on makeup @60mph on the freeway. That'll scare the he!! outta ya too.
That's certainly true. You really notice when you're motorcycling everywhere how freaking oblivious "car people" are. Particularly those van and SUV people...they can't see crap and they don't care to try.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
8,223
Likes
4,675
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
#52
Ironically, that's part of the problem. It's too easy. It's so easy that once people get used to doing it, they start thinkin' they can do other things while driving. That's when the real problems start. Last thing ya need to see in the rear view is a guy juggling a starbux frapacrapawhatever and his phone as he texts away, oblivious to what he's about to hit.

People do all manner of things other than driving while behind the wheel that they have no business doing. I've seen women putting on makeup @60mph on the freeway. That'll scare the he!! outta ya too.
Gheehawd U are killing me here, just flat slaying it you are. HELL-oh? what does rubbing one out or putting on make-up have to do with the public aspect of having a "drivers license" promote safety? It do not. Safety is your concern as safety is my concern. There is no safety quantified in the US Constitution or any state Constitution; and, no peace and dignity either. We have no safety but what is supplied by those whom want to govern.

"By those who want to govern" and that my friend is the pittfall....
 

Garyw

The Military gave me Defoliant Exposure
Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 16, 2011
Messages
1,353
Likes
1,129
Location
State of Jefferson
#53
Time to get rid of the United Nations and Hailey at the same time. Send them to Venezuela.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
8,223
Likes
4,675
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
#54
That's certainly true. You really notice when you're motorcycling everywhere how freaking oblivious "car people" are. Particularly those van and SUV people...they can't see crap and they don't care to try.
Oh piss off. I was more scared, scared like a kitten meowing scared from them sexy girls in them lil dam sports cars than them old peeps who's necks could not turn. Though I must admit a few of the oldies made me tear the seat off of my iornhorse a few times.

there is a reason I do not run around on two wheels any more, mostly me and stuuupidity; but yeah...I am still here......oh yeah I can hear it now "lucky me."
 

skychief

enthusiastic stacker
Silver Miner
Joined
Sep 25, 2014
Messages
723
Likes
863
Location
California Coast
#55
I think I see where all the confusion is. In article 13 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the term "state" means country , territory, or province. It doesn't mean the "State" of Tennessee or the "State" of Florida. The UN does not grant any "rights" to Americans. They do not dictate immigration policy to the US.

Contrary to popular belief, the US Bill of Rights does not grant any rights, either. It's function is to guarantee and protect these Rights. Big difference.

UDHR Article 13:
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
 

Area51

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
1,117
Likes
754
#56
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.

You're not able to cite a single example of case law supporting your nonsensical insistence that a valid drivers licence is not required for driving on public roadways.

I referenced case law from the Miller v Reed trial which completely eviscerates your feeble argument. Some other misguided fool tried to argue that same position and was humiliated in court.


"The plaintiff's argument that the right to operate a motor vehicle is fundamental because of its relation to the fundamental right of interstate travel is utterly frivolous.  The plaintiff is not being prevented from traveling interstate by public transportation, by common carrier, or in a motor vehicle driven by someone with a license to drive it.   What is at issue here is not his right to travel interstate, but his right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways, and we have no hesitation in holding that this is not a fundamental right.[/QUOTE]

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


There you have it, my friend. The courts ruled it's NOT a fundamental right and referred to the argument as utterly frivolous. Sorry about your luck.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
8,223
Likes
4,675
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
#57
51/50 time to change the rocks in your head, here is the first two paragraphs:

Before:  WOOD, JR.,1THOMPSON and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.Donald S. Miller, El Cerrito, California, and F. Raymond Marks, El Cerrito, California, for the plaintiff-appellant. Terry Senne, Deputy Attorney General, Oakland, California, for the defendants-appellees.

The California Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) rejected Donald S. Miller's application for renewal of his driver's license because he refused to divulge his social security number.   Miller's refusal was based on religious grounds.   As part of his long-standing and deeply held religious convictions, Miller believes that to reveal his social security number would be tantamount to a sin.   Without a valid driver's license from his home state of California, Miller cannot legally drive anywhere in the United States.

In an attempt to force California to issue him a driver's license, Miller filed the present lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.   Among other claims, he asserted a claim for violation of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.   He alleged that California Vehicle Code § 1653.5, which requires the DMV to obtain the social security number of all applicants for new or renewed drivers' licenses, violates his federal constitutional rights to interstate travel and free exercise of religion.   Miller also alleged that the juxtaposition of his interstate travel and free exercise rights presents a hybrid constitutional issue requiring strict scrutiny of California Vehicle Code § 1653.5.

A BIG fat fail for you as you are not seeing something.

First of all "IT" is not his "drivers License." It is the STATE's, if it was his then he would have been born with it.
Second, it is not his social security number, if it was he would have been born with that tattooed on his butt.
Third, God did not invent the SS# other wise see "second on list."
Fourth, the last sentence of the first paragraph is a true statement as without a valid drivers license he cannot legally drive because driving is never defined in this whole decision in fact the term driving is never discussed but only assumed. Hell the "9th" even references the commercial aspects in their intra state travel by motor coach.
Question: why did miller not define driving?
This is a case about the state is right BUT...so this is an argument on the terms of the contract:

Miller concedes that California may regulate drivers' licenses and that all applicants for drivers' licenses are required to provide their social security numbers.   See Nowlin v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 53 Cal.App.4th 1529, 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 409, 412-14 (1997).   He does not deny that section 1653.5 is facially neutral, nor does he allege that section 1653.5 has the object of burdening religion or has more than an incidental effect on religious practices or beliefs.   Finally, he does not deny that section 1653.5 is rationally related to California's legitimate interests in locating the whereabouts of errant parents for purposes of carrying out child support programs, collecting tax obligations, and collecting amounts overdue and unpaid for fines, penalties, assessments, bail, and vehicle parking penalties.   See id. at 415;  Lauderbach, 41 Cal.Rptr.2d at 436-39.

I'd say that what happened here is that Miller was out foxed by case law that only touches on what he is arguing but even I am not sure what he is arguing after the above paragraph.
 

TRYNEIN

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
3,915
Likes
14,436
Location
third cove on the right
#58
51/50 time to change the rocks in your head, here is the first two paragraphs:

Before:  WOOD, JR.,1THOMPSON and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.Donald S. Miller, El Cerrito, California, and F. Raymond Marks, El Cerrito, California, for the plaintiff-appellant. Terry Senne, Deputy Attorney General, Oakland, California, for the defendants-appellees.

The California Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) rejected Donald S. Miller's application for renewal of his driver's license because he refused to divulge his social security number.   Miller's refusal was based on religious grounds.   As part of his long-standing and deeply held religious convictions, Miller believes that to reveal his social security number would be tantamount to a sin.   Without a valid driver's license from his home state of California, Miller cannot legally drive anywhere in the United States.

In an attempt to force California to issue him a driver's license, Miller filed the present lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.   Among other claims, he asserted a claim for violation of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.   He alleged that California Vehicle Code § 1653.5, which requires the DMV to obtain the social security number of all applicants for new or renewed drivers' licenses, violates his federal constitutional rights to interstate travel and free exercise of religion.   Miller also alleged that the juxtaposition of his interstate travel and free exercise rights presents a hybrid constitutional issue requiring strict scrutiny of California Vehicle Code § 1653.5.

A BIG fat fail for you as you are not seeing something.

First of all "IT" is not his "drivers License." It is the STATE's, if it was his then he would have been born with it.
Second, it is not his social security number, if it was he would have been born with that tattooed on his butt.
Third, God did not invent the SS# other wise see "second on list."
Fourth, the last sentence of the first paragraph is a true statement as without a valid drivers license he cannot legally drive because driving is never defined in this whole decision in fact the term driving is never discussed but only assumed. Hell the "9th" even references the commercial aspects in their intra state travel by motor coach.
Question: why did miller not define driving?
This is a case about the state is right BUT...so this is an argument on the terms of the contract:

Miller concedes that California may regulate drivers' licenses and that all applicants for drivers' licenses are required to provide their social security numbers.   See Nowlin v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 53 Cal.App.4th 1529, 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 409, 412-14 (1997).   He does not deny that section 1653.5 is facially neutral, nor does he allege that section 1653.5 has the object of burdening religion or has more than an incidental effect on religious practices or beliefs.   Finally, he does not deny that section 1653.5 is rationally related to California's legitimate interests in locating the whereabouts of errant parents for purposes of carrying out child support programs, collecting tax obligations, and collecting amounts overdue and unpaid for fines, penalties, assessments, bail, and vehicle parking penalties.   See id. at 415;  Lauderbach, 41 Cal.Rptr.2d at 436-39.

I'd say that what happened here is that Miller was out foxed by case law that only touches on what he is arguing but even I am not sure what he is arguing after the above paragraph.

Give it a rest Michael, you're just beating your head against a brick wall.

Nothing you post will be proof to this guy, because he has an agenda...don't fall into his bullch-t trap.

Besides, pay attention to what he posts...he keeps using the words 'driver' and 'driving', not 'travel', without consideration to the legal definition of these words.

Here is his case law that he uses as an example...notice the words being used here.

"The plaintiff's argument that the right to operate a motor vehicle is fundamental because of its relation to the fundamental right of interstate travel is utterly frivolous.  The plaintiff is not being prevented from traveling interstate by public transportation, by common carrier, or in a motor vehicle driven by someone with a license to drive it.   What is at issue here is not his right to travel interstate, but his right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways, and we have no hesitation in holding that this is not a fundamental right.
 

Cigarlover

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
3,788
Likes
6,232
#59
You're not able to cite a single example of case law supporting your nonsensical insistence that a valid drivers licence is not required for driving on public roadways.

I referenced case law from the Miller v Reed trial which completely eviscerates your feeble argument. Some other misguided fool tried to argue that same position and was humiliated in court.


"The plaintiff's argument that the right to operate a motor vehicle is fundamental because of its relation to the fundamental right of interstate travel is utterly frivolous.  The plaintiff is not being prevented from traveling interstate by public transportation, by common carrier, or in a motor vehicle driven by someone with a license to drive it.   What is at issue here is not his right to travel interstate, but his right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways, and we have no hesitation in holding that this is not a fundamental right.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1054787.html


There you have it, my friend. The courts ruled it's NOT a fundamental right and referred to the argument as utterly frivolous. Sorry about your luck.[/QUOTE]

I've provided plenty of case law but once again you don't comprehend what is being said. You also don't understand that driving is different than traveling. I don't fault you, we have a faulty school system that never taught you reading and comprehension skills. You may have cause for a lawsuit there.
Time and time again in this thread you have demonstrated you inability to understand the issue and have continually tried to side track the issue with your frivilous comments. You never respond to the case law that is pointed out to you, you just create some stupid arguments and continue to post 1 case that is about driving and not traveling. Your free to believe what you want
 

TRYNEIN

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
3,915
Likes
14,436
Location
third cove on the right
#60
"The plaintiff's argument that the right to operate a motor vehicle is fundamental because of its relation to the fundamental right of interstate travel is utterly frivolous.  The plaintiff is not being prevented from traveling interstate by public transportation, by common carrier, or in a motor vehicle driven by someone with a license to drive it.   What is at issue here is not his right to travel interstate, but his right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways, and we have no hesitation in holding that this is not a fundamental right.


He doesn't even realize that he provided proof against himself

What is at issue here is not his right to travel interstate, but his right to operate a motor vehicle

That right there is proof that the court sees a distinction between the 2 statements.
 

Area51

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
1,117
Likes
754
#61
He doesn't even realize that he provided proof against himself

What is at issue here is not his right to travel interstate, but his right to operate a motor vehicle

That right there is proof that the court sees a distinction between the 2 statements.

YES! You've finally realized what I explained in Post #4 - - everyone has the fundamental right to travel but there's no such thing as a fundamental right to drive a vehicle.

Because driving is NOT a fundamental right, the state can impose the requirement of having a valid drivers licence in order to do so.

"What is at issue here is not his right to travel interstate, but his right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways, and we have no hesitation in holding that this is not a fundamental right."
 

Area51

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
1,117
Likes
754
#62
You also don't understand that driving is different than traveling.
Of course there's a difference between the privilege of driving and the fundamental right to travel. I explained that to you a long time ago in Post #4.

The state can impose whatever requirements it wants for the privilege of driving - - such as the requirement of having a valid licence - - because driving is NOT a fundamental right.

You an a few other misguided others are mistakenly trying to insist the right to travel somehow includes a right to drive.

That's factually incorrect, my friend.

As stated by the courts in the Miller v Reed case - - driving is NOT a fundamental right.
 

TRYNEIN

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
3,915
Likes
14,436
Location
third cove on the right
#63
YES! You've finally realized what I explained in Post #4 - -

What a load of crap!!!

Several people pointed out the difference between driving and traveling in many posts...but all of a sudden you claim that's what you said WAY back in post #4...

BULLCH_T
 

Area51

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
1,117
Likes
754
#64
What a load of crap!!!

Several people pointed out the difference between driving and traveling in many posts...but all of a sudden you claim that's what you said WAY back in post #4...

BULLCH_T
This topic originated by asking if the requirement of a drivers licence in order to drive violates fundamental rights.

Clearly it does not because...wait for it...driving is a PRIVILEGE and is NOT a fundamental right.

Because if this, the state can impose whatever requirements on driving that it deems fit - - including the requirement of having a valid drivers licence in order to operate a motor vehicle on a public roadway.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
8,223
Likes
4,675
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
#65
UM you are mixing two different things as a right cannot be converted into a privilege. And being free to convey ones self how ever one wants is considered a right so the state cannot convert it into a privilege. Now if you are person, which you evidently is, you only have rights/privileges that the state wants you to have and you seem to do well with paying your fictional master what ever it wants.

you post a link that in reality is just a contract dispute of particular terms that one party wanted to expel but the other did not. So really your case law has no bearing other than the aspect of if you are a roman you will adhere to roman law. Are you a Roman?

Listen you are going to have to get your definitions down as driving is a commercial thing, the word its self denotes that and for you to say that driving is not a fundamental right but a privilege is to say that traveling while driving is also a privilege and is there for controlled by the state. So really what you are implying is that we exist here solely at the convenience of the state. This would mean you are the slave of your master.

Tell me do you set the table for this fictional master?
 

Area51

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
1,117
Likes
754
#66
UM you are mixing two different things as a right cannot be converted into a privilege. And being free to convey ones self how ever one wants is considered a right so the state cannot convert it into a privilege. Now if you are person, which you evidently is, you only have rights/privileges that the state wants you to have and you seem to do well with paying your fictional master what ever it wants.

you post a link that in reality is just a contract dispute of particular terms that one party wanted to expel but the other did not. So really your case law has no bearing other than the aspect of if you are a roman you will adhere to roman law. Are you a Roman?

Listen you are going to have to get your definitions down as driving is a commercial thing, the word its self denotes that and for you to say that driving is not a fundamental right but a privilege is to say that traveling while driving is also a privilege and is there for controlled by the state. So really what you are implying is that we exist here solely at the convenience of the state. This would mean you are the slave of your master.

Tell me do you set the table for this fictional master?
Fundamental rights are inalienable- - that means they cannot be taken away. PRIVILEGES on the other hand can indeed be taken away.

People can lose their PRIVILEGE of driving if they break too many traffic laws. If driving was actually a fundamental right - - as some have foolishly tried to insist - - nobody could ever be forbidden to drive.
 

Area51

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
1,117
Likes
754
#68
Some people just like being slaves, they need someone to tell them when to and what to do.

I think we have another Alric here.

I don't make the rules, my friend. I just clarify misconceptions and factually incorrect proclamations.

Such as the misconception between fundamental rights - - such as travelling - - and PRIVILEGES - - such as driving.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
8,223
Likes
4,675
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
#69
So again you are asked: When you go to the store to get a frosty one and as you say you drived there and to drive is to act commercially in traveling then who is paying your wages for you to do your obligation of contract? Humm? Who? Or is this obligation of contract a right and to purchase a beer yet a privilege granted to you without license by the state?

Come on it is the same argument to purchase is a privilege yet by charter we are obligated to contract because the states cannot impair said contract, yet they do. They do because you have to be over 21 in this state yet contracting age is considered 18, so yes there is an impairment on the obligation of contract when it comes to alkeyhall.
 

Area51

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
1,117
Likes
754
#70
So again you are asked: When you go to the store to get a frosty one and as you say you drived there and to drive is to act commercially in traveling then who is paying your wages for you to do your obligation of contract? Humm? Who? Or is this obligation of contract a right and to purchase a beer yet a privilege granted to you without license by the state?

Come on it is the same argument to purchase is a privilege yet by charter we are obligated to contract because the states cannot impair said contract, yet they do. They do because you have to be over 21 in this state yet contracting age is considered 18, so yes there is an impairment on the obligation of contract when it comes to alkeyhall.

WTF are you trying to say with such incoherent rambling about beer and contracts?

I'll repeat again for your benefit - - fundamental rights cannot be revoked or legislated but PRIVILEGES can be revoked or come with requirements that have to be met.

Driving a vehicle is a PRIVILEGE. It is NOT a fundamental right. Driving comes with the requirement of having a valid drivers licence. Your PRIVILEGE of driving can be suspended or revoked.

Purchasing alcohol is also a PRIVILEGE and is NOT a fundamental right. You must meet the age requirement in order to purchase alcohol. If you are piss drunk - - as I believe you often are when formulating your comments - - you can be denied the PRIVILEGE of purchasing more alcohol.
 

Bigjon

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
2,352
Likes
2,222
#71
I don't make the rules, my friend. I just clarify misconceptions and factually incorrect proclamations.

Such as the misconception between fundamental rights - - such as travelling - - and PRIVILEGES - - such as driving.
We know, driving is a commercial activity, like carrying paying passengers. Traveling is a private activity and there is no law or jurisdiction over that.
 

Cigarlover

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
3,788
Likes
6,232
#72
So just to be clear, the average person does not need a license to travel on public roadways by whatever common means he so chooses. That doesn't mean he can take a rocket car at 400 mph down the freeway.


If you are driving you are carrying passengers or freight and you are for hire or getting paid.
 

BarnacleBob

GIM Founding Member & Mod.
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
9,773
Likes
11,753
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
#73
"What is at issue here is not his right to travel interstate, but his right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways, and we have no hesitation in holding that this is not a fundamental right."

I agree in toto with the courts statement, opinion & ruling. A "motor vehicle" is defined as a unit of commerce. Commerce is NOT a fundamental right but a PRIVILEGE granted by the State & enforced by the States police power.

Indeed the court has no hesitation or reservation holding that commerce is not a fundamental right.

Duh!


 

Area51

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
1,117
Likes
754
#74
It's amusing to see you try to double down but the fact remains that driving for personal or recreational use is a PRIVILEGE.

If it were a fundamental right, the state would not be able to suspend or revoke anyone's PRIVILEGE to drive.

As I explained numerous times - - a fundamental right is inalienable.

If you're struggling to grasp that concept, do yourself a favour and educate yourself on the subject.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,050
Likes
7,617
#75
If you're struggling to grasp that concept, do yourself a favour and educate yourself on the subject.
Yes, none are more ignorant than those that refuse to hear. Eh...my friend?

BTW, what the hell is personal or recreational...driving? How does that work?
 

Cigarlover

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
3,788
Likes
6,232
#76
Ok so lets draft a letter to our state reps with all of the court sites. The case law that supports the freedom to travel and the case law that supports the states rights to regulate drivers involved in commerce. Then we can all send it off to our state reps and see how they respond.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,050
Likes
7,617
#77
I'm guessing that'll not go really well, but I'm game anyway.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,477
Likes
6,602
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#78
Ok so lets draft a letter to our state reps with all of the court sites. The case law that supports the freedom to travel and the case law that supports the states rights to regulate drivers involved in commerce. Then we can all send it off to our state reps and see how they respond.
That'll probably just get your name added to the red list. lol
 

Cigarlover

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
3,788
Likes
6,232
#79
That'll probably just get your name added to the red list. lol
LOL, I suspect its already there, although when I went on vacation out of the country in March I didn't receive any extra scrutiny so maybe I'm not on the list yet. :mail 2:
 

BarnacleBob

GIM Founding Member & Mod.
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
9,773
Likes
11,753
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
#80
It's amusing to see you try to double down but the fact remains that driving for personal or recreational use is a PRIVILEGE.

If it were a fundamental right, the state would not be able to suspend or revoke anyone's PRIVILEGE to drive.

As I explained numerous times - - a fundamental right is inalienable.

If you're struggling to grasp that concept, do yourself a favour and educate yourself on the subject.
No, YOU are the individual that doesnt realize how pernicuious & fraudulently deceptive the DL & Registration scam is!

Each new vehicle arrives with a "Manufacturers Statement of Origin" (MSO). This is the actual common law title.

When you purchase the new vehicle and you register it with the state, the state receives the MSO & issues a colorable state title which is NOT "THE" title but evidence of the MSO. Essentially you have VOLUNTARILLY entered into a bi-lateral contract with the state. The state, since it possesses the true title MSO that you gave them possesses the legal right & authority as the highest owner to regulate your activities when using their property. Remember possession is 9/10's of the law. He who holds the MSO is the owner. He who holds the colorable title must yield to the MSO holder. A state title deceptively registers you as the owner, but you are merely the "owner" of a "REVOCABLE" contract & a colorable contractural right to
possess & use their vehicle. Herein lays the PRIVILEGE. The real MSO holder (legal owner) can revoke & penalize you for not abiding by his rules regulating his property.

Theoretically the state presumes that you have voluntarilly registered the vehicle seeking the protections of the Owners DHSMV (Dept Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles) which provides the statutory & regulatory "rules of the road" scheme.

IOW you trade the allodial MSO title for the states colorable title (PRIVILEGE to use as private property to buy, sell or trade PRIVILEGE). All the state title does is to establish you as the recorded "owner" of the "PRIVILEGE" to use the vehicle privately or commercially, it also includes the PRIVILEGE to transfer the PRIVILEGE via selling, bartering or trading to another "recorded" owner of the privilege. This occurs when a state title is transfered from one entity to another.

It must also be noted that "Private Property" is a commercial term in its customary legal usage. Private Property is regulateable as a unit of commerce, personal property in most cases is not.

So you are highly mistaken in your sad usage & understanding of what constitutes the PRIVILEGE in the states DL & Registration racket.

If driving is a PRIVILEGE then why is it that unlicensed & unregistered farm implements & construction equipment such as tractors, combines, backhoes, graders, certain farm & construction trucks, trailers, etc. are FREELY operated every day on the public roads by both licensed & unlicensed natural persons without any REQUIRED DL or registration & license plates? The simple fact is the state doesnt possess the MSO on these motorized vehicles & the MSO's have not been transfered to the state. The state cannot claim ownership or a compelling interest to regulate these vehicles.

Where most folks go wrong in these DL arguments is not recognizing who holds the MSO... The original MSO must first be acquired to deny the state a claim of ownership & compelling interest in regulating THEIR property.

The scam becomes even more insidious when the state holds the MSO as it can be hypothecated as collateral for international & domestic loans, it, the MSO can be traded, bartered & even sold for value by the state. For all intents & purposes you dont even know who really owns your cars MSO... But isnt it nice the MSO holders have extended the PRIVILEGE to you that allows you to use, buy, sell, trade or barter for profit or loss the PRIVILEGE they have given you!

Theres a bit more to it,... but the subject addressed here is namely the proper use & understanding that underlies the word "PRIVILEGE." as used by the state in the DHSMV scam.