Replies

Read ORD 4511.81(D) again.

Subsection D has nothing to do with any danger to others in other vehicles.

I submit (as I did earlier) that your wife's actions endangered other motorists and passengers in other vehicles driving on the Turnpike.

You don't care whether or not your child is injured in an accident potentially caused by this? Fine.

But I'll be damned if you end up hurting any of my friends or loved ones by your wife's negligence.

You want to take the libertarian tact? No problem. But that means you have to be prepared to bear the brunt of the full weight of the law when it comes down after such an event (God forbid it happens - I would not wish such a thing on anyone, but the chances of an accident rise dramatically when you remove your full attention from the road for whatever purpose, be it yammering on a cellphone or feeding a baby).

And again, to demand that officers carry complete case and statute law and be able to review it on demand is not only unreasonable, but both unsafe and not practical.

Add to that your wife's failure to carry a driver's license; your citation of religious grounds is not a logical reason. The laws of all states clearly state that you be granted a license to drive; said license indicates that you have passed appropriate state tests of both your vision and driving knowledge (in some states the latter can be waived, provided you are already in good standing). This license grants you the privledge to drive a motor vehicle. If you choose not to fulfill the requirements of obtaining said license, then you've got no business on the road, period.

This religious affadavit that you mention is no substitute for a license granted you by the state in which you live. If you refuse to obtain any of the appropriate required documents necessary for being awarded a license, then you don't get one, period.

That being the case, you don't get to drive. Sorry.

M: Subsection D has nothing to do with any danger to others in other vehicles.

I am sorry that you misinterpret what you read. It says that a child not in restraint cannot be used in ANY other criminal or civil action as a cause for negligence.

M: I submit (as I did earlier) that your wife's actions endangered other motorists and passengers in other vehicles driving on the Turnpike.

And you are entitled to your opinion, but you are legally incorrect.

M: You don't care whether or not your child is injured in an accident potentially caused by this? Fine.

You presume something that you should not. I do care. I simply choose to live my life without being afraid of what might be. Your own parents (depending upon your age) must have been similarly uncaring or negligent due to there being no restraints of any kind.

M: But I'll be damned if you end up hurting any of my friends or loved ones by your wife's negligence.

Again, it cannot be held to be negligence, nor can it be used as evidence of same. The Ohio legislature has decided that it is not. Your feelings on the matter do not change this. I promise to conduct myself upon the public way with due care and consideration of your safety. I have been in only one accident in my 30 years of travelling and have yet to be found culpable for damages.

M: You want to take the libertarian tact? No problem. But that means you have to be prepared to bear the brunt of the full weight of the law when it comes down after such an event (God forbid it happens - I would not wish such a thing on anyone, but the chances of an accident rise dramatically when you remove your full attention from the road for whatever purpose, be it yammering on a cellphone or feeding a baby).

I am always prepared to accept the consequences of my actions. That is the meaning of self-government. If I harm you, then I am obligated to make you whole. If I cannot, then I will indenture myself to you.

Nursing a child takes no more attention than checking a rear view mirror.

M: And again, to demand that officers carry complete case and statute law and be able to review it on demand is not only unreasonable, but both unsafe and not practical.

Why is it unreasonable for me to require them to know the laws they are attempting to apply? If I am required to know the law, then why aren't they. Check Dueteronomy, chapter 19, starting at verse 15. If there are too many laws for them to remember (then there are too many laws), then bring the book. I carry the MV code of Michigan and Pennsylvania in my car just for this purpose. I ask them to read it and then ask them if I have violated it. Then I ask them if they will take the responsibility for their actions if they are found to be acting under "color of law."

M: Add to that your wife's failure to carry a driver's license; your citation of religious grounds is not a logical reason. The laws of all states clearly state that you be granted a license to drive; said license indicates that you have passed appropriate state tests of both your vision and driving knowledge (in some states the latter can be waived, provided you are already in good standing). This license grants you the privledge to drive a motor vehicle. If you choose not to fulfill the requirements of obtaining said license, then you've got no business on the road, period.

Liberty is not a privilege, it is a right. Travel is intimate to liberty. You want the breakdown on this? Fine.

US v Guest, Edwards v California - interstate travel is a right.

Wabash v Illinois - states cannot tax interstate commerce, and private travel substantively affects interstate commerce.

US v Lopez - any private activity that substantive affects interstate commerce is under exclusive control of Congress.

Article I, Section 10, Clause 3: No state shall enter into any interstate compact or agreements without consent of Congress.

The states participate in interstate compacts for motor vehicle registration and driver's licensing.

The consent of Congress in this matter is found at 49 USC chapter 313 and no other place. This consent governs "commercial" vehicles only.

In Michigan, the authority to enter into these interstate agreements says:

MCL 3.163 Authority to make reciprocal agreements and compacts.
§ 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the board may enter into and make such reciprocal compacts, agreements or arrangements as the board deems proper or expedient and in the interests of the people of this state, with the proper authorities of other jurisdictions, either individually or with a group of jurisdictions, concerning the fees, charges, taxation, operation and regulation of trucks, tractors, trailers, automobiles, buses, and all other automotive equipment _engaged in international, interstate or intrastate commerce upon and over the public highways_. History: 1960, Act 124, Imd. Eff. Apr. 26, 1960

What does the corresponding statute in your state say?

M: This religious affadavit that you mention is no substitute for a license granted you by the state in which you live. If you refuse to obtain any of the appropriate required documents necessary for being awarded a license, then you don't get one, period.

Congress has no power to compel me to participate in godless socialism. It is repugnant to my faith. There is no federal statute that requires me to apply for an SSAN. If the states are going to require an SSAN of "resident" aliens before they are licensed, fine. I am not a "resident" alien. Look back in this thread and find the reference to the Fong decision. Then take the time to read it. See then that it is "resident" aliens that are being regulated and not people born into a land of presumed liberty.

I do not need the state's permission (or yours) to go to work, to go to the grocery, or to go see my Mom. Driving is a privilege for commercial entities that are common carriers for hire of goods or passengers.

My plate says "Not for Hire, Private Property, No Trespassing"

M: That being the case, you don't get to drive. Sorry.

If you want to pick nits, then I technically am conveying my personal property upon the public easements that we grant to each other for access and egress.