This is why I have no respect for the courts anymore.

marshaul · Sep 17, 2013

georg jetson said:
What contract? Cite evidence of this "contract" you say "they blindly enter into".

I've said it before: the government feels no need to justify or legitimize or even enable its actions through clever legal fictions, frauds, or general chicanery. Government doesn't need to trick you into consenting to its rule. Government points a Glock in your face and demands that you obey.

It knows it, and we know it. Most of us, anyway.

georg jetson · Sep 17, 2013

marshaul said:
I've said it before: the government feels no need to justify or legitimize or even enable its actions through clever legal fictions, frauds, or general chicanery. Government doesn't need to trick you into consenting to its rule. Government points a Glock in your face and demands that you obey.

It knows it, and we know it. Most of us, anyway.

Well... sort of...

In the case of motor vehicle regs, they've been pressed on us over a great length of time with each generation acquiescing a bit more. There was never much push back because it was/is more convenient to pay the fine than to take the time and expense to fight.

Indeed there is a correct way to maintain our right to travel in any property of our choosing, but that requires significant resources. Most certainly if you decide to fight traffic law with bs conspiracy theories like "contract" etc, you WILL have the Glock pointed in your face.

What is most important in discussions like this is learn how the ugly monster called "administrative law" came about. Remember, per the several constitutions, only the legislative branch can... well... legislate. Administrative law, which came about shortly after the civil war, has been the executive branch's way around this. By allowing the heads of these legislatively created agencies to promulgate rules, the executive branch has gained great power to do its own legislating. The fed and state administrative procedures acts were adopted due to requirements from the courts because of "due process" and "separation of powers" issues, but in many cases, the fed or states ignore the proper application of the their respective apa's and there is the "trick". If you complicate the trick enough and make compliance easy enough, you don't need to point the Glock except in very limited circumstances.

carolina guy · Sep 17, 2013

georg jetson said:
Well... sort of...

In the case of motor vehicle regs, they've been pressed on us over a great length of time with each generation acquiescing a bit more. There was never much push back because it was/is more convenient to pay the fine than to take the time and expense to fight.

Indeed there is a correct way to maintain our right to travel in any property of our choosing, but that requires significant resources. Most certainly if you decide to fight traffic law with bs conspiracy theories like "contract" etc, you WILL have the Glock pointed in your face.

What is most important in discussions like this is learn how the ugly monster called "administrative law" came about. Remember, per the several constitutions, only the legislative branch can... well... legislate. Administrative law, which came about shortly after the civil war, has been the executive branch's way around this. By allowing the heads of these legislatively created agencies to promulgate rules, the executive branch has gained great power to do its own legislating. The fed and state administrative procedures acts were adopted due to requirements from the courts because of "due process" and "separation of powers" issues, but in many cases, the fed or states ignore the proper application of the their respective apa's and there is the "trick". If you complicate the trick enough and make compliance easy enough, you don't need to point the Glock except in very limited circumstances.

This is a bit of conspiracy as well. The legislatures have always had the ability to allow its "creations" to more fully develop the rules/regulations that they operate under and with the public...nothing new here. There is nothing that I am aware of on the national level and on most state levels that prohibit this.

georg jetson · Sep 17, 2013

carolina guy said:
This is a bit of conspiracy as well. The legislatures have always had the ability to allow its "creations" to more fully develop the rules/regulations that they operate under and with the public...nothing new here. There is nothing that I am aware of on the national level and on most state levels that prohibit this.

Always? Do you have an example of this pre-civil war? The separation of powers clause prohibits this... at least until the SCOTUS mistakenly found otherwise.

carolina guy · Sep 17, 2013

georg jetson said:
Always? Do you have an example of this pre-civil war? The separation of powers clause prohibits this... at least until the SCOTUS mistakenly found otherwise.

Do you? Where in the Constitution does it prohibit the Congress from allowing a department or agency to create its own rules?

Freedom1Man · Sep 17, 2013

carolina guy said:
Do you? Where in the Constitution does it prohibit the Congress from allowing a department or agency to create its own rules?

Where does the constitution allow for the creation of agencies?

As for the rules they have the same application as law, only the legislators can write/pass law. The agencies are a part of the executive branch. The executive branch cannot pass laws.

marshaul · Sep 17, 2013

georg jetson said:
What is most important in discussions like this is learn how the ugly monster called "administrative law" came about. Remember, per the several constitutions, only the legislative branch can... well... legislate. Administrative law, which came about shortly after the civil war, has been the executive branch's way around this. By allowing the heads of these legislatively created agencies to promulgate rules, the executive branch has gained great power to do its own legislating. The fed and state administrative procedures acts were adopted due to requirements from the courts because of "due process" and "separation of powers" issues, but in many cases, the fed or states ignore the proper application of the their respective apa's and there is the "trick". If you complicate the trick enough and make compliance easy enough, you don't need to point the Glock except in very limited circumstances.

Well, sure. But I'd say that this isn't a clever fiction – after all, it's blatantly unconstitutional. But the executive doesn't care, because they have Glocks.

carolina guy · Sep 17, 2013

georg jetson said:
Always? Do you have an example of this pre-civil war? The separation of powers clause prohibits this... at least until the SCOTUS mistakenly found otherwise.

Freedom1Man said:
Where does the constitution allow for the creation of agencies?

As for the rules they have the same application as law, only the legislators can write/pass law. The agencies are a part of the executive branch. The executive branch cannot pass laws.

Just taking a stab at it, how about Article 1, Section 8 "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the forgoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Further, it does not really say that the Congress cannot delegate its rule (aka law) making power.

georg jetson · Sep 17, 2013

carolina guy said:
Do you? Where in the Constitution does it prohibit the Congress from allowing a department or agency to create its own rules?

There is no express authority to create an agency. It is incumbent on you to show otherwise.

georg jetson · Sep 17, 2013

carolina guy said:
Just taking a stab at it, how about Article 1, Section 8 "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the forgoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Further, it does not really say that the Congress cannot delegate its rule (aka law) making power.

Start with "Article. I. Section. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,"

Congress cannot grant the power to legislate without amending Art1 sec 1.

If you read what you posted you make my case. That it is CONGRESS that must make all laws.

Also, from the state perspective, my state constitution contains the following...

§1. Three Branches

Section 1. The powers of government of the state are divided into three separate branches: legislative, executive, and judicial.

2. Limitations on Each Branch

Section 2. Except as otherwise provided by this constitution, no one of these branches, nor any person holding office in one of them, shall exercise power belonging to either of the others.

georg jetson · Sep 17, 2013

marshaul said:
Well, sure. But I'd say that this isn't a clever fiction – after all, it's blatantly unconstitutional. But the executive doesn't care, because they have Glocks.

Werd. Once we citizens allow the line to move, we face Glocks if we try to move it back.

carolina guy · Sep 17, 2013

georg jetson said:
Start with "Article. I. Section. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,"

Congress cannot grant the power to legislate without amending Art1 sec 1.

If you read what you posted you make my case. That it is CONGRESS that must make all laws.

Also, from the state perspective, my state constitution contains the following...

§1. Three Branches

Section 1. The powers of government of the state are divided into three separate branches: legislative, executive, and judicial.

2. Limitations on Each Branch

Section 2. Except as otherwise provided by this constitution, no one of these branches, nor any person holding office in one of them, shall exercise power belonging to either of the others.

(*SHRUG*) You asked, I answered and we will have to just agree to disagree on this...Art 1, Sec. 8 does NOT prove your point, IMO.

marshaul · Sep 17, 2013

georg jetson said:
Werd. Once we citizens allow the line to move, we face Glocks if we try to move it back.

I see what you're getting at, and yes, the people do have their share of the blame for allowing it to get this way in the first place. But that's different from our individually all having accidentally agreed to some conspiratorial secret, irrevocable contract of slavery with the government.

Logan 5 · Sep 18, 2013

carolina guy said:
I am not advocating operating a motor vehicle in an unsafe manner, nor do I don't think anyone else was either.

But, I don't think you will EVER find an "ally" in the court personnel by NOT making known your displeasure of an injustice. If he had walked in with $100 bills, would they have worked to reduce his fine? Not likely. I believe this was not only his 1A right, but the UCC says he was within his rights.

Actually, being respectful and polite can get you a long ways with the courts. I have negotiated for reduced fines before, and I didn't have any cash with me. Negotiate and tell them the truth- I'm flat broke. What can we do to work together on resolving this? I have made tremendous headways by being polite.

carolina guy · Sep 18, 2013

Logan 5 said:
Actually, being respectful and polite can get you a long ways with the courts. I have negotiated for reduced fines before, and I didn't have any cash with me. Negotiate and tell them the truth- I'm flat broke. What can we do to work together on resolving this? I have made tremendous headways by being polite.

*SOMETIMES*...yes, I agree and that would be a personal judgement call. It has worked that way for me as well, but I don't know the whole story from the OP either.

Logan 5 · Sep 18, 2013

from what I've seen so far I feel he mislabeled the topic. Perhaps it should be more like "This is why I never had respect for anybody" instead.

georg jetson · Sep 18, 2013

I dont see the op "never having respect for anybody". Why are you attacking him?

Sometimes protestng can seem rude. So what. If our servents were... um.... serving, we would have a reason not to be rude.

Logan 5 · Sep 19, 2013

georg jetson said:
I dont see the op "never having respect for anybody". Why are you attacking him?

Sometimes protestng can seem rude. So what. If our servents were... um.... serving, we would have a reason not to be rude.

You're right. I certainly was in error. My apologies to him and the readers for my misjudgement.
I'd still have to say its "no respect for the court". I have had way too many court cases that I'd care to count, and when I look at each encounter, I can see the biggest error that DID decide the case results is conduct with the clerks. I for one thinks it's beyond stupid that they have any influence on the system. But you're not gonna get anywhere or win any battles or wars by being rude to them.

Freedom1Man · Sep 19, 2013

Well, when the courts don't respect the law....

Since some courts don't even follow the law......

http://youtu.be/D-YxIqB4GEY

Logan 5 · Sep 19, 2013

I know they don't. I've seen it first hand.

This is why I have no respect for the courts anymore.

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member