Yes, I understand your point. However, the states power to contract is decidedly seperate and distinct from its power to regulate and issue licenses. It's important to understand the difference, particularly if one is about to enter a courtroom.
Thank you for you're reply. Again I would argue that the State does not have the authority to regulate an individual's right to travel and requiring a license and charging fee's and threatening a citizen with incarceration for non compliance with said license is in my opinion unconstitutional.
However the State and its law makers, the judges, the attorney's, will not acknowledge such a theory, and why will they not acknowledge this theory? Obviously for Money and Revenue. If all the Joe citizen's refused to pay fee's and licensing cost and did not let the threat of incarceration by the State, if all the Joe Citizens were not so institutionalized, all these taxing agency's and licensing agency's would be out of business.
The judges, the lawyers, the DMV, IRS, all those folks would in fact have to go out and get a real job.
Clearly there are circumstances where the State can exercise their authority to regulate and require a drivers license, those circumstances would be if a citizen is engaging in commerce or operating a vehicle for commercial purposes. (Another made up law, that I don't agree with) However that's the cost of engaging in commerce and doing commercial business.
Regarding going to court for a non driver's license violation, I assume that is what you were referencing in you're last sentence.
I can only speak for myself, I never give the kangaroo traffic courts any jurisdiction over me. I file a written motion to dismiss, along with a trial by jury request, along with a change of venue, in my motion brief I cite case law and constitutional law to support my arguments and also the lack of jurisdiction on the part of the kangaroo traffic court. Keep in mind that traffic courts are courts of revenue, they do not want to spend time litigating an issue, they want quick pleads and plead bargaining. They do not want a citizen that knows his/her rights to open the eyes of other less constitutional minded citizens. My batting average is 1000 with no court cost or fee's applied. Other folks results may vary.
I am not advocating for folks to discontinue paying for their right to travel, nor am I advocating for folks to go out and break any traffic laws.
Folks should obey the laws of the road while traveling and drive in a safe responsible matter. I am simply arguing that a driver's license is not needed to travel about by any mode thereof, travel for recreational travel or simply to get from point A to point B in the exercise of an individuals right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness does not require a state sanctioned license.
My .02
According to Black's Law- Contract
" An agreement between two or more parties creating obligations that are enforceable or otherwise recognized at law"
Based on Black's definition, I would argue that the purchase of a license of any kind, drivers, marriage, fishing etc is indeed a contract. However, I am not sure what the State's obligation is regarding said contract. It would appear they simply extract the fruits of you're labor via you're hard earned cash for a term they call " A Privilege". Personally, I will stick to my rights, they can keep their privileges.
georg jetson, I enjoy opining with you on the subject, please drive safe and carry safe.
Best regards
CCJ
