• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

OUR RIGHT TO TRAVEL---Defined Legal style

H

Hunterdave

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
214
Location
Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
Edit: Incidentally, illegals get away every day, for years on end, with traveling unlicensed upon the highways. They would find motofixxer's appeal to the constitution superfluous. :p

The notion that state enforcement of drivers' licensure actually accomplishes its stated aims is a total farce. Licensure serves as nothing more than a boon to the "authority" of petty tyrants and parasitic tax-feeding productivity-grabbers everywhere.[/QUOTE]






Bulls eye !!!
 
Last edited:
OldCurlyWolf

OldCurlyWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
907
Location
Oklahoma
An interesting premise. While case law SEEMS to support him, I would have to read at least enough of each case to determine applicability to his premise, before I would consider not assuming (that nasty word again) that he did not cherry pick phrases, sentences or paragraphs out of context in each case.

Then there is the 10th Amendment, Reserving unto the Individual States all powers not enumerated in the Constitution of the United States as appropriate for the Federal Government to wield (paraphrased). Big OOPS!!!
:confused:
:cool:
 
Last edited:
Gunslinger

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
PT111 said:
Maybe I don't understand your response and did not research 42-2-101 other than what someone posted but does it say that every person in CO has to have a DL? I have never heard of any state requiring every resident to obtain a DL. Only those that plan to drive have to obtain a DL and I know plenty of people that do not have one, never had one and do not plan to get one. There is no requirement for a person that does not plan to drive on the public highways to obtain a DL but that is what the OP was asking about.
Click to expand...

Only those who wish to drive a motor vehicle. There is an ID card available, as in most states, for non-drivers to get. No one is in any way compelled--in any state, to get a DL. My mother never had one.
 
Gunslinger

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
Motofixxer said:
I don't think you know and understand the difference between a Statute, Act or Penal Code, and a Law. Numerous courts have also opined that anything unconstitutional or tramples the rights secured and defined by the Constitution, common right or reason IS in fact null and void.
"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void." Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60 or
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void." Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 5, U.S. (Cranch) 137, (1803)

Also see:"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

“License”-. Certificate or the document itself which gives permission(Blacks Law, 4th Edition, P.1067) By legal definition, a license grants permission for something that is otherwise not allowed.

So if the courts have ruled, traveling is a common Right, Legislation can't infringe those Rights, but if you don't have a "license" you will get hauled to jail, assaulted etc....

So what is the truth, and what is being ignored and by who???

If you begin to research legal definitions, legal interpretation and Common Law, when they apply and when they don't, you will being to understand more of the complex issues at play.
Click to expand...

I think I do understand quite well, having a JD, but you are missing a salient point: a law on the books is a valid law. If it is unconstitutional, it must be actioned to be declared such and removed. 'Unless and until,' it is the black letter law and enforceable. Peaceful passage is a right. Driving a car is not and therefore subject to licensure by the state, as that power is not enumerated to the Feds and therefore falls to the states. P&I and FF&C apply among the states, via Article 4 of the US Con, but enforcement and regulation reside within the several states via the 10A.
 
Gunslinger

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
Butch00 said:
Marbury V Madison 1803
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.
No law can go against this Constitution and if it does it is void from inception.
All of you who think government can do anything it wants and you consent to it remember...
Evil prevails when good men do NOTHING.
Click to expand...

Until the law is removed, by due process, as unconstitutional--State or Federal, it remains the law. The SC must declare it "void from inception" via that due process upon appellate review or certiorari. Nothing is void from inception until the process wends its way through the judiciary.
 
Venator

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
marshaul said:
I'm not going to get into the sovereign citizen stuff. As interesting as it is, courts reject this stuff outright.

Motofixxer, while I appreciate your drive and have no actual disagreement with any of your constitutional conclusions, it is my opinion that the charges against you were dropped because they were on their face not a valid application of the state's penal code, as written. In short, your claims related to sovereign citizenship had nothing to do with it. They simply didn't have a case, because you hadn't actually violated any California laws in the first place.

Now, with that said, what I really want to comment on is this:



Bwahahahahahaha!

Folks, this right here is all the evidence you need to prove my regular assertion of eye95's insidious latent statism. Don't let his articulate arguments for the very few freedoms he supports fool you; the man is an apologist, nay, a shill, for the state, of the highest order. His cogent defense of the liberties relevant to this forum is little more than bait to seduce the unwary into blind acceptance of every element of the state not inimical to the aim of this forum. His preference for state tyranny to the exclusion federal tyranny doesn't make mitigate his statism in the slightest.

Drivers' licensure facilitates our ability to travel!

Bwahahahahahahaha! The guy would be a comedian if he didn't sincerely believe this tripe.


Edit: Incidentally, illegals get away every day, for years on end, with traveling unlicensed upon the highways. They would find motofixxer's appeal to the constitution superfluous. :p

The notion that state enforcement of drivers' licensure actually accomplishes its stated aims is a total farce. Licensure serves as nothing more than a boon to the "authority" of petty tyrants and parasitic tax-feeding productivity-grabbers everywhere.
Click to expand...

I think I love you:lol:
 
D

DKSuddeth

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
833
Location
Bedford, Texas, USA
eye95 said:
It means that I think that the contention that the regulation of a single mode of travel on roads acquired and built by governmental agencies for the use of all somehow tramples on the right to travel is a bit silly. It also means that posting such a contention without the full willingness to test it himself, but running the risk that some poor goober will read the post, try it, and suffer the consequences, is just a tad irresponsible.
Click to expand...

your contention seems to be your confusion about what the government can regulate when it comes to roadways.
I don't doubt that states have constitutional power to regulate roadways with regards to how many lanes, speed limits, where stop signs and no passing zones can be, but I can't find where their constitutional authority comes that allows them to determine the means by which a free people can use to travel.
 
D

DKSuddeth

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
833
Location
Bedford, Texas, USA
Gunslinger said:
I think I do understand quite well, having a JD, but you are missing a salient point: a law on the books is a valid law. If it is unconstitutional, it must be actioned to be declared such and removed. 'Unless and until,' it is the black letter law and enforceable. Peaceful passage is a right. Driving a car is not and therefore subject to licensure by the state, as that power is not enumerated to the Feds and therefore falls to the states. P&I and FF&C apply among the states, via Article 4 of the US Con, but enforcement and regulation reside within the several states via the 10A.
Click to expand...

reference the bolded, can you show a part of any state constitution that gives a state the authority to determine the methods of travel that people do have a right to and do not?
 
D

DKSuddeth

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
833
Location
Bedford, Texas, USA
Gunslinger said:
Until the law is removed, by due process, as unconstitutional--State or Federal, it remains the law. The SC must declare it "void from inception" via that due process upon appellate review or certiorari. Nothing is void from inception until the process wends its way through the judiciary.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with this, most vehemently. The supreme court did not write the constitution, we the people did. we the people are the final arbitors of what our rights are and what powers the government has. 'the law is the law is the law' has been used from time immemorial by tyrants, one and all, to render obedience to it's edicts from the people at large.
 
Motofixxer

Motofixxer

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
965
Location
Somewhere over the Rainbow
By definition, a "license" gives permision. Obviously for something you couldn't do before. Which we clearly have a Right to do.

So as stated clearly, we normally have no need for licenses for normal travel.
"It is 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." Wingfield v. Fielder (1972) 29 CA3d 213.

"No statutory duty lies to apply for, or to possess a drivers' license for personal travel and transportation as defendant is not within the 'class of persons for whose benefit or protection the statute was enacted." Routh v Quinn, 20 Cal2d 488

If you travel without a license you will get your vehicle towed, hauled to jail etc. Courts disagree.
"Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure" - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago, 169 NE 22

"If the state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity" Shuttlesworth v Birmingham , 373 USs 262
 
Gunslinger

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
DKSuddeth said:
reference the bolded, can you show a part of any state constitution that gives a state the authority to determine the methods of travel that people do have a right to and do not?
Click to expand...

No, and no state does. They merely license a form of transportation. If you choose to not use it, travel any way you want. If you want to travel commercially, you pay for a ticket. If you want to drive a motor vehicle, you pay for a license. The original justification for "control" of motor vehicles was safety. Somewhere along the line it morphed into police powers. I'm not justifying it, as I've said, merely stating the way things are.
 
Gunslinger

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
DKSuddeth said:
I have to disagree with this, most vehemently. The supreme court did not write the constitution, we the people did. we the people are the final arbitors of what our rights are and what powers the government has. 'the law is the law is the law' has been used from time immemorial by tyrants, one and all, to render obedience to it's edicts from the people at large.
Click to expand...

And rightly so. The law "is" the law. Good, bad or neutral. The difference between Republics and Bananna Dictatorships is that we have the process to remove bad laws.
 
Gunslinger

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
Motofixxer said:
By definition, a "license" gives permision. Obviously for something you couldn't do before. Which we clearly have a Right to do.

So as stated clearly, we normally have no need for licenses for normal travel.
"It is 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." Wingfield v. Fielder (1972) 29 CA3d 213.

"No statutory duty lies to apply for, or to possess a drivers' license for personal travel and transportation as defendant is not within the 'class of persons for whose benefit or protection the statute was enacted." Routh v Quinn, 20 Cal2d 488

If you travel without a license you will get your vehicle towed, hauled to jail etc. Courts disagree.
"Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure" - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago, 169 NE 22

"If the state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity" Shuttlesworth v Birmingham , 373 USs 262
Click to expand...

Inter alia quotes don't support your contention. Wingfield deals with negligence in "flying a crop duster."

"Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be <<<<regulated>>>>> in accordance with the public interest and convenience." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 22."

"Regulated."

A license does confer 'permission.' In a Libertarian society, it wouldn't be necessary. But information and belief, and an abudence of caution, indicate we are not a Libertarian society and the interests of the state--unless reserved for the people as an enumerated right, is going to prevail.
 
D

DKSuddeth

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
833
Location
Bedford, Texas, USA
Gunslinger said:
No, and no state does. They merely license a form of transportation. If you choose to not use it, travel any way you want. If you want to travel commercially, you pay for a ticket. If you want to drive a motor vehicle, you pay for a license. The original justification for "control" of motor vehicles was safety. Somewhere along the line it morphed into police powers. I'm not justifying it, as I've said, merely stating the way things are.
Click to expand...
which again, comes down to the ability to actually restrict the right to travel, which has been deemed unconstitutional. except for the commercial part.
 
D

DKSuddeth

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
833
Location
Bedford, Texas, USA
Gunslinger said:
And rightly so. The law "is" the law. Good, bad or neutral. The difference between Republics and Bananna Dictatorships is that we have the process to remove bad laws.
Click to expand...

numerous court cases have opined that we need not obey any law that violates the constitution. 'the law is the law' is exactly what i said it was.....a call for tyrants to control the populace unlawfully.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top