Serfs: About Your Privilige, Driving

My record is good, just no paperwork. In fact, my insurance carrier is still covering me, because they have no reason not to, because I'm a good driver with no claims.

No insurance carrier would cover you because you don't have a license. If and when you came up for renewal, they'd cancel you in a heartbeat. The first thing the insurance agent across the hall from me does when someone wants a car insurance policy is to ask for a copy of the person's driver's license and then runs a motor vehicle records check on that person (about 75% of the people lie about their driving record, BTW). No license, no coverage--it's as simple as that. If, for example, your spouse had a driver's license and was insured, and you were driving and you had the accident, there'd be no insurance coverage of the accident. They'd deny the claim. And if you're in an accident, even if it's not your fault, and you have no license, besides the tickets you'll get from the cops, the other person's insurance company will say you're at fault because you're not a licensed driver and the person they cover is.

Check with your insurance agent, if you have one, about this. But the insurance agent I know spends enough time in my office (and me in his--he makes better coffee than I do), ranting and raving about these situations.

>We'll learn that MI soon 'nuf!;-)<

I don't know what you mean. I guess you're gonna hafta drawmiuh pitcher. :0)

Marine Inspector:The problem now is special interest groups, and their money. I think every law should be put up for a vote, and let the people decide if they want that law, be it State or Federal. That will put an end to special interest groups.

I don't think he was kidding.

Then I won't tell you about my planned trip next spring - wife only (unlike traveling with the kiddoes this past April to St. Martin for a week) - to Ile des Saints.

I'm so glad you didn't tell me about it. If you did, I'd have to say, "That's just plain mean."

I'm licensed. I'm insured. I was painting a scenario for you. You are right. EVENTUALLY, the insurance/license thing would catch up with you. But in reality, insurance renewals and license renewals are not concurrent and one COULD drive with insurance but without a license.

My main question was regarding the safety of the driver WHO IS A GOOD DRIVER, but currently without the paperwork. With all the BAD LICENSED DRIVERS on the road, what good does licensing do for safety?

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!

I would have no problem in reinstituting my license. I have not 'lost' it. I am stating that I believe the courts and the states have turned a right into a privilege, for you to construe that as 'usurping the authority of the Supreme Court by deciding for everyone else which laws are constitutional and which laws are unconstitutional' is beyond defensible and defies common sense.

"the police do not have the right to execute 'standing orders'"

If you read the link, you would see that such a claim is supported by the fourth amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The relative section of link:

So, according the the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the elements are as follows:
             1: Oath or Affirmation made
             2: Probable Cause determined
             3: Specific Warrant issued
             4: The actual arrest/search/seizure/detainment
(NOTE: the ordering is important! 1 and 2 should happen before 3, and 3 before 4.)
This means, in common language:
             1: A civilian makes a complaint
             2: Evidence is found linking the accused with
                the victim's injury, and that the injury was probably
                caused by "criminal intent"; that is, it was not
                an accident.
             3: A document issued describing what is to be searched,
                or who/what is to be seized/arrested, and why.
             4: The actual arrest/search/seizure/detainment
Yet today, here is what usually happens:
             1: There is no complaint from a civilian.
             2: There is no injury, thus there can be no Probable Cause.
             3: There is no Warrant issued.
             4: The Police Officer executes a standing order to
                detain/search/arrest someone for a victimless
                "pretended offence".
This is explained further below. 2.2 What is "Probable Cause"?
"The officer had *probable cause* to believe that the person had violated a law."
(A strange phrase commonly heard on television, seen in newspapers, and in law dictionaries and college textbooks)
Probable cause is NOT a simple synonym for "reason", yet this is how it is used most often.
Law dictionaries often define Probable Cause as "A reasonable belief that a crime has been committed." While this is close, it is not adequate, as we will soon see...
If this *were* the definition, then the most common usage wouldn't make sense! Make the replacement in the above phrase:

"The officer had *a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed* to believe that the person had violated a law."
Huh? Something is wrong here.
If "probable cause" is simple "reason to believe a crime has occured", then it offers the people little protection against harrasment, given the number of obscure "laws" on the books that the people are subject to. Such a definition would give the police wide powers to detain just about anybody for any reason at any time.
The Founding Fathers wrote *probable cause* and not "reason to believe that a violation of the law occured",
because they meant something different.
There is a frequent misunderstanding as to the definition of "crime". Many people think that a crime is a "violation
of the law", but this is a circular definition! Which came first, law or crime?
We must all *begin* with an agreement of what is a crime BEFORE we codify the Law, or else we end up with people going
to jail for absurd things like "posessing forbidden flowers", "not having proper paperwork", "having a bad opinion about
the court" or "talking about doing something really nasty". (Wait! That's what we have today! OK. Sorry...)
So, let's come up with a USEFUL definition of crime:
The body of the crime (Corpus Delicti) must have 2 components [Gifis]:
         1: An injury
         2: A criminal cause
A crime is an injury caused by criminal agency (not an accident or act-of-god). You can injure someone accidently: not a crime. Someone can get hurt from a falling meteorite: not a crime. Someone causes an injury intentionally: *this* is true crime.
Now replace this in the dictionary definition, and we have the following:
PROBABLE CAUSE *IS*:
"REASON TO BELIEVE THAT AN *INJURY HAD CRIMINAL CAUSE*"
So if a civilian complaintant, or a body of the people such as the Grand Jury, can reasonably assert:
"The accused PROBABLY CAUSED the injury to the victim",
then we have met the Constitutional requirement, and the origin of the phrase becomes clear.
Finally! Now that we know what *probable cause* really is, now we can define what is required to show or determine probable cause:
PROBABLE CAUSE *REQUIRES*:
"CERTAIN FACTS LINKING THE ACCUSED WITH THE VICTIM'S INJURY".
There is really more to it than this; for example, certain human-caused injury may be simple accident, thus it should be shown that the injury was intentional.
But here is the *really* important thing to remember:
If there is NO VICTIM, or the victim has suffered NO INJURY, there can be no Probable Cause. Most police detainments in the United States these days begin as traffic "offences" (where there is no offended party): speeding, saftey checks, no seat belt, expired tags, etc. In the abscence of any injury, these all lack Probable Cause, and are thus, unConstitutional.
Think: "He PROBABLY CAUSED the Injury to the Victim".

So, in short, no victim-no crime, no oath-or-affirmation by a victim (under penalty of purgery no less) no warrant for arrest, no REASON for arrest, NO CRIME.

What are "standing orders"?
Military Troops, Police Forces, etc. follow the orders of their commanders, and these orders come in 2 varieties: Direct Orders ("You go do this now!") and Standing Orders.
A Standing Order is a "general order" to be obeyed if some condition comes into existance in the future. Note that a standing order is made at some time prior to the event, and is non-specific as to the name of the accused.
"ARREST ANYONE YOU SEE JAYWALKING!"
...is a standing order; it is general and non-specific (it does not name the accused) and is made before the event, and in anticipation of the event. It is issued by a Police commander to his troops.
"ARREST MR. JOE R. BLOE, 123 MAIN STREET. HE IS ACCUSED OF ROBBING HIS NEIGHBOR, JANE DECENT, WHO HAS SIGNED A COMPLAINT AGAINST HIM."
...is the opposite of a standing order: it is a specific Warrant. It names the accused and the crime, and it is reactive; it comes AFTER the event. It is initiated by the complaint of a civilian.
Police officers today generally have (or *think* they have!) standing orders to detain, search, and/or arrest those *they feel* violated a law. The Founding Fathers were very much opposed to this kind of discretionary power being placed in the hands of ANY one person (and is evident by the general design of the Federal Government: the distribution of power across 3 branches, the system of "checks and balances", etc).
The Founders intended for there to be a civilian defense force, and for it to be reactive to the needs of the people, for they knew that an autonomous (self-directed) police force or standing army is ultimately unaccountable to the People, and uncontrollable by the People, and thus a thing to be feared. They knew, because they were occupied by a tyrranical force, the English Army. Today, the conditions are similar, however, while it isn't a foreign army that occupies us, the abuses against the people are the same.
There are 2 elements of the Fourth Amendment that were intended to prevent Standing Orders from being executed against the people:
The first is the "oath or affirmation": a sworn civilian complaint, and the second is that warrants must be specific. Both are intended to remove the discretion of arrest/search/seziure from the arresting officer, and provides the needed "checks and balances".
If the complaint MUST ALWAYS come from a civilian (i.e., not the government; not the arresting authority) this eliminates the invocation of "general" or standing orders (and a big conflict of interest!), and ensures that the Police Force is *reactive*, and not autonomous. If ALL arrests/searches/seizures are documented with the specific justifications of the action (the warrant), this also removes the arbitrary discretion from the officer.
The Fourth Amendment requires both specific Warrants and that the complaint be initated by a civilian, and thus prohibits the police from executing "Standing Orders" against the people. However in modern America, when the police arrest someone, there is rarely a specific warrant, and rarely is there the "oath or affirmation" of a complaining civilian. The lawyers, political pundits, corporate-owned "free press", and even college textbooks will argue why this is "necessarily so", but the simple
fact remains:
o Most Police actions in America lack a injured victim
(except for perhaps the accused!), thus,
o Most Police actions in America lack Probable Cause, thus
o Most Police actions in America lack a valid Warrant, thus
o Most Police actions in America are Unconstitutional.

You always have the right to travel, but where does the constitution state that the government has the responsibility to see to it that you have the most advanced means to do it with?

Am confused as to your meaning, but instinctivly I remind you that the constitution is a CONSTRICTIVE document, it authorizes government in a very definitive manner -- NOT, as your wording seems to imply: "The constitution defines governments responsibilities to GIVE ME anything"

Thats totally backwards.

What nobody has questioned here is that being liscensed automatically makes you more skilled.

Even that is irrelevent, as I tried to show in my 'licensing parents' links.

Surely, the state and the public has legitimate interest in insuring safe roads, that is why we have law to begin with -- BUT, the state/public does not have the right to use ANY MEANS to do so.

Especially an ineffective one that is a con that REQUIRES you to waive specific rights you normally have under law (burden of proof, reasonable doubt, search and siezure)

No insurance carrier would cover you because you don't have a license.

Is it truly moral to force a person to pay for the mistakes of others?

Or is it morally just because of the 'big picture'? (This argument sound familiar? It should.)

Actually, it is relevant because the argument for mandatory liscencing is the old make it safer for everybody, securitty for freedom argument. It is one thing to set a stanadard for a profession ( yes this argument applies to all liscences )but another to say that no one can perform a task because they have not paid their kick back to a bureaucrat.

Mandatory liscensing is like a closed union shop, it is not only an intrusion on your contract and property rights but also allows the government a collar on the economy.

Also, if liscensing was truly about ability and not identification papers and economic control, then there would be no need for information such as date of birth/addr/ss# etc.