http://taor.agitator.dynip.com/on_law.htm
</p
Posted on 09/08/2001 6:54:24 PM PDT by Prism
For the cost of the fines for driving without a license, I could buy a new laptop.
In this state, because of the lobbying power of the Tavern League.
If driving is so dangerous, why are people allowed to drive after they DO get a DUI?
See my answer, above. But you may also want to review your DUI laws. MADD also has quite a bit of influence in the fines and penalties after a DUI, and all subsequent DUI's.
If driving is so dangerous, why am I allowed to keep my license my entire life without retesting?
Not exactly. Here, your eyes have to be tested every time you renew. If you have been unconscious, have a seizure disorder (like my brother-in-law and niece) and for other medical reasons, your license is lifted for months, or your driving is severely restricted. If you are uninsured and have an accident, they can lift your license. They can lift your license for failure to pay child support. I could go on & on, but the privilege to drive is not absolute.
If driving is so dangerous, why don't you have to piss in a cup when you get pulled over?
If they think you're under the influence, giving them probable cause (and the "I just had a couple beers" is reason enough) they won't make you piss in a cup or blow into a tube. They'll draw your blood, tying you down, if necessary (and if you refuse, it's another ticket, plus the state presumes you were drunk because of your refusal).
All these things are far more significant than me getting in a car and simply driving.
That's driving without a license, right?
I am not saying the roads should be lawless, nor that driving rights cannot be taken from you.
I'm curious, Prism: when you drive unlicensed, do you obey traffic laws? For example, do you go the speed limit? Do you drive with a BAC under .08%? Do you stop at stop signs and stop lights? If you are, you are tactically acknowledging that the state has the right to regulate and control public roads and those who drive on them.
Driving without a license is, in and of itself, lawless. I just want to know where you draw the line, or if laws a Chinese menu, allowing you to pick one from Column A and two from Column B, ignoring rest of the laws that you don't like.
That's the same as saying the roads should be lawless.
Speed, drive drunk, drive with burned out headlights. It's a right that can't be taken away from you!
http://taor.agitator.dynip.com/on_law.htm
</p
Have you ever tested any of that legal theory on the trust? And what advice would you give someone who wishes to revoke whatever agreement/acknowledgment involve in the original acceptance of a DL?
My state is Michigan, which I believe is still fighting Fed requirements for a SS# on DL (the ONLY state not yet complying). Between that and HIPA requiring all my medical records go to the Fed, DL fingerprinting, facescans, roadblocks, the USSC on arresting people for seatbelts... my trust is thoroughly broken, irreparably so.
They have aggressed.
One of the points I make is that while your car may be in trust, that fraud (if it exists) is defeatable. The first challenge to any traffic charge is that of subject matter jurisdiction. Making statements of un-rebutted fact into the record of any traffic case can defeat any trust involving the car since the state would never admit they conned you into a constructive trust - if in fact, that's what they did. Furthermore, since any administrative law that abrogates a common law right cannot apply to you except in circumstances where there is clearly a nexus between you and the administrative jurisdiction of the agency in question, AND you were actually engaged in a regulateable activity that the agency has actual jurisdiction over at the instant in question, all of those allegedly binding contracts that people get worked up over are void if properly challenged on subject matter jurisdiction grounds. You are not a proper party subject to any administrative tribunal unless those conditions apply. If they don't, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and cannot proceed (although it's going to take some doing to convince them of that.)
My observation has been that you have to rise above the level of the idiot savants that run courts below a superior court before you can find a judge capable of even understanding your argument.
With proper asset protection strategies employed, you need not be personally associated with almost anything involving an interface with local/state/federal government. This doesn't necessarily come as cheap as simple submission however. See http://www.trustbms.com
I hope you gag on them as badly as I do.
"this authority to prescribe reasonable requisites for the "privilege" of driving on the public highways is inherent in state and local govts) State v. Booher (Tenn.Crim.App 1997) 978 SW2d 953"
state has legitimate interest in requiring financial responsibility of drivers) Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 87 RI 226, 139 A2d 869
"...The right to travel granted by the state..."
The legislature has the constitutional police power to ensure safe drivers and safe roads.");
"The right to operate a motor vehicle is wholly a creation of state law; it certainly is not explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution"
It is subject to reasonable regulation by the state, pursuant to the police power granted by the Constitution.
"A] state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles - those moving in interstate commerce as well as others. ... This is but an exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the states and essential to the preservation of the health, safety, and comfort of their citizens." Hendrick v. Maryland (1915) 235 US 610"
In the public interest the state may make and enforce regulations reasonably calculated to promote care on the part of all, residents and non-residents alike, who use its highways. ... The state's power to regulate the use of its highways extends to their use by non-residents as well as by residents." Hess v. Pawloski (1927) 274 US 352.
But be my guest--please driving without a license, get arrested and challenge the law. I'll sit back to see if you're successful.
Absolutly, but with a few caveats. One, I believe that, on certain offenses, to a certain degree... =)
...that the police do not have the right to execute 'standing orders': Arrest everyone that does X.
This comes from the fourth amendment 'sworn complaint' idea, so in this arena, it would mostly apply to 'moderate speeding', or 'rolling stops'. On the other hand, police do have the right and duty to arrest people who are blatently endangering others- blowing a stop sign, traffic light, etc.
For more on this see - Lawful Arrest FAQ
Ask yourself- If driving is a privilege, how much may the state restrict it? Could it, to fight smog or congestion, reduce your ability to drive? Could it put tolls on the interstates? Could it make driving available to persons over 21 only? Could it not allow children as passengers on motorcycles (they are working on that in PA)? Can they require you to have a SS#? Take your fingerprints? Scan your face? How about a monitor on your car, a little black box from the government? How about denying drug offenders the privilege? Felons?
Who knows huh =)
Who knows huh =)
Hey, if I don't like their rules and regulations, or they get too onerus, I can walk or take the bus, or, as I've done, ride my bike to work (but then, I only live a few blocks from the office). I am not going to drive without a license because I understand the consequences of doing so and the probability that I would win a protacted court battle over having a driver's license are somewhere in the neighborhood of slim to none.
But one should pick their fights wisely, and until someone else wins a case (up to the Supremes) that says I don't need a license to drive, then I won't have one. But this isn't the fight I'd chose to fight. You can, however, and I'll wait until you are arrested for driving without a license. Then you can report your success on your court fight on Free Republic.
And as far as putting tolls on interstates, I guess you haven't driven in and around Chicago. The tolls on interstates are already there.
I'm certain that it's been pointed out already that a license for any activity guarantees or certifies NOTHING. It does prove that you paid money to someone for their approval to do something and that is it. In so doing you have made yourself subject to the person(s) and/or laws regulations and policies that they have devised to deprive you of your activity unless you function according to their diktats. You have essentially worked for and purchased your own servitude. Then you deceive yourself into believing that you are now free. Free to conduct whatever activity it is that are now licencsed for.
At some point, people will have to wake up and smell the coffee. Driving, travel and road use laws, regulations and policies are a just a small fraction of the many ways in which the state deprives us of our liberty. They also make an excellent target for resisting the coercion of the state. Monkey-wrench where you can afford to and submit where you can't. You have to start somewhere.
In order to do so, I'd have to read the entire cases. If you could, please provide me with links.
If not, I'll look them up tomorrow when I have more time. Right now, I'm making ribs, fries and slaw.
The police have the right to arrest anyone who breaks the law. If your post was intended to show that regulation of our right to travel is tyrannical, you are usurping the authority of the Supreme Court by deciding for everyone else which laws are constitutional and which laws are unconstitutional. You have the right to your opinions, of course. You also mentioned that you wouldn't put up a fuss if you were caught driving without a license; you are prepared to suffer the consequences of your actions--which, I have to say, is a point in your favor. This is how you've decided to live your life. I happen to live in NC--if you can't hang on to a driver's license, then please continue to ride your bike, or walk, or take public transportation; just keep from behind the wheel of a motor vehicle, please!
When people put into practice their own personal interpretations of the Constitution-- picking and choosing which laws they want to obey and flouting the laws that in their own minds are "unconstitutional"--that is the beginning of anarchy. If you recognize the authority of the U.S. Constitution, then you must recognize the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court and the court system. They have the power and the authority to interpret laws--not you......even when you don't agree with their decisions.
Nope, but I don't have to traverse any freeways to get to work or the supermarket. As I pointed out earlier, I've seen what deer look like when they've been hit by a car or truck going 70 or so mph and walking on an interstate is not something I'd do. I don't want my guts smeared for a few hundred feet along a roadway.
When I said I'd walk, I was relating it to where I live in relationship to where I work and shop. I don't need to drive to go anywhere. I choose to--and I choose to have a driver's license when I do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.