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.
First, those are not all Supreme Court Cases.
Second, you can't just pull quotes out of the context of a legal opinion and apply them to a different situation.
Third, using these cases as a basis for asserting that individuals have a fundamental right to drive unfettered by state laws (such as those requiring licenses) is a common tactic by those contesting tickets or other violators of the motor vehicle code, and has been thoroughly debunked. Not to mention rejected by the courts.
From what I can tell, these quotes are nothing more than misinterpretations of various court cases that have been cobbled together with little understanding of the law by various libertarian extremists and recycled ad nauseum by cut-and-pasters such as yourself.
First ... don't try this "out of context" crap or "misinterpretations". The statements are definitive and provide their own "context", and can only be misinterpreted by the backward mind of a liberal who misinterprets everything. Direct statements such as declaring the right to travel as a fundamental right requires no further context, and is self explanatory, requiring no interpretation, unless you don't speak English.
In Texas (and many other states I believe) there is no legal requirement for a citizen to obtain a "Driver License" in order to operate a motor vehicle for personal use. The "Driver" license applies to commercial drivers operating commercial vehicles in the conduct of commerce.
WARNING: This is untrue. There are dozens if not hundreds of websites that claim this and spend hundreds of hours writing documents for you that "proves" this and even claims there are steps used in court for dismissals (untrue) and say it's been used several times in several states (untrue).
The dismissal motion is invalid as it is styled forget the merits. The statement above has never been used successfully in court and in fact there is a case where some poor sucker tried and boy did he get a surprise.
This is all part of a movement that tries to reel you in by offering what seems logical because of all the legal mumbo jumbo and they gradually raise the volume for a complete brainwashing.
They will never tell you what courts this has worked. They will never tell you the name of a defendant that has tried it and they'll never give you a case number because it is all lies.
Ask yourself what is the motivation for a combined group of people to spend tens of thousands of hours making deceptive websites and then troll threads like this in order to spread their religion.
You see, even for the few rare incidents in which a few Texas citizens have challenged this fraud and won on appeal with the convictions is overturned, there is no repercussions to the lower court ... none .... so they have and continue to violate Texas law with literal impunity.
No they haven't. You are lying and you are attempting to suck people in to a belief system. And the topic of drivers licenses has nothing to do with DUI checkpoints. You are trolling.
If I'm wrong, list the court cases and I'll apologize in this forum. The cases are public and probably on a website so how hard can it be if you're not lying?
This is crazy, you have no right to refuse if the cops suspect you are under the influence, in Douglas County, Georgia.
If you refuse a breathalizer, they get a search warrant, strap you down to a guerney, put you in a headlock and draw your blood anyway. Since you refused, your license is suspended for a year as punishment.
They claim that more people die in this county from drunk drivers than murders. That may be true, but I also believe most of the time they kill themselves. The limits have been severely lowered, and murder rate is down.
This system feeds off convictions.
This must be a big money maker for counties and states, as well as another way to intimidate the public. Yesterday I read that NYPD have quotas for doing random searches of people on the streets, by some whistleblower cops that say they are pressured to fill the jail cells.
So the question is; What is an unreasonable search? What rights do we have to our bodies against self-incrimination? Maybe this would be justified in the case of a vehicle accident with injuries, otherwise I think it's insane.
Forceful taking of blood should not be considered constitutional. If the law is when suspect of under the influence and you refuse to a breath test then you could lose your licease for 1 year and that is why they invented courts. The court and state must prove you guilty.
I believe what the constitution says .... perhaps you think the constitution is a conspiracy theory, and that constitutionally protected rights are little green men from mars ... that's your problem, and you should see someone about it.
You can entertain any fantasy you like. But you drive without a license you're breaking the law. In reality you will be punished. You are preaching people to break the law. You will not, because you cannot show any cases that show other wise.
Encouraging people to break the law in a forum is a very dangerous thing. You are trying to encourage people to break the law in order to satisfy some fetish of your interpretation of the law.
Forceful taking of blood should not be considered constitutional. If the law is when suspect of under the influence and you refuse to a breath test then you could lose your licease for 1 year and that is why they invented courts. The court and state must prove you guilty.
No, losing your license is for breaking the consent you gave to the state. Being punished for DUI is something else and many states have penalties (such as little things like JAIL) that are higher than losing your license for a year.
WARNING: This is untrue. There are dozens if not hundreds of websites that claim this and spend hundreds of hours writing documents for you that "proves" this and even claims there are steps used in court for dismissals (untrue) and say it's been used several times in several states (untrue).
The dismissal motion is invalid as it is styled forget the merits. The statement above has never been used successfully in court and in fact there is a case where some poor sucker tried and boy did he get a surprise.
This is all part of a movement that tries to reel you in by offering what seems logical because of all the legal mumbo jumbo and they gradually raise the volume for a complete brainwashing.
They will never tell you what courts this has worked. They will never tell you the name of a defendant that has tried it and they'll never give you a case number because it is all lies.
Ask yourself what is the motivation for a combined group of people to spend tens of thousands of hours making deceptive websites and then troll threads like this in order to spread their religion.
Maybe ... instead of regurgitating this drivel, you might simply want to look at and examine the laws yourself. Now, I , nor no one I know actually suggests you throw away or refuse to get a driver license .. the point was to illustrate the constitutional illegality and fraud in mandating that you do. This is not at all dissimilar to the many other ongoing frauds like minded folks of your ilk swallow, hook line and sinker, with one great example being the 2nd Amendment, which is also quite clear in it's language. And, even in the face of the Supreme Court recently RE-CONFIRMING the 2nd Amendment applies to the common citizen, that did not stop Chicago and New York from establishing NEW LEGISLATION imposing even greater restrictions, continuing their blatantly illegal assault on the rights of gun owners.
The sad reality is, the majority are not independent thinkers ... they simply believe what ever told them by what they have accepted as credible sources. This acceptance of sources, rather than analysis of information leaves them at the mercy of those sources, and of course, has no relationship with either fact or thinking... but is simply accepting what someone else tells them to think.
Consequently, I already know that there is nothing I can say that would have any effect on what you currently believe ... because you would first have to possess the capacity for independent thought and rational analysis, and be willing to consider facts that directly challenges your current beliefs. And it's very rare to find anyone willing or capable of this, which generally guarantees that such persons will remain in their current misinformed state, indefinitely.
You claimed caselaw. You provided no caselaw. I am not spending time proving negatives. How about you back up what you said instead?
I cannot prove something didn't happen without the entire knowledge of mankind.
I posted three cases of law that spoke directly to the accepted legal position that the right of travel upon the nation's roadways was a RIGHT... not a privilege.
Can you read?
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.
