Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i'm sorry but the wifeâ„¢, j.d., llm, honors graduate and member of the pennsylvania bar was looking over my shoulder demanding to know why i was reading such stupid crap instead of pickup on cleaning up my mess in the kitchen. She made me do it.
In my state, you don't need a license, technically. If the police stop you for any reason, they only require you to have 2 out of 3 documents: car registration, license, proof of insurance. If you can show the other two, you don't need to show your license. I've left my license at home before, accidentally, been stopped, and the police said it wasn't a problem.
When I was young (!) and just learning to drive, there was a rumor going around among my friends that you had 24 hrs to produce a license if stopped by the police. However, our driver's ed instructor said that wasn't so, though the police have some flexibility in that regard. This was in Pennsylvania.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
You do if you're a citizen but if you're a foreigner living here illegally, you are not required to have a drivers license.
You have to have A driver's license, and in Colorado people here illegally can get a driver's license. Better to have the driver's licensed than not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person
I don't know but here in MD you can be cited for various driving violations (drunken horseback riding is one as is failure to yield the right of way, among others).
When we were vacationing in Minnesota, at Voyageur's National Park which has a lot of waterways, we were warned about the "boating while intoxicated" laws there.
Perhaps you could talk to a lawyer first , as I am yet to see that you have any inkling on what a legal opinion is.
The link in my OP stated a multitude of legal quotes and court decisions that justify asking the question, and my beginning of this debate.
Would you care to post a legal opinion or quote which contradicts any of the many I have already presented?
We are all waiting to see what if anything of substance you can add to the discussion.
You obviously missed the whole part concerning the definition of traveling vs driving.
Try posting the complete decision in just one of the sited cases and you might get the conversation that you are looking for. Snipping paragraphs without the facts before the court is utterly pointless since gawd only knows what the pertinent facts were before the court the supporting dicta or the final ruling.
I might add that of the cases cited most appear have arisen in the 19th century, are based upon outdated legal sources, are only based upon state statutes and not a singe one outside of Miranda v Arizona even mentions automobiles or the states power to regulate the operation thereof.
And yes, all the references to the above are nutcase sovereign citizen websites, none of which has dared to either cite anything other than out of context snippets without links to the actual cases.
PS I cleaned the living room and why wife has gone out
The author has change the vernacular to meet his narrative.
***************** ARGUMENT
If ever a judge understood the public's right [[[this is the author's wording]]to use the public roads, it was Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. Justice Tolman stated:
"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment."
Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147. The words of Justice Tolman ring most prophetically in the ears of Citizens throughout the country today as the use of the public roads has been monopolized by the very entity which has been empowered to stand guard over our freedoms, i.e., that of state government.
*****************
No where did the Justice say "right". Liberty and freedoms are not the same as rights.
Liberties and freedoms are states of being and are not guaranteed under the constitution except the for their persuit.
V Amendment:
..." nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...".
Show where the word right to travel is used in the US Constitution or any court ruling since 1913.
The Oregon Supreme Court, as well, ruled (see generally Kalich v. Knapp, 73 Or. 558) “the legislature has no power to regulate the people or their automobiles.” This knowledge used to be taught in law school:
"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion --
to go[where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the[/SIZE] Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property[/SIZE] thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere[/SIZE] privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common[/SIZE] Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of[/SIZE] happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under[/SIZE] normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in[/SIZE] public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent[/SIZE] manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be[/LEFT][/SIZE] protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."[/SIZE]
The anonoymus author uses this black embolded passage as more constitutinal proof of right to travel. Anonymous forgot to include the red embolded text identifing the passage from Oregon case law...not a US Supreme court rulling.
I would be interested in hearing the opinion of some people who actually have some education in law on the points made by this brief and if they have as much validity as they seem to.
I cannot find any evidence that a license was required for travel by motor vehicle anywhere in America prior to 1913.
Sure, as a practicing attorney for over thirty years I don't mind commenting.
What passes for reasoning in the linked document is pretty much what we would expect from someone who doesn't understand legal reasoning or the legal structures governing our society. Legal reasoning is more than rummaging through legal documents, finding a stray phrase here or there that suits one's purposes, and scattering them on the pages of a paper to be filed in a court. What we see in your attachment is very much akin to the arguments described and universally disposed of in Idiot Legal Arguments. Idiot Legal Arguments Page 1
The claim is made that these legal arguments resulted in the dismissal of charges in a number of cases. This seems unlikely, but it could always be the case that a prosecutor could be met with a ridiculous pile of garbage such as you have provided us and that prosecutor would decide he has better things to do than waste his time on it.
I would be interested in hearing the opinion of some people who actually have some education in law on the points made by this brief and if they have as much validity as they seem to.
I cannot find any evidence that a license was required for travel by motor vehicle anywhere in America prior to 1913.
You can argue all the case law you want, but driving is still a privilege, not a right. You have free access to the roads ON FOOT as a right. But driving a car, which is a 2,000 pound missile, going 70 miles an hour is potentially a deadly weapon. You cannot turn that kind of deadly force loose on the world without some guarantee of competency and regulation. Look at countries who do not require a drivers license and see what kind of carnage happens on a daily basis. Thailand, India, etc., have terrible injuries and fatalities because people don't have a clue what they are doing, and frankly don't care.
Your assertion that licensing is needed to ensure knowledge of traffic signs and laws and rules of the road is simply untrue.
At least he made one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
