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.
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.”
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.”
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.
so once we use something other than our own legs; the right ceases to exist?
Somewhat. You have no right to operate a motor vehicle. No right to fly an aircraft. No right to ride a horse on the interstate. Technically, they can even restrict you from walking on the interstate.
The right to travel can even somewhat be restricted. For example, there are regulations that.. Kinda walk the line on the law.. For example, sex offenders not being allowed within 200 ft of a school/park/etc.
Public safety is given something of a long leash and.. Yeah.. I will agree that it really goes over the line for me sometimes. But.. I also understand from a politician standpoint.. Would you want to be the guy who voted against a bill saying that sex offenders couldn't be kept away from somewhere? That's sort of election cancer once an opponent starts spinning it.
There's nothing special about so-called "9th amendment rights". The 9th is one of two amendments meant to clarify differences between "the rights of the people" and "the powers of government".
The 10th amendment says that if a power of govt is not mentioned in the Constitution, the Fed govt CAN'T have it, but the states and the people still can.
The 9th says that if a certain right of the people is not mentioned in the Constitution, the people CAN still have it, but that right isn't necessarily guaranteed.
Look at it from the other direction, and see if your position is the same.
For instance, should there be any prohibition against a person walking down the center lane of an Interstate highway? Who's at fault, if they're struck?
Nothing in life, or law, is absolute. This clearly falls into that grey area between "unlimited" rights and "reasonable" restrictions on those rights.
I don't mind a set of traffic laws. I think there are too many and they're often more restrictive than they need to be, but we need SOME way to determine fault/liability when an accident occurs, and that's precisely what the legal system is for.
You can drive around all day long on private property without any license or registration or age limit or smog checks or safety inspections or any of the crap that goes along with driving on public roads. That's the key - 'public' roads. I'm not against the idea that reasonable conditions can be placed on the public use of common resources.
04-07-2020, 12:27 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
You started another thread, just like this, months ago. Why start another one?
Somewhat. You have no right to operate a motor vehicle. No right to fly an aircraft. No right to ride a horse on the interstate. Technically, they can even restrict you from walking on the interstate.
The right to travel can even somewhat be restricted. For example, there are regulations that.. Kinda walk the line on the law.. For example, sex offenders not being allowed within 200 ft of a school/park/etc.
Public safety is given something of a long leash and.. Yeah.. I will agree that it really goes over the line for me sometimes. But.. I also understand from a politician standpoint.. Would you want to be the guy who voted against a bill saying that sex offenders couldn't be kept away from somewhere? That's sort of election cancer once an opponent starts spinning it.
If a person is too dangerous to walk the streets of society freely, then they should be held in Bondage for the rest of their life or put to death.
Correct. Since your state/ city, even the USA is a Corporation. No corporation is going to allow another corporation to use their roadways For Profit. You must get permission to do that.
Remember USCON - Article 6, Clause 2 & 3. The Supreme law of the land.
18 USC 31 - Defitions
(6) Motor vehicle.— The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.
(10) Used for commercial purposes.— The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
Statutory Laws cannot convert Natural Rights(9th Amendment), into a privilege by permit only.
Quote:
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”
Last edited by BentBow; 04-08-2020 at 11:39 AM..
04-08-2020, 11:51 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Here is the thread from a few months ago on the same subject. Most if not all the points of the OP have been answered here:
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.
