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.
100% wrong, as has been proven many, many times in court. How many times do Sov Cits have to attempt to use this tripe to get out of traffic citations before they get it? You are aware of the definition of insanity, right?
You seem like a reasonably intelligent, articulate person. Do you realize that your rhetoric takes advantage of the most vulnerable among us? Video after video shows disadvantaged people (poor, low intelligence, etc.) attempting to use the tactics you promote, which results in them being arrested, their vehicles damaged and/or impounded, and worse. The question is why? You have to know what your saying is BS. You're causing real hardship for real people. Do you find it amusing?
[] One of the sovereign people who directly exercise sovereignty over their person, liberty and property, whose endowed rights are secured by government?
[] Or one of the subject citizens who indirectly exercise sovereignty via delegation to representatives, and have surrendered endowed rights in exchange for civil and political liberties (i.e."rights") by consent to be governed?
#1 - Debunked
Case #2 was in reference to a woman who as part of her probation was restricted from traveling to certain 'map areas' in the city. Courts found that it was an infringement on Barbara White's right to travel to restrict her from those areas, one of which she lived in.
#2 - Debunked
Mills vs DC relates to "Neighborhood Safe Zones" that were established in DC and if motorists couldn't provide a 'valid reason' to enter the neighborhood.. They weren't allowed to. Courts deemed this unconstitutional.
#3 - Debunked
The final case, from 1958.. Rhode Island was attempting to require people to deposit sufficient money to cover liability in the event they had an accident before issuing a license. Courts ruled they could not do this.. Of course, later on, courts have ruled that it is not unconsitutional to require people to carry liability insurance.
#4 - Debunked
Really.. What I say is just a little research on your own would save you a whole lot of embarrassment.
Remember.. Many people have a whole lot of time now.. So, rather than just post a quick picture of someone in a tinfoil hat.. There's actually time to pull up each example and blast it to dust.
I have a full understanding of “jurisdiction”.
The Supreme Court has determined this to be a right and when a right is involved “no rule-making” is allowed. This is also one of my primary arguments regarding the 2nd Amendment. It is also a very good illustration of how a corporation can and is formed, ignores the Constitution, and for the sake of convenience enforces Judicial Activism over the Constitution and makes the law itself, no-matter for what reason or good intention makes it unlawful which is EXACTLY what President Andrew Johnson said would happen by creating a new Citizenship, jurisdiction, and making us subject to a Federal rather than a State citizenship.
But all of the states have now taken the lead of the Federal Government in the subversion of the Constitution and by sheer repetition, indoctrination, and false information, has everyone believing that from the time they are young, they have to go and get “permission” to perform a lawful, Constitutional act.
It was never and shall never be a violation of the law to use the highways for personal or “private” use.
We all pay for that right as well at the pump through excise taxes. So, if and when you ever decide to withdraw your consent to be licensed for non-commercial purposes, and you receive a ticket from a police officer, you have been high jacked by a privateer. The officers mostly know very little to anything about this.
It is in my opinion intentional and this can be made evident by the practices of the “intentional hiring of city & state police officers who are hired admittedly by the corporations human resources “under” a certain I.Q level. This is NOT because they do not want them to become bored with the job as they try to claim, but they do not want people with a capacity to understand the details of the law, and to be able to critically think and come to the correct determination that they are in fact breaking their oath to preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, and are engaging in a albeit very soft form of piracy on the open highways.
It literally, even in jurisdictions that this does not occur, means that this information is being kept from Police Officers. This is a system of revenue generation. I am not saying we should not have them enforcing traffic laws. I believe everyone should act and “operate” responsibly. I believe there should absolutely be accountability for bad behavior. But I also believe in the Constitution. And if they require something in order for their own convenience and to track individuals for whatever reason, this system should fall within the parameters of the Constitution.
Motor Vehicle regulations apply to those "driving" FOR PROFIT.
18 USC 31-6 &10
The following is only my opinion:
Americans are built around taxes.
Your freedom to move is not impeded just taxed.
You drive on the road you pay taxes.
You profit while on the road you pay taxes.
The issue is not paying taxes .
The issue is how are the tax revenues being
redistributed for a better society.
Last edited by Mr.Retired; 04-11-2020 at 05:10 AM..
Is it possible that the OP is worried that when the current regime is thrown out of Washington, that his rights will be infringed? Not to worry, as the current gang would infringe them even more, if they were to interpret reelection as a license to do what they will. With that, their supporters would find their rights just as much abused as those of any of their opponents. They will all be hung on their own petards, for greasing the skids of our slide down to the depths.
Is it possible that the OP is worried that when the current regime is thrown out of Washington, that his rights will be infringed? Not to worry, as the current gang would infringe them even more, if they were to interpret reelection as a license to do what they will. With that, their supporters would find their rights just as much abused as those of any of their opponents. They will all be hung on their own petards, for greasing the skids of our slide down to the depths.
I have a full understanding of “jurisdiction”. The Supreme Court has determined this to be a right not a permitted privilege and when a right is involved “no rule-making” is allowed. This is also one of my primary arguments regarding the 2nd Amendment. It is also a very good illustration of how a corporation can and is formed, ignores the Constitution, and for the sake of convenience enforces Judicial Activism over the Constitution.
Corporate government subversion of the Constitution and by sheer repetition, indoctrination, and false information, has everyone believing that from the time they are young, they have to go and get “permission” to perform a lawful, Constitutional act.
This is a system of revenue generation. I am not saying we should not have them enforcing traffic laws. I believe everyone should act and “travel” responsibly. I believe there should absolutely be accountability for bad behavior. But I also believe in the Constitution. And if they require something in order for their own convenience and to track individuals for whatever reason, this system should fall within the parameters of the Constitution.
The following is only my opinion:
Americans are built around taxes.
Your freedom to move is not impeded just taxed.
You drive on the road you pay taxes.
You profit while on the road you pay taxes.
The issue is not paying taxes .
The issue is how are the tax revenues being
redistributed for a better society.
Case Law:
Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907).
Quote:
“…a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon…
“The word ‘operator’ shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation.”
Quote:
“With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.”
“The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.”
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,381,135 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
Motor Vehicle regulations apply to those "driving" FOR PROFIT.
18 USC 31-6 &10
Driver, as in "Driver's License" implies, For Profit. Uber Driver, Taxi Driver, Truck Driver, Operator also implies "for profit" The Corporation(your town, your city, your county, your state and even the good `ol USA is a corporation).
The corporations, don't want you making money on their public roadways, without getting their cut... Permission.
It is a 9th Amendment violation, to require a permit to exercise your right to travel. Rights cannot be made into a privilege.
Miranda v. Arizona.
CASE LAW:
Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135
“The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.”
– Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784
“… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right”
-White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979)
“citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”
Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009
“The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”
Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963).
“The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”
What say you?
I say an amendment ratified in 1791 has nothing to do with automobiles. I also say I smell the stench of Alex Jones nearby.
You don't need a permit to travel. You do need a license to operate a motor vehicle.
The constitution is about defining and restricting the rights of the government, not the people.
What part of the constitution gives the government the right to require a driver's license?
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.
