WSP authorized to make random traffic stops

imported post

is a confused,mistaken or disingenuous claim. Natural and civic laws all agree, harming another person is never a valid act, except as an act of self-defense.

Click to expand...

Right there you just pointed out that harming someone may not be a crime or a wrongful act. How do you determine what is a wrongful act if there are no laws. You come to an intersection at the same time as someone else, they don't stop, neither do you, you collide in the middle of the intersection, you and the other driver are harmed. Just tough luck I guess and no one is at fault.

Now to the free travel idea. There is no law, either State or Federal that requires that you have a permit, license or any other type permission to travel on the public highways of America. The portrayal of this is pure BS. However there are laws about operating a vehicle on the public highway and that is something totally different. You can by a bus ticket, taxi cab or get your friend to carry you anywhere in the US you want to on any public highway without a crivers license, car tag or any thing else. Only the actual operator of the vehicle is required to have one. I have never been asked for "papers" while riding in a vehicle.


According to your philosophy there should be no regulations on flying airplanes, driving trucks or even smuggling as "free travel" includes whatever is in your possesion. I wrecked my first car at age 18 months by getting in, cranking it up and driving it into the woodpile. I wrecked a tractor at age 7 when I put it into the wrong gear and ran it into a tree after it threw me off and ran over my foot. I got my drivers license the day after I turned 14 and had been driving cars and trucks foryears around the farm. I have also been a professional truck driver in addition to my personal driving.

I have had too many friends and realitives to lose their lives and health due to drunk or plain stupid drivers to ever go along with this no law at all until you harm someone BS. You can travel all you want just don't drive when you are so drunk you can't even see out the windshield to know if you have killed someone or not. I want you stopped before you kill me or my family.

imported post

PT111 wrote:

is a confused,mistaken or disingenuous claim. Natural and civic laws all agree, harming another person is never a valid act, except as an act of self-defense.

Click to expand...

Right there you just pointed out that harming someone may not be a crime or a wrongful act. How do you determine what is a wrongful act if there are no laws. You come to an intersection at the same time as someone else, they don't stop, neither do you, you collide in the middle of the intersection, you and the other driver are harmed. Just tough luck I guess and no one is at fault.

Click to expand...

You're both at fault. Learn to drive better or suffer. Liberty has the pitfall that if you mess up, you suffer the consequences.

PT111 wrote:

Now to the free travel idea. There is no law, either State or Federal that requires that you have a permit, license or any other type permission to travel on the public highways of America. The portrayal of this is pure BS. However there are laws about operating a vehicle on the public highway and that is something totally different. You can by a bus ticket, taxi cab or get your friend to carry you anywhere in the US you want to on any public highway without a crivers license, car tag or any thing else. Only the actual operator of the vehicle is required to have one. I have never been asked for "papers" while riding in a vehicle.

Click to expand...

That isn't free movement. You or someone must pay for it. Plus the fact that the Constitution actually prohibits these kind of arbitrary laws...



PT111 wrote:

According to your philosophy there should be no regulations on flying airplanes, driving trucks or even smuggling as "free travel" includes whatever is in your possesion.

Click to expand...

No government regulations. That is correct. People and industries self regulate... and the Constitution provides the way to get people who harm others through their actions.

As an aside... you can build and fly an 'experimental' aircraft without a license or permit. You don't even need to get it 'officially' inspected.

PT111 wrote:

I wrecked my first car at age 18 months by getting in, cranking it up and driving it into the woodpile. I wrecked a tractor at age 7 when I put it into the wrong gear and ran it into a tree after it threw me off and ran over my foot. I got my drivers license the day after I turned 14 and had been driving cars and trucks foryears around the farm. I have also been a professional truck driver in addition to my personal driving.

Click to expand...

And what is your point? You had a license and you STILL managed to wreck your car... the license nor the tags on the car prevented you from crashing.

PT111 wrote:

I have had too many friends and realitives to lose their lives and health due to drunk or plain stupid drivers to ever go along with this no law at all until you harm someone BS.

Click to expand...

Um, that actually makes no sense whatsoever. The people who were drunk or stupid or reckless had licenses. They were legal drivers. I bet those who had their licenses taken from them still drove. No laws or licenses or statutes or tags for the car stopped these people from getting in their vehicle and turning it into a weapon and killing people with it. No law ever will. The whole idea of 'preventive' laws is bogus.

PT111 wrote:

You can travel all you want just don't drive when you are so drunk you can't even see out the windshield to know if you have killed someone or not. I want you stopped before you kill me or my family.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but a drivers license or the lack thereof will not stop a determined drunk or idiot. You cannot stop these people unless the instant they drive drunk and get caught... you execute them or put them in jail for life.... other than that... they'll drive license or not. Restricting everyone else's freedom just because you THINK you can control these people is not only bad law, it's unconstitutional.

imported post

PT111 wrote:

Enoch Root wrote:

The Fourth Amendment and Hypocrisy

Driver or Traveler?

Click to expand...

From the Driver or Traveler link I take it that all laws regarding the use of the roadways are unconstitutional and that anyone should be able to drive on the highways any way they want to. I think I just may have to stay home from now on.

Click to expand...

That's not what the courts have ruled at all. They have merely pointed out that requiring a license to travel freely is unconstitutional. Nowhere did the courts ever rule that reasonable restrictions, such as speed limits or safety equipment, could not be required.

Much like you can not be required to have a license to exercise your right to freedom of speech, you should not also be required to have a license to travel freely throughout the country. This is one where the average person would assume, because the government is constantly telling us, that traveling on the highway system was, in fact, a privilege. The courts have been quite clear on this issue, however, that it is a right, so long as you are transporting your self and your belongings. Commerce is a different issue.

From a Second Amendment perspective, this would be like requiring a license to own a firearm. The courts have ruled that there can be reasonable restrictions (although most people differ on the definition of "reasonable"). One would hope that we will eventually get back to the point of a license being an "unreasonable" restriction, but that is another issue only tangentially related to the current discussion.

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

That isn't free movement. You or someone must pay for it.

Click to expand...

Um, dude? Even without a license you have to pay to drive a car too (gas, maintenance, cost of vehicle, etc.) The only true form of free movement is the same today as it was in the founder's day: You can walk. You can walk all the way across the country with no license or any kind of restriction. People actually still do it from time to time. But even then you're paying (shoes, food, blahblahblah...). As someone else said, you can take the bus, train, airplane, horse, etc etc. When you choose to do the driving on the roads provided by the gov't, you have to accept their regulation on the matter. Sorry, but I just don't think that's unreasonable or an infringement of liberty. No, the licensing system isn't perfect. Yes, it's abused all the time. So is the legal system. Should that be scrapped too?

The founding fathers were not trying to create a community with no gov't regulation. They were trying to create one with minimal regulation. That's why they created the amendment process for the Constitution, AND made it so difficult to do so. Incidentally, driving regulations & licensing is regulated by the individual states, so isn't this more a matter of state's rights? Wouldn't state driving regulations fall under the 10th ammendment (powers belonging to the states...)?

imported post

ya its a privlage to drive on the roads your taxes pay for no matter if u drive on them or not u still get to pay for them... Isnt democracy great? i say if u pay taxes and they use your tax dollars for the roads then u should be allowed to use them lic or not.

If people were inoccent till proven guilty then we wouldnt need as may jails because no one would get arrested on suspition and detained. I mean if you really think about it, what is an arrest really? its the cops violating your civil rights and your freedom because they think u have committed a crime and weather you have or not your still guilty till proven innocent.

I find it ironic that the constitution dosnt mention anything that i have ever seen about being taken into custody against your will does it?



ok thats my rant for now more to come later.....

imported post

jarhead1055 wrote:

If people were inoccent till proven guilty then we wouldnt need as may jails because no one would get arrested on suspition and detained. I mean if you really think about it, what is an arrest really? its the cops violating your civil rights and your freedom because they think u have committed a crime and weather you have or not your still guilty till proven innocent.

I find it ironic that the constitution dosnt mention anything that i have ever seen about being taken into custody against your will does it?

Click to expand...

?!? OK, how would YOU suggest a suspect in a crime be handled until proven guilty by due process of law? A stern warning by a cop not to leave town until the whole thing can be straightened out? Honestly, what do you think would work better to detain the guilty while protecting the innocent until who's guilty & innocent is actually known? The Constitution is the supreme federal law. It is not, and was not meant to be, this land's ONLY law. That's where state laws & statutes come in and it is under those laws that suspects undergo due process.

imported post

&#$^@#$%&*@#!!! double posts....

imported post

if you want a good example of state govt at work go look at all the stupid laws and taxes in this state. how is it the state govt has a huge deficit and yet they can give the law makers raises? how is it people are loosing there homes and business's and they can spend several million dollars on art work?

Hows is it that the mayor if a city can ban guns on city property and yet the 2nd ammendment says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed ever? ya thats your govt at work and you can have it all.

do you really think that the govt has all the answers? Due process? do you even know what true true process is? or will you just allow some idiot half ass your freedom in a court of law?

Most of the laws in common usage all are for profit, think about it, when u get pulled over you say im sorry to the cop for speeding right? ok well you many not but alot of people do.

why would u applogize to him? its not like they are his laws its not like he made them now is it? these new seat belt laws are bogus as well its just another way to make money off of people who work to damn hard for what little they got in the first place.

you want to solve half the problems in this world? put a middle class person who has worked all his life into office who actually knows what its like to go without something because the power company jacked the rates up or someone who cant afford to pay 4.00 a gallon for gas.

yup thats your great law makers at work, think about it when was the last time you got to vote on something that will take more of your money? nope it was voted on by people who have more money than they know what todo with and do you think they give a rats ass about you or your family or your finacial problems?



TBC

imported post

I find it ironic that the constitution dosnt mention anything that i have ever seen about being taken into custody against your will does it?

Click to expand...

Read it again. To wit:

Amendment IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Click to expand...

Discussion: You are theoretically free from fear of being unreasonably searched or seized (arrested). Notice that there is no requirement for a warrant for reasonable searches or seizures. What's reasonable? Well there's years of common law on that, too much to go into here.

imported post

jarhead1055 wrote:

if you want a good example of state govt at work go look at all the stupid laws and taxes in this state. how is it the state govt has a huge deficit and yet they can give the law makers raises? how is it people are loosing there homes and business's and they can spend several million dollars on art work?

Hows is it that the mayor if a city can ban guns on city property and yet the 2nd ammendment says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed ever? ya thats your govt at work and you can have it all.

do you really think that the govt has all the answers? Due process? do you even know what true true process is? or will you just allow some idiot half ass your freedom in a court of law?

Most of the laws in common usage all are for profit, think about it, when u get pulled over you say im sorry to the cop for speeding right? ok well you many not but alot of people do.

why would u applogize to him? its not like they are his laws its not like he made them now is it? these new seat belt laws are bogus as well its just another way to make money off of people who work to damn hard for what little they got in the first place.

you want to solve half the problems in this world? put a middle class person who has worked all his life into office who actually knows what its like to go without something because the power company jacked the rates up or someone who cant afford to pay 4.00 a gallon for gas.

yup thats your great law makers at work, think about it when was the last time you got to vote on something that will take more of your money? nope it was voted on by people who have more money than they know what todo with and do you think they give a rats ass about you or your family or your finacial problems?



TBC

Click to expand...

Ya didn't answer my question. What's your superior solution or idea to the problems you just mentioned? I never said government had all the answers, far from it. Like I said in another post, our system of government is very, very flawed and to say it is in need of reform is a gross understatement. So would you prefer pure anarchy then? Just imagine, NO cops, NO legislators, no one to restrict your freedoms even the slightest bit:quirky.

This nation was founded as a REPUBLIC. Therefore we are a nation of LAWS. Yes, our gov't has become a horribly bloated, power-hungry, freedom-robbing mess, because somewhere along the line people began selling their sense of responsibility to the liberals for the promise of a free meal. That is the single biggest obstacle to real reform and to bring this nation back to something resembling what the founders had in mind.

Lawyers suck. But again, what better solution would you suggest? Even if the legal code was a tenth as bloated as it is today, would you rather plead your own case in a court of law, or enlist the services of a person who is (AT LEAST IN THEORY) a professional scholar of that law who's job it is to use his experience & training to advocate on your behalf?

The overwhelming majority of cops are good, honest people who honestly try to enforce the law fairly. YES, THERE ARE SOME BAD EGGS. YES, EVEN THE GOOD ONES GET IT WRONG SOME TIMES. Once again, what is your solution? No cops? Who then to enforce the laws upon which our republic is based? You apologize to the cop when caught speeding because he is, at the time, the representative of the law. That's the first step of due process right there, you get to plead your case to the cop and try and convince him that either the law has not actually been broken, or there are mitigating circumstances. You might be surprised how often that actually works, with the right attitude. If you get cited anyway, then you move on to the next step and plead your case to a judge, jury, etc. What solution to you suggest that will work better?

And since you asked, I suppose I could go back & compile a list of all the things I've voted on that would have taken more of my money AND that ended up failing because a heckuvalot of other people voted the same way, but it'd be a pretty big list. Just to be specific, remember the big roads & transit initiative last November? I'm in the wrong county to vote on it but I know how I would have, and it tanked pretty badly because so many others agreed. That right there proves that yes, as flawed and bloated as it is, sometimes the system the founders created actually does work.

imported post

deanf wrote:

I find it ironic that the constitution dosnt mention anything that i have ever seen about being taken into custody against your will does it?

Click to expand...

Read it again. To wit:

Amendment IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Click to expand...

Discussion: You are theoretically free from fear of being unreasonably searched or seized (arrested). Notice that there is no requirement for a warrant for reasonable searches or seizures. What's reasonable? Well there's years of common law on that, too much to go into here.

Click to expand...

The hell we are ever heard of a no knock warrent? i am more scared of the cops who dodnt know the law than i ever was of someone who is up to no good. what is a reasonable search? reasonable by who? me? you? the cops? reasonable is a moot point in the grand sceme of things.

imported post

jarhead1055 wrote:

how is it the state govt has a huge deficit and yet they can give the law makers raises?

Click to expand...

FYI the Gov. just signed a bill that prohibits pay raises for the Legislators and herself. No pay raises for the next two years. Don't disagree with your other points but for the sake of accuracy, this one doesn't apply.

imported post

Metalhead47 wrote:

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

That isn't free movement. You or someone must pay for it.

Click to expand...

Um, dude? Even without a license you have to pay to drive a car too (gas, maintenance, cost of vehicle, etc.)

Click to expand...

When I'm paying for gas, I'm paying my fellow citizen who worked to make the gas... I'm not paying for the privilege to drive... I'm paying so I don't have to make the fuel. However, I have a Phoenix Motorcar fully electric SUV on order and will have it by the end of the year... or sometime next year. I have solar panels on my garage to charge it so I'll never have to pay for fuel again... as long as I don't have to drive more than 150 miles per charge. Of course, I have to buy tires... but so what?

Metalhead47 wrote:

When you choose to do the driving on the roads provided by the gov't, you have to accept their regulation on the matter. Sorry, but I just don't think that's unreasonable or an infringement of liberty. No, the licensing system isn't perfect. Yes, it's abused all the time. So is the legal system. Should that be scrapped too?

Click to expand...

Last part's a Red Herring... The first part is refuted by;

Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105
“No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”

Is that not clear? I'm for taxes to drive on the roads in a shared way. But I do not support the right to force me to license my car or require me have a license to drive... as it isn't their right to restrict my liberty. They've got many convinced that they have the right.... they also restrict other rights on the same premise they've convinced you they have the right to do.


Metalhead47 wrote:

The founding fathers were not trying to create a community with no gov't regulation. They were trying to create one with minimal regulation. That's why they created the amendment process for the Constitution, AND made it so difficult to do so.

Click to expand...

Actually, they were trying to create a government with no regulation.... the word in the Constitution "regulate" refers to "the proper operations of a device" or "to make to function properly"... the word did not mean "to control" at the time of thewritingof the Constitution.

Metalhead47 wrote:

Incidentally, driving regulations & licensing is regulated by the individual states, so isn't this more a matter of state's rights? Wouldn't state driving regulations fall under the 10th ammendment (powers belonging to the states...)?

Click to expand...

The 10th Amendment states;

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

For those who have not studied English and how it was used at the time of the writing of the Constitution, you might not quite get what this says... and others have purposely misrepresented what this Amendment says so they could have more power.

Sentence structure was similar, but not the same. In terms of the subject of the sentence that makes up the 10th Amendment, the word 'powers' is the subject of the sentence and the Amendment. What's the predicate? It's the the word 'delegated' which is modified with the word 'not'. As Obama would say, this is a negative right.... he sees the restrictions as something negative. But let's move on...

Now that we know what the sentence is about, let's start looking at the modifiers and other Nouns.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution...

This dependent clause sets up the premise that there are powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution. But it does not clarify, so more must be added to the sentence to complete it. It goes on after a comma with;

nor prohibited by it to the States...

This one confuses people. Most assume that this meant that if the States did not prohibit something, the United States government could do it... they are wrong as their English skills are not properly reading this dependent clause. Let's break down the clause by looking at the first part... nor prohibited by it. What is this referring to? What prohibits things? The United States? No, we've established in the first clause that the Constitution delegates powers.... so using logic of sentence structure, we're still talking about the Constitution in saying nor prohibited by the Constitution while replacing 'the Constitution' with the impersonal pronoun 'it'. The clause continues by saying 'to the States'... well here is the contention... and it's not hard to understand why the States and the wannabe rulers in them want to ignore this... but the clause is saying 'nor prohibited by the Constitution to the States'

And the final clause which finishes up the amendment saying;

are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

What are reserved? That's right... the Powers which are the subject of the whole sentence.... and those powers aremodified by saying'not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited bythe Constitutionto the States' meaning that the Constitution as written is a limit not just on the Federal government, but on the State governments as well.... those powers not prohibited by the rights enumerated in the Constitution... are left up to the States or the people.

The right to bear arms does NOT say "Congress shall not infringe" the second Amendment says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.... meaning that the States cannot infringe on this right either.

The Fifth Amendment is mostly about proper protection of rights in criminal cases... but it also protects our Liberty... and we cannot be deprived of that liberty without due process of law... and then, you can only be deprived your inalienable rights if you've committed a crime.

There is case law precedent and majority opinions written by the SCOTUS which also back up these assertions;

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.”

Liberty is a right secured by the Constitution.... so even State legislation cannot take away your freedom of movement... your Liberty.

Can they charge taxes to maintain roads.... sure, I can get on board with that... I'll pay my fair share to maintain the roads.... can they require you to have a license and to license your car... no, that is unconstitutional by the standards set forth in the 10th Amendment.

imported post

Well, friend, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Your freedom of movement is in no way infringed by vehicle/driver licensing. The privilege of driving on public roads is what is regulated (in the contemporary sense of the word:?).

imported post

I haven't been on here in a week and am trying to catch up, that said.

I think that the purpose of this is more for CDL drivers and commercial vehicles. I drive trucks for a living (mixer, dump, ect) and this makes perfect sense. We can be inspected at scales or can be pulled over for an on the spot inspection or escorted back to a scale. During daylight hours, marked vehicle, ect.

imported post

Lets see. You are required to have seat belts installed in the car. Seat belts are required to be firmly secured to the vehicle. Does this mean the back seat seat can be removed to check the condition of the seat belt installation? You are required to have a spare tire. Does this mean the trunk may be opened and the spare tire inspected? When they check your drivers license are they going to also check for wants and warrants? If they see (find) a loaded firearm in your vehicle are they going todemand to see your cpl? What does that have to do withvehicle safety? When does an inspection turn into a search? This is all very shaky

imported post

irfner wrote:

Lets see. You are required to have seat belts installed in the car. Seat belts are required to be firmly secured to the vehicle. Does this mean the back seat seat can be removed to check the condition of the seat belt installation? You are required to have a spare tire. Does this mean the trunk may be opened and the spare tire inspected? When they check your drivers license are they going to also check for wants and warrants? If they see (find) a loaded firearm in your vehicle are they going todemand to see your cpl? What does that have to do withvehicle safety? When does an inspection turn into a search? This is all very shaky

Click to expand...

You are required to have a spare tire???? There is going to be lots of people violating that since some new cars do not come with spare tires but rather a repair kit. Seat belts are only required if they were factory installed. As one fellow I know was arguing about his speedodometer being wrong was the reason for his speeding the judge looked at him and said that there is no requirement for a speedodometer on a vehicle, just that you obey the speed laws, guilty.

imported post

irfner wrote:

Lets see. You are required to have seat belts installed in the car. Seat belts are required to be firmly secured to the vehicle. Does this mean the back seat seat can be removed to check the condition of the seat belt installation? You are required to have a spare tire. Does this mean the trunk may be opened and the spare tire inspected? When they check your drivers license are they going to also check for wants and warrants? If they see (find) a loaded firearm in your vehicle are they going to demand to see your cpl? What does that have to do with vehicle safety? When does an inspection turn into a search? This is all very shaky

Click to expand...

You are going to far in your thinking with this. The law says they are allowed to do a drivers license check, this does not mean a background check. They are simply allowed to make sure you have a valid license on your person. The safety inspection does not extend into the inside of the vehicle, they can check lighting, bumper height, horn, tires, leaks, etc. They are not allowed to open your door nor are they allowed to inspect anything that they cannot plainly see from outside the vehicle.

I have posted this before and will do it again. I have an uncle who is a retired Sgt. from the patrol after 28 years. I have asked him about this and his reply was that he has never used this law and he knows of no other trooper that has either.

imported post

Metalhead47 wrote:

Well, friend, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Your freedom of movement is in no way infringed by vehicle/driver licensing. The privilege of driving on public roads is what is regulated (in the contemporary sense of the word:?).

Click to expand...

Even if we disagree on whether or not government has the right to do these things... to make the statement which I highlighted above is just wrong. To say they have "in no way infringed" isn't correct at all. They have infringed in some ways. You're basically saying they can tell me what to do, where to go and how to go as long as I am not walking? I call BS. Liberty and Freedom are absolutes... and government is limited and small, at least by Constitutional standards.

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Metalhead47 wrote:

Well, friend, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Your freedom of movement is in no way infringed by vehicle/driver licensing. The privilege of driving on public roads is what is regulated (in the contemporary sense of the word:?).

Click to expand...

Even if we disagree on whether or not government has the right to do these things... to make the statement which I highlighted above is just wrong. To say they have "in no way infringed" isn't correct at all. They have infringed in some ways. You're basically saying they can tell me what to do, where to go and how to go as long as I am not walking? I call BS. Liberty and Freedom are absolutes... and government is limited and small, at least by Constitutional standards.

Click to expand...

:quirky You take the bus, take the train, ride a bike, ride a horse, etc etc. You're a good arguer and make some valid points, but this whole discussion is just causing you useless frustration. Better to direct your energies elsewhere.