OUR RIGHT TO TRAVEL---Defined Legal style

georg jetson · Jun 12, 2014

countryclubjoe said:
georg jetson

The license is the finished product that is produced after the citizen exchanges documents and currency with the state, the exchange of the documents and the currency creates the contract between citizen and state hence they take you're picture and hand you a license which now means you contracted with the state and paid a fee to acquire a driving privilege. That privilege will last until you're current license expires, usually 4 years in most states or until such time as you violate some rules of the road at which time thereof you're so called driving privilege could be revoke by the state.

Again, I personally, do not do business with any G agency's. But hey, if doing business with G agency's makes people feel safe or comfortable then that is their right.

My .02

CCJ

A license is not a contract even if you say it is. Refer to your state's statutes for the definition of a contract.

georg jetson · Jun 12, 2014

sudden valley gunner said:
Yet someone still wont say were the state gets the power to invent these privileges.

The state gets its power from the consent of the people. The people pay for the infrastructure. The state, in order to protect the people's property, requires a license to use the people's property in ways noy beneficial to the people.

OC for ME · Jun 12, 2014

All a DL is is a revenue scheme. It in no way indicates competency when operating a MV. If you buy insurance to protect your investment(s) then the license is even more irrelevant. You buy fuel, taxes for roads is collected, another notch against the relevancy of a DL.

DLs are nothing but a revenue scheme. If anyone can provide facts that a DL makes better and safer drivers then I'll listen, until then...

Freedom1Man · Jun 12, 2014

OC for ME said:
All a DL is is a revenue scheme. It in no way indicates competency when operating a MV. If you buy insurance to protect your investment(s) then the license is even more irrelevant. You buy fuel, taxes for roads is collected, another notch against the relevancy of a DL.

DLs are nothing but a revenue scheme. If anyone can provide facts that a DL makes better and safer drivers then I'll listen, until then...

If a DL made you safe, then you would not need insurance.

A DL is about control, if you piss off the state you can lose it. Child support for example, if you don't pay the state the state can and normally will take away your DL.

Besides I've seen plenty of idiots on the road that have no idea what they are doing, yet they each have DL.

sudden valley gunner · Jun 12, 2014

georg jetson said:
The state gets its power from the consent of the people. The people pay for the infrastructure. The state, in order to protect the people's property, requires a license to use the people's property in ways noy beneficial to the people.

Do you have the power to invent privileges to hand out? How can the state take a power from the people they don't have?

The right to travel and the right to use modern means isn't a privilege. We pay for the infrastructure thought a use fee tax on gas. DL's have little to do with competency or protecting "the peoples property".

georg jetson · Jun 12, 2014

sudden valley gunner said:
Do you have the power to invent privileges to hand out? How can the state take a power from the people they don't have?

The right to travel and the right to use modern means isn't a privilege. We pay for the infrastructure thought a use fee tax on gas. DL's have little to do with competency or protecting "the peoples property".

The people have power to allow privileged use of their possesions. The only legitimate power a state has is outlined by the people.

You're correct. We have a right to travel. If we pay for the roads, then our use of those roads is simply a property right and no license is required. Use of the roads that does not benefit us requires a license. The license is not unconstitutional. We've simply allowed the state to classify ANY use of the roads a privilege. We failed to push back and now we're facing an uphill battle to remove the suppresion of our "right to travel".

georg jetson · Jun 13, 2014

OC for ME said:
All a DL is is a revenue scheme. It in no way indicates competency when operating a MV. If you buy insurance to protect your investment(s) then the license is even more irrelevant. You buy fuel, taxes for roads is collected, another notch against the relevancy of a DL.

DLs are nothing but a revenue scheme. If anyone can provide facts that a DL makes better and safer drivers then I'll listen, until then...

A DL was something required by the state to use the roads for purposes other than private travel. But, the permit loving people that we became in the 20th century allowed... um... demanded that we apply it universally. I think the anti federalists would have thought it impossible that it would be necessary to enumerate such a fudamental right. Wait a minute, could the right to travel be a subpart of liberty? Nah. Liberty certainly couldnt include free movement of body and property... right?

countryclubjoe · Jun 13, 2014

And please be reminded that smiling for a DL photo is PROHIBITED. Even tho you are paying with the fruit of you're hard earn labor for said bogus privilege.

My .02

CCJ

georg jetson · Jun 13, 2014

countryclubjoe said:
And please be reminded that smiling for a DL photo is PROHIBITED. Even tho you are paying with the fruit of you're hard earn labor for said bogus privilege.

My .02

CCJ

Cite

countryclubjoe · Jun 13, 2014

georg jetson said:
I haven't made any attempt to argue this point with you. I simply state that a license is not a contract.

Law dictionaries' definitions are irrelevant here. A license is a license and a contract is a contract by statute. Find the appropriate statutes in your state.

The application process to acquire said license would fall within the parameters of a contract. When you have the time see Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial code.
Article 9 was drafted by three attorney's, one of which was Grant Gilmore, Yale Law professor, an author see (Death of Contract) and one of the fore most legal scholars of the 20th century on contracts and contract law. The other two distinguished Barristers are escaping my memory at the moment,( Getting old) Article 9 itself, while I have not read it in some time, I recall the topic of secured transactions and the exchange of goods and services etc. I contend that the application process to obtain a DL would constitute a contract under the UCC.
I'll do some added research this weekend.
Regards,

CCJ

sudden valley gunner · Jun 13, 2014

georg jetson said:
The people have power to allow privileged use of their possesions. The only legitimate power a state has is outlined by the people.

You're correct. We have a right to travel. If we pay for the roads, then our use of those roads is simply a property right and no license is required. Use of the roads that does not benefit us requires a license. The license is not unconstitutional. We've simply allowed the state to classify ANY use of the roads a privilege. We failed to push back and now we're facing an uphill battle to remove the suppresion of our "right to travel".

Yet they don't say using the roads is a privilege, they say using a car is.

How can they make something into a privilege like the use of a car.

I would also argue that if you are paying for the fuel and tax that is included you are paying to use the road.

The problem again is the state grabbing power for itself rather than letting the free market figure it out.

countryclubjoe · Jun 13, 2014

georg jetson said:
Cite

Something to do with the " facial recognition program" used by DMV in NJ. Other states may have a different policy in place.

CCJ

georg jetson · Jun 14, 2014

countryclubjoe said:
The application process to acquire said license would fall within the parameters of a contract. When you have the time see Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial code.
Article 9 was drafted by three attorney's, one of which was Grant Gilmore, Yale Law professor, an author see (Death of Contract) and one of the fore most legal scholars of the 20th century on contracts and contract law. The other two distinguished Barristers are escaping my memory at the moment,( Getting old) Article 9 itself, while I have not read it in some time, I recall the topic of secured transactions and the exchange of goods and services etc. I contend that the application process to obtain a DL would constitute a contract under the UCC.
I'll do some added research this weekend.
Regards,

CCJ

The fed ucc? Irrelevant to contract law unless you're contracting with the fed... no matter who wrote it.

countryclubjoe · Jun 14, 2014

georg jetson said:
The fed ucc? Irrelevant to contract law unless you're contracting with the fed... no matter who wrote it.

G

Each State has there own UCC however each mimics the Fed, some States vary from the Federal, Louisiana comes to mind in that respect.

My argument is, that any signing of documents along with an exchange of cash for an item( license) creates a contract, however I am not 100% positive that said contract is a legal binding contract on either party. However, I contend, that if the State is going to check my credentials and accept my cash and ask me to sign on the dotted line to obtain a piece of paper, then the process of obtaining said piece of paper is indeed a contract. Until some brilliant legal scholar can show otherwise or there is case law to dispute my theory, I will continue on.

My .02

CCJ

georg jetson · Jun 16, 2014

countryclubjoe said:
G

Each State has there own UCC however each mimics the Fed, some States vary from the Federal, Louisiana comes to mind in that respect.

My argument is, that any signing of documents along with an exchange of cash for an item( license) creates a contract, however I am not 100% positive that said contract is a legal binding contract on either party. However, I contend, that if the State is going to check my credentials and accept my cash and ask me to sign on the dotted line to obtain a piece of paper, then the process of obtaining said piece of paper is indeed a contract. Until some brilliant legal scholar can show otherwise or there is case law to dispute my theory, I will continue on.

My .02

CCJ

The fact that a license is not a contract is well settle in law. It's not difficult to do some quick searches to find this out. What is the benefit of making an argument to the contrary? Purly philosophical?

davidmcbeth · Jun 16, 2014

We do not need a DL to travel on the highways.

Can we close this tread?

countryclubjoe · Jun 17, 2014

georg jetson said:
The fact that a license is not a contract is well settle in law. It's not difficult to do some quick searches to find this out. What is the benefit of making an argument to the contrary? Purly philosophical?

Georg- Please cite the case law that states a license is not a contract.

Thank you

CCJ

georg jetson · Jun 18, 2014

countryclubjoe said:
Georg- Please cite the case law that states a license is not a contract.

Thank you

CCJ

As Ive already stated, a contract is defined by statute.

marshaul · Jun 18, 2014

countryclubjoe said:
Georg- Please cite the case law that states a license is not a contract.

It seems to me you've already agreed that actions obtained by force or fraud do not constitute a "contract".

SovereigntyOrDeath · Jan 22, 2015

eye95 said:
Sorry, but I don't believe that for a second. The post clearly is advocating the position that the State has no authority to regulate driving on the public highways.

Once again, you go ahead and believe that. Try to drive on the public highways in ways that violate the law. Use your argument in court and see how far it gets you.

Oh, and BTW, it is even worse if you are suggesting that others act on the information if you are not willing to take the risk yourself. Geez, that kinda puts me in mind of another group of people who sit back, do all the thinking, and then send others out to do the fatal stuff. Can you think of who that would be?

Folks: People have been arguing that the State has no authority to regulate driving on the highways. Some poor souls have even tried to argue this in court. Have you noticed that the laws are still there? At best, such arguments have drawn chortles from the judge as he banged down the gavel on the defendant.

That the State regulates driving on public roads does not impede any right to travel. It merely regulates one mode of travel on publicly owned property acquired for the purpose of making orderly travel possible. Such actually facilitates our ability to travel.

In July 1913, the state of New Jersey became the first to require all drivers to pass a mandatory examination before receiving a license.

So, what did we do before 1913?

OUR RIGHT TO TRAVEL---Defined Legal style

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member