Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Serfs: About Your Privilige, Driving

Posted on 09/08/2001 6:54:24 PM PDT by Prism

TO TRAVEL IS A "RIGHT,"

NOT A GOVERNMENT GRANTED "PRIVILEGE "

[Auther UnKnown]





1. The issue is whether this Sovereign is required to obey the provisions in North Carolina General Statutes. It is the contention of this Sovereign that because he is a Free and Natural Person who has given up none of his "RIGHTS." That the North Carolina General Statutes does not apply to him. It is also the contention of this Sovereign that travels upon the streets or highways in North Carolina by this Sovereign is an unalienable "RIGHT." Being this, is not subject to regulation or legislation by the State of North Carolina General Assembly.

2. Let us first consider the contention of this Sovereign that travels upon the streets or highways in North Carolina is a "RIGHT." Various courts have ruled on this issue. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled:

3. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin stated in 1909:

4. The Supreme Court of the State of Illinois ruled:

5. "Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, sign, etc., NOT a privilege that requires permission, i.e.; licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc..

6. PRIVILEGE OR RIGHT?

7. It could not be stated more conclusively that Sovereigns of the states have a "RIGHT" to travel, without approval or restriction, (license), and that this "RIGHT" is protected under the U.S. Constitution. After all, who do the roadways belong to anyway? The People-At-Large. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:

8. The Washington State Supreme Court stated:

9. The Supreme Court of the State of Indiana ruled in 1873:

10. 11 American Jurisprudence 1st, has this to say:

11. The Supreme Court of the State of Georgia ruled:

12. The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado discussed the issue in the following way in 1961.

13. The Constitution of the State of Idaho contains the words:

14. The words of the Idaho Constitution are to all intents and purposes identical with those of the North Carolina Constitution. The Constitution of the State of North Carolina, Article I, §1, states as follows:

15. Since courts tend to be consistent in their rulings, it would be expected the Idaho Supreme Court would rule in the same manner as the North Carolina Supreme Court.

16. Other authorities have arrived at similar conclusions:

17. The Constitution of the State of North Carolina, Article I, §36:

18. I demand all of my other rights, including the right to travel upon the public highways and byways in the United States of America.

19. The Constitution of the State of North Carolina, Article I, §2:

20. As member of the Sovereignty of the people, I not only am entitled to use the highways and byways in the United States of America, I have an inalienable right to use the highways and byways.

21. I have emphasized the word "RIGHT" because it is a common point among the authorities listed. The Idaho Code even joins in this common point:

22. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that:

23. Thus, there can be little doubt that, when this Sovereign travels upon the streets or highways in North Carolina, he does so as a matter of "RIGHT" and not privilege. The authority for such travel is described variously as a "RIGHT," a "COMMON RIGHT," an "ABSOLUTE RIGHT," an "UNALIENABLE RIGHT," and a "RIGHT" protected by the Constitution of the United States. Let us then examine the importance of these terms to this Sovereign by defining their meaning.

24. It shows from these definitions that the State has an obligation to acknowledge the "RIGHTS" of this Sovereign to travel on the streets or highways in North Carolina. Further, the State has the duty to refrain from interfering with this "RIGHT" and to protect this "RIGHT" and to enforce the claim of this Sovereign to it.

25. Now if this Sovereign has the absolute "RIGHT" to move about on the streets or highways, does that "RIGHT" include the "RIGHT" to travel in a vehicle upon the streets or highways? The Supreme Court of the State of Texas has made comments that are an appropriate response to this question.

26. These words of the Supreme Court of Texas are of particular importance in Idaho because the Idaho Supreme Court quoted the Supreme Court of Texas and used these exact words in rendering its decision in the case of O'Conner v. City of Moscow, 69 Idaho 37. The Supreme Court of Texas went on to say further;

27. PROPERTY

28. The United States Supreme Court states:

29. These authorities point out that the "RIGHT" to own property includes the "RIGHT" to use it. The reasonable use of an automobile is to travel upon the streets or highways on which this Sovereign has an absolute "RIGHT" to use for the purposes of travel. The definitions in Title 49 Chapter 3 of the Idaho Code positively declare the "RIGHT" of this Sovereign to travel in a vehicle upon the streets or highways in Idaho.

30. MOTOR VEHICLE OR VEHICLE?

31. Now if this Sovereign has the "RIGHT" to use a vehicle on the streets or highways in North Carolina, to what extent can the State of North Carolina regulate or diminish that "RIGHT?" There are some who maintain that specific performance is required of every Sovereign who uses a vehicle upon the streets or highways in North Carolina. Let us examine this contention in detail.

Contract?

32. Specific performance is a term used to designate an action in equity in which a party to a contract asks the court to order the other party to carry out the contract which he has failed or refused to perform. Thus, if specific performance is expected, a contract must exist. The question then becomes: What are the terms of the contract and when was it executed and by whom? Since specific performance seems expected of every user of a vehicle on the streets or highways in North Carolina, the user of a vehicle seems one of the parties to the supposed contract. And since the State seems the party demanding specific performance, the State is the other party to the contract. So the supposed contract exists between the user of a vehicle and the State of North Carolina. When was this contract executed and what are its' terms? Some contend that when a user of a vehicle avails himself of the "privilege" of driving on public thoroughfares that he enters a contract with the State that requires him to abide with all the laws in the North Carolina General Statutes. Others contend that the contract is executed when a driver's license is obtained. We need now to figure out what is a contract.

33. A contract may be defined as an agreement enforceable in court between two or more parties, for a sufficient consideration to do or not to do some specified thing or things. Thus, a contract has four essential features:

34. Several types of contracts exist, but all must contain the essential features listed. Contracts can be classified under three principal categories:

35. Quasi contracts, while being called contracts are not really contracts, will not be considered in this discussion of contracts but will be considered in a separation section later.

Unilateral & Bilateral Contracts

36. There can also be unilateral and bilateral contracts that is presumed can exist under some or all the above headings. Let us examine each above types of contracts to see if the license obtained by this Sovereign falls under any of the categories of contract.

38. An Iowa Statute that requires that every foreign corporation named in it shall, as a condition for obtaining a permit to transact business in Iowa, stipulate that it will not remove into the federal court certain suits that it would by the laws of the United States have a "RIGHT" to a permit dependant upon the surrender by the foreign corporation of a privilege secured to it by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Bouvier's Law Dictionary quoting Barron v. Burnside, 121 U.S. 186:

39. It would be foolish for this Sovereign to exchange a "RIGHT" for a privilege since it would mean giving up valuable property in exchange for something having less value. Is it possible for this Sovereign to do such a thing?

40. Thus, even if this Sovereign wanted to do so, he could not give up his "RIGHT" to travel on the streets or highways in North Carolina or exchange it for the privilege of having a driver's license. Thus, in exchange for the supposed obligation of this Sovereign, the State has given nothing. Thus, there is no consideration.

41. It may be contended that the seal on the driver's license is sufficient consideration by the State. It is true that under the common law, the question of consideration could not be raised concerning a contract under seal. The seal provided conclusive presumption of a consideration. Still, North Carolina has abolished by statute the common law presumption of consideration and this statute is binding upon all officers and employees of the State. So, though a seal may be present, it is not evidence of consideration in North Carolina. Of course, the document in question is a contrived and copied document and lacks validity in any case as a contract.

42. As to an obligation, since the license contains no statement of agreement, since there are no parties to any agreement, and since there is no consideration, there can be no obligation. The driver's license thus is not a contract since it fails to contain any of the four essential features of a contract.

43. Can the driver's license be an implied contract? The same elements must exist in an implied contract as exist in an express contract. The only difference is that an implied contract is not written or spoken and the elements of the contract are shown by the acts and conduct of the parties involved. With respect to this Sovereign, there was certainly no meeting of the minds else this brief would not result. It was never the intention of this Sovereign to give up constitutional "RIGHTS" to accept a privilege from the State. Such an action would be ridiculous. This could only be done in a socialistic state. There has been no implied agreement in a free society. It is possible that there were two parties to the supposed contract, the State and this Sovereign. There was no consideration in the implied contract for the same reasons that there was no consideration in the express contract.

44. An obligation is the thing to be done. It may be to pay money, to do work, or to deliver goods; or it may be to refrain from doing something that the person contracting had a "RIGHT" to do. Some may say that the State was obligated to allow this Sovereign to drive on the streets or highways in North Carolina and that this Sovereign was obligated to obey all the Statutes contained in the North Carolina General Statutes. It would be just as easy to say that the State could not be obligated to allow this Sovereign to travel on the streets or highways in North Carolina because they did not have the "RIGHT" or the power to prevent him from doing so.

45. If the State cannot prevent this Sovereign from his travels on the streets or highways in North Carolina, they do not have any discretion in the matter and do not have the choice of whether to obligate themselves or not. Thus, the obligation of the State cannot be to grant this Sovereign the privilege of travel on the streets or highways in North Carolina. The obligation of the State cannot be to refrain from prohibiting this Sovereign from his travel on the streets or highways in North Carolina since the State did not have the "RIGHT" to do this at first.

46. It is the contention of this Sovereign that the only obligation that this Sovereign incurs when using a vehicle upon the streets or highways in North Carolina is the Common Law obligation to refrain from any act that causes another person to lose life, liberty, or property. In complying with this obligation, this Sovereign does comply with many Statutes in the North Carolina General Statutes since they are, for the most part, only common sense rules by which this Sovereign avoids doing damage to others.

47. Still, this acquiescence to some Statutes of The North Carolina General Statutes should not be construed as evidence of a contractual obligation by this Sovereign. Neither should it be construed as acquiescence to all the Statutes of the North Carolina General Statutes or to any of them always. Instead, it is merely evidence of a want of this Sovereign to travel safely and to do harm to no one.

48. Thus, the actions of this Sovereign do not supply unambiguous evidence of a contract with the State. Instead, the actions can, with equal weight, be said to be evidence of the fact that this Sovereign was complying with Common Law requirement that he does harm to no one. The driver's license is not an implied contract because there is no consideration, there may be possibly be two parties, but there is no consideration, and there is not clear evidence of an obligation. Three of the four elements necessary for a contract are missing.

49. The question now becomes whether the driver's license application is a contract. In completing this document, the applicant makes several statements and signs the paper upon which these statements are written under oath. The statements concern the identity, physical description, address, ability and experience in operating a vehicle, and one statement on the physical condition of the applicant. None of the statements are as an agreement.

50. The application form contains the signature of the applicant and the signature of the person taking the oath of the applicant. The reverse side of the Application contains the results of a vision test and rudimentary physical examination with the results of a driving test. These results are signed by the examiner and not by the applicant.

51. Thus the application takes the form of an Affidavit instead of a contract. But let us see if the elements of a contract are present in the application.

52. Since none of the necessary elements of a contract are present, the application does not constitute a contract.

53. The only other document involved in obtaining a driver's license is the document, part of which is copied to make the actual driver's license. It contains, besides the information that is used in making the driver's license, the results of a vision test conducted by the driver's license examiner.

54. The applicant places his signature upon this form that is then copied by some photographic process. Other material is added including a photograph, signature of the Director of the Department of Law Enforcement and the driver's license is made of this composite.

55. Thus the license itself cannot be a contract because it is a contrived document. The form from which the driver's license is made cannot be a contract because, again, none of the elements of a contract are present. So if none of the documents executed by the driver when obtaining a license is a contract, then no contract can exist between the driver and the State as a result of obtaining a driver's license.

56. But the idea that the driver's license is a contract with the State is pervasive. It is a belief that is strongly held even by people in high places. So let us examine the driver's license as if it were a contract and see if it can withstand scrutiny. Not every offer made by one party and accepted by the other creates a valid contract. The outward form of a contract, either oral or written may exist, and yet the circumstances may be such that no contract was in reality created. Some circumstances that will cause an apparently valid contract to be void are:

57. This Sovereign obtained a driver's license upon the representation by the State that one's travel upon the streets or highways of the United States of America was a privilege. This Sovereign accepted this representation as true and did obtain a driver's license.

58. But the General Assembly of the State who passed the Statutes contained in the North Carolina General Statutes are knowledgeable persons, many of whom are lawyers, and they undoubtedly knew at the time the law was passed that an individual's travel was a "RIGHT" and not a privilege. If this were the case, then the mistake would be unilateral. A unilateral mistake known to the other party is sufficient grounds to void a contract.

59. Fraud

60. If the driver's license is a contract, a case can be made for the contention that it was an agreement obtained by the State by fraud.

61. With respect to contracts, the following statements can be made:

62. In view of the many decisions by high courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, that one's travel is a "RIGHT" and not a privilege, it would be hard to defend the proposition that the General Assembly of the State of North Carolina was unaware of these decisions, particularly since many legislators are and were lawyers knowledgeable in such matters. In fact, when one considers the definition of streets or highways in Sections of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Evidence is conclusive that the legislature knew and knows that ones travels is a "RIGHT."

63. Therefore, the statements in the North Carolina General Statutes that a travel is a privilege and that a driver's license is necessary before one can travel constitutes a material misrepresentation of fact to this possessor of a driver's license. And since the legislature is and was aware of the fact that an individual's travels was not a privilege, but a "RIGHT," the statement that one's travels is a privilege, when applied to this Sovereign, constitutes a willful intention to deceive, and therefore, to defraud.

64. This Sovereign did rely upon the representations of the legislature that an individual's travels was a privilege when he obtained his driver's license, else he would not have obtained one.

65. This Sovereign did suffer damage as a result of his acting upon the representation of the legislature at least to the extent of the license fee.

66. In as much as all the necessary elements of fraud are present if the driver's license is considered a contract, the "contract" is void.

DURESS

67. With respect to duress, Bergh, supra., supplies the following definition:

68. Since it was essential to this Sovereign in pursuing his occupation of common "RIGHT" to use a vehicle upon the streets or highways in North Carolina, and since the State of North Carolina threatens to and does prosecute persons in criminal actions for not possessing a driver's license, regardless of their status, this Sovereign did obtain a driver's license under duress. If then the driver's license is a contract, the contract is unenforceable and invalid because of this duress.

69. With respect to alterations, Bergh, supra., has the following comments:

70. If the driver's license is a contract, it is a written contract, at least to the extent that the Statutes of the North Carolina General Statutes are written. Each time that the General Assembly amends or modifies or adds to any of the Statutes of the North Carolina General Statutes, the terms of the contract are changed. Since this Sovereign then has the option of considering the contract as discharged, he then chooses to do so as of the first change in the North Carolina General Statutes following his application for a driver's license.

71. If it is contended that the driver's license is an implied contract, the "Statute of Frauds" comes into play. North Carolina has enacted a "Statute of Frauds."

72. In the following cases the agreement is invalid, unless the same or some note or memorandum of it, be in writing and subscribed by the party charged, or by his agent. Evidence, therefore, of the agreement cannot be received without the writing or secondary evidence of its contents:

73. Since the term of the driver's license contract is so many years and the contract is not written, the "Statute of Frauds" does apply and the contract is unenforceable.

74. The discussion up to this point has been concerned with bilateral contracts in which each party promises something to the other party. Is it possible that the driver's license is a unilateral contract? A unilateral contract is described as:

75. Since the act expected by the State is obedience to the Statutes of the North Carolina General Statutes, what promise has the State offered in exchange for this act? The only promise that the State could make this Sovereign is the promise to allow him to travel on the streets or highways in North Carolina. Since this Sovereign already can do that as a matter of "RIGHT," the State can promise him nothing. Thus there is no consideration and a unilateral contract cannot exist.

76. Having shown that no contract exists between this Sovereign and the State, let us examine the proposition that a quasi-contract exists between this Sovereign and the State.

77. Quasi-Contract

78. In order to establish the existence of a quasi-contractual obligation it must be shown:

79. Thus, if it is contended that this Sovereign must obey the Statutes in the North Carolina General Statutes because of a quasi-contract, it must be shown that this Sovereign has received a benefit from the State. But one's travels on the streets or highways of the State is not a benefit received from the State. It was a "RIGHT" that attached to this Sovereign at the moment of his birth and cannot be removed by the State. In this respect, no benefit has been received from the State, and thus a quasi-contractual obligation cannot exist with respect to this Sovereign.

80. It may be claimed that the Statutes of the North Carolina General Statutes are made pursuant to the police powers of the State and that every person in the State is obligated to obey them.

81. The police power is a grant of authority from the people to their governmental agents for the protection of the health, the safety, the comfort and the welfare of the public. In its nature, it is broad and comprehensive. It is a necessary and salutary power, since without it, society would be at the mercy of individual interest and there would exist neither public order or security. While this is true, it is only a power. It is not a "RIGHT?"

82. The powers of government, under our system, are nowhere absolute. They are but grants of authority from the people, and are limited to their true purposes. The fundamental "RIGHTS" of the people are inherent and have not yielded to governmental control. They are not the subjects of governmental authority. They are subjects of individual authority. Constitutional powers can never transcend constitutional "RIGHTS." The police power is subject to the limitations imposed by the Constitution upon every power of government; and it will not be suffered to invade or impair the fundamental liberties of the Sovereign, those natural "RIGHTS" that are the chief concern of the Constitution and for whose protection it was ordained by the people.

83. Where inherent, unalienable, absolute "RIGHTS" are concerned, the police powers can have no effect. The "RIGHT" to travel on the streets or highways and the "RIGHT" to own and use property have been described as inherent, unalienable, and absolute. Thus the police power cannot regulate this Sovereign's "RIGHT" to use a vehicle on the streets or highways in North Carolina.

84. If the police power of the State is permitted to regulate the travels of this Sovereign on the streets or highways in North Carolina, and if, through the action of these regulations or Statutes, this Sovereign is denied access to the streets or highways in North Carolina; a fundamental "RIGHT" of this Sovereign has been abrogated.

85. The abrogation of unalienable "RIGHTS" by legislation or rule making is unconstitutional.

86. If further proof is needed to show that this Sovereign need not be licensed to travel on the streets or highways in North Carolina, it is provided in the following decisions:

87. Since a fee is charged for a driver's license and since one's travels on the streets or highways in North Carolina is a "RIGHT" guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and by the LAW OF NATURE, it is not constitutional for the State to require this Sovereign to be licensed to travel.

88. Even the application for North Carolina Driver's License Form recognizes the "RIGHT" of some persons to travel without a license. North Carolina General Statutes recognizes categories of persons who are not required to be licensed in this State. Why is it then that the first demand made by the law enforcement personnel when making a traffic stop is:

"Let's see your driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance,"

and not always politely, when the first question should be;

"What is your status and are you required to have a driver's license?"

89. Can it be that there is a conspiracy afoot within the State to reduce all Sovereigns to a status of contract? Why else would a law enforcement person take a Sovereign to jail without even trying to discover if that Sovereign is exempt from the requirement of having a driver's license?

90. The question now becomes whether this Sovereign is required to obey any of the Statutes in the North Carolina General Statutes? It has been shown that this Sovereign has a "RIGHT" to travel on the streets or highways in North Carolina. So, any Statute that describes driving on the streets or highways as a privilege cannot apply to this Sovereign. Since the "RIGHT" of this Sovereign to travel cannot be abrogated, any Statute the operation of which would have the effect of denying access to the streets or highways to this Sovereign cannot be applied to this Sovereign.

91. Since violation of any Statue in the North Carolina General Statutes is classified as a "misdemeanor" that is punishable by a fine and six months in jail, and since putting this Sovereign in jail because of his use of the streets or highways that harms nobody would be an abrogation of his "RIGHT" to travel, none of the Statutes of the North Carolina General Statutes apply to this Sovereign. These contentions are supported by the Supreme Court of United States.

92. This decision is consistent with that in Miranda, supra, in which it was stated that where "RIGHTS" are concerned, there can be no rule making or legislation that would abrogate them. It is also consistent with the discussion in the following case. This case is a tax case, but the discussion on "RIGHTS" that it contains is appropriate.

93. Individual and a Corporation

94. The Emphasized statement is also consistent with North Carolina Statute. In the Statute reads:

95. Since the Statutes of the North Carolina General Statutes cannot apply to this Sovereign, he becomes subject to the Common Law that maintains that he owes nothing to the public while he does not trespass upon their "RIGHTS."

96. Is it the contention of this Sovereign that because the Statutes contained in the North Carolina General Statutes do not apply to him that the Statutes are unconstitutional? Absolutely not. There is a class of persons in North Carolina to whom these Statutes apply without reservation. Members of this class include corporations and those who do the corporation business on the streets or highways in North Carolina. A corporation is the creation of the State.

97. It is a person in the eyes of the law but it lacks character, no morals, no conscience. It's every activity must be directed and supervised by the State. Under the definition of "Due Process of Law", Bouvier's Law Dictionary states in part:

98. The Statutes in the North Carolina General Statutes are designed to direct the activities of the class of persons of which a corporation is a member. Corporations are absolutely bound by these Statutes. It is imperative that a conscienceless entity not be allowed to roam the streets or highways in North Carolina and jeopardize the Sovereigns. It is for this purpose that the Statutes of the North Carolina General Statutes were enacted and not for the control of a Free and Natural Sovereign.

Conclusion

99. There is no Court in this Land that could lawfully execute an Order that would or could cause, or work to compel, One to become a servant or slave of any city, county or state without a conviction and with full Due Process of Law, and for any city, county, or state to pretend otherwise is an absurdity.

Losing Cases

Driver's License / Right to Travel


United States ex rel. Verdone v. Circuit Court for Taylor County, 851 F. Supp. 345 (W.D. Wisc. 1993)
Argued that the traffic laws infringed on his right to travel and that enforcement of the traffic laws constituted a conspiracy.

City of Spokane v. Port, 716 P.2d 945 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986)
Argued that a law requiring that drivers have licenses unconstitutionally restricts one's right to travel.

State v. Gibson, 697 P.2d 1216 (Idaho Ct. App. 1985)
Argued that as a "free man" the motor vehicle laws do not apply to him without his consent.

State v. Turk, 643 P.2d 224 (Mont. 1982)
Argued that Montana's compulsory automobile liability insurance statutes are unconstitutional.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-151 next last
To: topic
The article treats mandatory insurance as a burden added to licensing.
But if an insurer will extend ample coverage, why require a licence?
(Aside from keeping the hooks in for social engineering, of course.)
If insurability replaced bureaucratic approval,
we might do better on both safety and freedom.
61 posted on 09/09/2001 12:27:03 AM PDT by meta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Helix
But I believe in N.C. it is even illegal to walk along the interstates

I think most interstates have signs posted that say "No Pedestrians"

62 posted on 09/09/2001 5:25:32 AM PDT by truth_eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Marine Inspector
Marine Inspector, is the job of law enforcement officers to protect citizens or enforce the laws?
63 posted on 09/09/2001 6:18:36 AM PDT by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #64 Removed by Moderator

To: Prism
Fool!
65 posted on 09/09/2001 6:26:01 AM PDT by verity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #66 Removed by Moderator

To: meta
The article treats mandatory insurance as a burden added to licensing.
But if an insurer will extend ample coverage, why require a licence?
(Aside from keeping the hooks in for social engineering, of course.)
If insurability replaced bureaucratic approval,
we might do better on both safety and freedom.

Exactly The Point. To further that, several free market driving schools could compete for customers. Each having their own driving tests. The insurance companies would decide the level of competence of each school. Could even having different level of driving tests. A test for the average driver, a test for little old ladies, a test for highly skilled drivers. Insurance could be based on the grade an insurance customer got on a specific test. People that take no test would pay much higher premiums. That means every person has the freedom of choice.

67 posted on 09/09/2001 6:28:56 AM PDT by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: VW-Cat-Man
Let me guess you even have a license to walk along the road don't you?

You have the right to travel. Walking doesn't need a license. You may want to read what I posted a bit more carefully.

68 posted on 09/09/2001 6:56:06 AM PDT by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: truth_eagle
But I believe in N.C. it is even illegal to walk along the interstates

I think most interstates have signs posted that say "No Pedestrians"

Given what a deer carcass looks like after being hit by someone going 70 or so mph (to say nothing of what the car, driver and passengers look like), it may not be a smart thing to be walking along an interstate.

They do walk along their version of interstates in Mexico, and in Mexico, the speed limit is merely a suggestion. There are a lot of crosses put up along the limited access roads in Mexico.

69 posted on 09/09/2001 7:02:11 AM PDT by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: truth_eagle
"No risk. Just present your sovereign stuff and then go happily on your way :=)"

Have a friend in NY who does basically just that. No DL, no license plate.............AND has letters from State officials saying precisely that he doesn't need either. Believe it or not. Leaves cops shaking their heads, but he's never been ticketed for either.

70 posted on 09/09/2001 7:03:27 AM PDT by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: one_particular_harbour
If someone is a loser without funds, insurance or minimal driving skills, they don't belong on a road with me.

Let me repeat the phrase that bothers underachievers here on FR - losers without funds to afford insurance shouldn't drive....

Our insurance gets jacked up if we want uninsured driver coverage. It irks me that I have to pay more to make sure that most of my car repairs and hospital bills are paid because some idiot decides to drive without insurance or license and smacks into me.

71 posted on 09/09/2001 7:06:23 AM PDT by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: one_particular_harbour
I just did click on your profile....the water really is that color and now you've made me miss the Caribbean that much more.

Sigh.

72 posted on 09/09/2001 7:08:38 AM PDT by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
For actual driver's license cases, with full texts of the decisions, see http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2278/page2.html#travel

Roscoe, for some reason, the link doesn't work.

73 posted on 09/09/2001 7:12:58 AM PDT by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: RightOnline
Have a friend in NY who does basically just that. No DL, no license plate.............AND has letters from State officials saying precisely that he doesn't need either. Believe it or not. Leaves cops shaking their heads, but he's never been ticketed for either.

Not. In New York, one of the most over-regulated states in the union? I'd like to see a copy of the letters from State officials that say he doesn't need a driver's license before I believe it.

74 posted on 09/09/2001 7:14:46 AM PDT by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Prism
This is a strawman argument.

The State that sets requirements for driving is not limiting your right to travel. You can always hitch a ride with a licensed driver or call a taxi. The State is setting rules on an activity where you can easily kill or maim other law abiding citizens such as myself, my wife and my two kids.

If you wish, you may buy a 90 foot sailboat and attempt to sail it around the Horn from New York to Alaska without any sailing training or license whatsoever. You will probably die but, as it is unlikely that you will ram and sink other people's boats and kill them as well, the State is willing to let you commit suicide if you so desire.

Automobiles are another matter. An untrained driver is very likely to kill or maim other citizens once he gets behind the wheel of an automobile that can travel at 85 MPH.

The same can be said about airplanes. When you plow your Piper Cub into a suburb because you do not now your alieron from a hole in the ground, you not only commit suicide but you are killing other innocent citizens.

The State will allow you to drive an automobile without a license on a private road on private property but will not allow you to drive on a public road without a license that is earned by demonstrating the skill to drive safely and will not allow you to drive on a public road when you are dead drunk no matter how expert a driver you are or how many State Driver's licenses you have earned.

In short, the State is lenient when you decide to kill yourself but draws the line once you have a good chance of killing others.

As a citizen, I have a right not to be run over and killed by you as I am walking down a sidewalk or driving down the street because you do not posses the driving skills required to obtain a driving license. My wife and children also have the right not to be killed in such a manner.

If you insist on absolute rights as a Sovereign individual, then here is one solution for balancing your "right to travel" by any means you desire and my "right to life" and my "right to self defense":

Drivers can voluntarilly take driving tests and prove their driving competency to the State or a private driver's education company. The State can then post the names of those drivers that prove driving competancy on a web page. If unlicensed drivers are recognized by other citizens and are seen to be driving on public roads, then other citizens shall be given the right to legally shoot them on sight in self defense.

Such a solution would balance your claimed absolute right to "travel" with my "right to life" and my "right to self defense". It would also be a great benefit to those citizens who can't get enough time off from work during deer season but still want to enjoy the thrill of the hunt.

75 posted on 09/09/2001 7:29:32 AM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
Believe it. Hell, I could write a book about this guy. Has a "set" the size of bowling balls, I tell ya. :) Seriously. I won't go into his other perfectly legal/blessed by the Government exploits, because you definitely wouldn't believe me. Guess I just don't have his kind of courage. I'm not one for heroes; never have been. However, this guy's the closest thing to a "hero" I have. :)
76 posted on 09/09/2001 7:31:11 AM PDT by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: JudyB1938
They hate the term "IT'S THE LAW".

They always come back with "THE PEOPLE DID NOT MAKE THOSE LAWS, SO THEY DON'T APPLY TO ME".

But, in reality the people did make the law.

By voting your legislator into office, you are entrusting him to make laws that are necessary for the well being of the Republic.

you may not have voted for a particular legislator, the majority did.

And if you don't vote, don't complain.

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.

77 posted on 09/09/2001 7:37:10 AM PDT by Marine Inspector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Marine Inspector
Then we wouldn't have any more need for politicians. Hey, cool. Good idea. :0)
78 posted on 09/09/2001 7:42:34 AM PDT by JudyB1938
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

Comment #79 Removed by Moderator

To: one_particular_harbour
you might want to look before you make dumb comments like that.

You're right.........sorry
Please accept my apologies

80 posted on 09/09/2001 7:48:30 AM PDT by watcher1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-151 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson