Posted on 10/11/2010 12:46:11 PM PDT by djf
“...I’m sorry I don’t have the
IF IT AIN’T IN THE CONSTITUTION IT AIN’T LAW
philosophy that you do...”
-
I understand that someone might not have that philosophy
but I don’t understand why they would be “sorry” about it.
(unless deep down inside, they realized their position was wrong)
Sounds like someone who has a problems with excessive DUIs is behind this.
Unlike cars, which cost nothing to operate in Georgia. (Look up Georgia Credit Card in a slang dictionary).
“...I live in GA, working near Atlanta...”
-
Where you at?
I live in Gwinnett and work “downtown.
Please when you say government remember that it is the people.
So being billed or licensed to travel on our roads is illegal.
KE = 1/2 MV2
Velocity is everything. Horse drawn wagons can't compare.
There are two counterpoints to this contention. The first would be that roads outside of cities were not government owned, maintained and operated, they were common paths with no apparent ownership or control. Within cities they were regulated, maybe not drivers licenses, but other restrictions on types of vehicles, hours of use, curfews etc. Are speed limits a an acceptable function of government?
The second would be that the Articles of Confederation were an abject failure resulting in their disolution in favor of the Constitution which most definately contains the commerce clause among others which do grant the Federal government the authority to regulate and to hold property in common trust.
Huh?
What?
The entire purpose of enumerated powers is to weaken the claim on powers not enumerated. Nowhere is it written that the delegation of a trust inherently comes with the power to regulate.
-----
My point was not to argue the symantecs of government ownership, rather to illustrate that regulation of the use of roads does not restrict a person from driving.
Sure it does. If the prohibitive cost of such things as licensing, registration tags and inspection tags make it impossible for someone from being able to afford or operate a car, how does it NOT restrict a person from driving?
Do you know that by registering your car you create a fiduciary duty with the state? You voluntarily give them part ownership of your car.
That's where they get the power to 'regulate'....because it's their property.
-----
Is that an unreasonable function of government?
Yes, as government was instituted to protect our rights, not to protect us from ourselves or each other.
At the Federal level, the constitution enumerate the following powers
To build roads
To raise revenue
To Regulate Commerce
To control Federal land
That pretty much means that raising revenue to build them, building the roads, regulating activity on the roads and controlling the land they are built on are enumerated powers.
The Texas constitution grants pretty much the same powers to the legislature of the state as enumerated powers. So I don't see a constitutional issue at either level.
Sure it does. If the prohibitive cost of such things as licensing, registration tags and inspection tags make it impossible for someone from being able to afford or operate a car, how does it NOT restrict a person from driving?
It only restricts the person from driving on the roads. That person is free to drive on their property all they want. Within the state of Texas, licensing, registration and inspection amount to less than $150 per year. If that cost is prohibitive then the person likely did not contribute in a meaningful manner toward the construction and upkeep of the roads. Why should they get to use them? The tax paid on gasoline would likely come to a higher total per year. Should they have that excused because the cost is prohibitive. Should we pass around the equivalent of driving food stamps? Is the state unlawfully restricting the right of people to drive by levying tax on gasoline?
Yes, as government was instituted to protect our rights, not to protect us from ourselves or each other.
Both the Constitution and British Common Law, the basis for the US legal system declare people have the right to be safe and secure in their homes. The Supreme Court has already established that personal property such as automobiles are covered by that provision. So the government does have a responsibility to protect us from each other. If that isn't true, then you have no more legal recourse when someone breaks into your home and steals your property than if a person traveling at an excessive rate of speed loses control and runs over your child. Sure it does. If the prohibitive cost of such things as licensing, registration tags and inspection tags make it impossible for someone from being able to afford or operate a car, how does it NOT restrict a person from driving?
Your argument seems to ne that the government, in addition to having the power to punish offenders and settle questions in equity, has the power and the duty to protect us from things that MIGHT hurt us.
That is called “prior restraint”. Pass laws against lightning!
I believe most Constitutional scholars would deny that the government has that power.
There are 15 federal powers, but all of them can only be exercised within federal jurisdiction.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings
14.To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district not exceeding ten miles square, as may by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of congress, become the seat of government of the United States; and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by consent of the legislature in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings. The exclusive power of legislating in all cases whatsoever, except within the precincts of the seat of government, not exceeding ten miles square; and except within the precincts of such forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other such needful buildings, as may be erected by congress with the consent of the state, in which the same shall be, being reserved to the states, respectively.Such are the enumerated powers, of congress; to give efficacy to them, as also to the powers expressly granted to the other departments of the federal government, there is an express declaration, of what was perhaps before implied, viz.
George Tucker, View of the Constitution 1803
Even as late as 1830, it was acknowledged that the federal government was a limited one, and had no legitimate authority outside it's jurisdiction. [Please note that the roads in the States were NOT subject to federal authority]
It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments. When duties are laid, not for purposes of revenue, but of retaliation and restriction, to countervail foreign restrictions, they are strictly within the scope of the power, as a regulation of commerce. But when laid to encourage manufactures, they have nothing to do with it.
The power to regulate manufactures is no more confided to congress, than the power to interfere with the systems of education, the poor laws, or the road laws of the states. It is notorious, that, in the convention, an attempt was made to introduce into the constitution a power to encourage manufactures; but it was withheld. Instead of granting the power to congress, permission was given to the states to impose duties, with the consent of that body, to encourage their own manufactures; and thus, in the true spirit of justice, imposing the burthen on those, who were to be benefited.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution
------
Both the Constitution and British Common Law, the basis for the US legal system declare people have the right to be safe and secure in their homes
Yes...from GOVERMENT intrusion.
That's why the courts always find that the police are NOT liable for failing to protect someone. We're supposed to protect ourselves.
-----
If that isn't true, then you have no more legal recourse when someone breaks into your home and steals your property
If someone breaks into your home, you shoot them. I've never heard of a victim suing a burglar, only having them arrested.
if a person traveling at an excessive rate of speed loses control and runs over your child
How, exactly does licensing and registration prevent this from happening?
To punish an offender, their must first be a definition of the offense. This is what is called a law. They are made by the legislature and approved by the executive. Among other things they define acts that are proscribed.
Prior restraint is when an a party is prevented from a legal action because it may lead to an illegal action.
Laws protecting private property rights are not prior restraint, they actually define what the illegal act is and the penalty for violating it.
Speed limit laws are not prior restraint. They define what the illegal act is and the penalty for violating it.
Licensing laws as applied to right of ways controlled by the government are not prior restraint. They establish what the illegal act is and what the penalty for violating it is.
If the government were to deny you the right to drive on your private property on the basis that you might leave your property and drive on a government right of way or another person’s private property, that would be prior restraint.
If the legislature were to ever have the power to legislate over God, they could then pass a law defining the generation of lightning as an illegal act and the penalty for violating it. I don’t think that is going to happen.
Then why do you consent to a license to drive your own vehicle on public roads? having argued licensing is ok because you don’t need a license to drive on your own land.
There is an obvious difference between driving your own vehicle vs. paying someone else to drive theirs.
Pardon if I didn’t clarify the obvious.
My life runs up and down 400.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States (Raise Revenue)
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; (regulate commercial traffic)
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads; (Build roads)
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. (control activity on the roads)
These define the powers of the legislature over Federal roads and traffic over the roads between the states.
The point being that the Texas Constitution grants basically the same powers to the legislature of Texas. In some cases the wording is different, but the effect the same. Since neither constitution conflicst with the other, there appears to be no constitutional issue at all
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.
Exactly where does it say "from the government"? When I studied english, the use of a comma followed by and indicated that prior to the "comma" was one item in a list and after the "and" was a new item in the list. Where is the "from the government" limitation on the first item in the list?
A government governs by the consent of the govern. Within Texas, the Texas constitution is the controlling authority I consent to. The constitution grants control of the roads to the Texas legislature.
Public - maintained at the public expense and under public control: a public library; a public road. (Dictionary.com)
In the above definition who is the public in control if not the state government which the people have consented to be governed by?
The essence of law is not that you punish someone because of what MIGHT happen, you punish them because of what DID happen.
The numbers of circumstances where a person might be injured, or property damaged, is almost infinitely long.
Some of the guys back then knew how to write. And they MEANT what they said. The role of government was to protect the PURSUIT of happiness. Not the GUARANTEE of happiness. Government has ZERO authority to try to decide what will make us happen and then implement rules to bring that about.
When it tries to do that, it is no longer protecting our liberties. It is REGULATING us.
In almost all jurisdictions (common law states) a crime has two factors: an illegal act occurred and THERE WAS ACTUAL DAMAGE OR INJURY (injury in fact, not possible injury).
Yes, the federal government can tax incoming and outgoing goods at the point of entry.
-----
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; (regulate commercial traffic)
Yes, the federal government had the ability to direct incoming traffic from foreign nations and Indian tribes to the ports of entry in the States.
Mr. MADISON was surprised that any gentleman should return to the clauses which had already been discussed. He begged the gentleman to read the clauses which gave the power of exclusive legislation, and he might see that nothing could be done without the consent of the states. With respect to the supposed operation of what was denominated the sweeping clause, the gentleman, he said, was mistaken; for it only extended to the enumerated powers. Should Congress attempt to extend it to any power not enumerated, it would not be warranted by the clause. As to the restriction in the clause under consideration, it was a restraint on the exercise of a power expressly delegated to Congress; namely, that of regulating commerce with foreign nations
U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 – 1875 / Elliot's Debates, Volume 3, page 455
-----
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads; (Build roads)
Yes, withing areas of federal jurisdiction.
I've previously posted a pertinent quote from Joseph Story, a man who served on the Supreme Court for 34 years.
He quite plainly stated roads inside the States were the purview OF the States.
If you disagree, please post a source for your assertion. Repeating yourself as if I were incapable of such basic understanding does not your point make.
-----
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. (control activity on the roads)
LOL! The good ole 'necessary and proper' clause.
From the first legal treatise written after Ratification and used recently in the RKBA case District of Columbia vs. Heller;
This clause, I apprehend, cannot be construed to enlarge any power before specifically granted; nor to grant any new power, not before specifically enumerated; or granted in some other part of the constitution. On the contrary it seems calculated to restrain the federal government from the exercise of any power, not necessarily an appendage to, and consequence of some power particularly enumerated. Acts of congress to be binding, must be made pursuant to the constitution; otherwise they are not laws, but a mere nullity; or what is worse, acts of usurpation.14 The people are not only not bound by them, but the several departments and officers of the governments, both federal, and state, are bound by oath to oppose them; for, being bound by oath to support the constitution, they must violate that oath, whenever they give their sanction, by obedience, or otherwise, to any unconstitutional act of any department of the government.
George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States
-----
Exactly where does it say "from the government"? When I studied english, the use of a comma followed by and indicated that prior to the "comma" was one item in a list and after the "and" was a new item in the list.
LOL! You may have paid attention in English, but apparently not in history class.
How can anyone NOT know that the Bill of Rights was written to protect the rights of the People from intrusion by government?
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.