Can't Require a License to Exercise a Right

[countryclubjoe]

Your only defense against tyrants is a court of LAW.

CCJ

 

[eye95]

Folks, this comes up from time to time.

You get folks on here claiming that you don't need to get your driver's license, register your car, pay your taxes, etc.

Notice that NONE of them do these things. Why not? Because despite their claims of the law failing to punish those who do not follow these laws, the fact remains that it does.

There is another poster here, who inexplicably never posts this SC crap, but who continually posts legal advice about fighting the system, but NEVER relates how he has done any of that crap himself.

Do you really want to try this when the advocates here themselves wouldn't come close to even trying to pull this crap off???

When (it will never happen) someone who has actually done this stuff comes here, posts ALL the details, cites all the court decisions, relates all their costs, etc., then I will take this seriously. Until then, threads like this are just so much Internet bluster, worthy of that other poster I mentioned. (You surely know who I mean. If not, give it a few days; you'll figure it out.)

I don't recommend lending one iota of credence to Internet bluster. It is hazardous to your legal health. The folks advocating these actions know this.

 

[joanie]

Well it's a clear case of government intimidation. Much like paying street gangs protection money to not wreck your house of shop. No one person could fight this gang of thugs, and not enough people are willing to. They just go on being slaves. Heres a little wake up call, it don't matter how much you fall in line with this corrupt government and follow their rules. Anything bad left unchecked, WILL GET WORSE... More taxes, more laws, more requirements, until you have to be extreemly wealthy to breathe air. (carbon taxes)

Things will get worse, mark my words, those who don't feel it now, will later, or their children will much later. The poor need not live, lets save the right to life for the rich. Thats some of what you younger folks will be seeing. Add to that the efforts by the globalists to make us all poor by destroying the economy and rendering paper money worthless.

We handed our nation over to the bankers and their corprate bedfellows. If we are not willing to take it back, say goodbye to humankind. We're doomed.

 

[eye95]

I have had some run-ins with the police in which they were 100% in the wrong.

However, implying that policing is some sort of protection racket is hyperbolic to the point of being flat wrong and, IMO, a violation of the rules here against cop-bashing.

Also IMO, this incessant cop-bashing is tearing at the credibility of the OC argument, making us look quite fringe at best.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[idea(l)s]

Folks, this comes up from time to time.

You get folks on here claiming that you don't need to get your driver's license, register your car, pay your taxes, etc.

The United States in Congress assembled has been granted the authority to regulate commerce, we do "enjoy" a commerce clause after all.

Unless you can cite the alleged authority to regulate private lives, you have no argument implying one needs to do any of the above quoted.

 

[wrightme]

The United States in Congress assembled has been granted the authority to regulate commerce, we do "enjoy" a commerce clause after all.

Unless you can cite the alleged authority to regulate private lives, you have no argument implying one needs to do any of the above quoted.

Congress doesn't issue or cause you to need a driver's license, the state does.

 

[idea(l)s]

Congress doesn't issue or cause you to need a driver's license, the state does.

You are mistaken, every state in the union has a State Plan in place, adopting the traffic laws as found in the Code of Federal Regulations.
In NM it reads as follows:

18.2.3.12 DRIVING OF MOTOR VEHICLES:
The department of public safety hereby adopts Part 392 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR 392 - Driving of Motor Vehicles)***, with no amendments.
[2-3-93; 11-17-93; 2-14-95; 11-17-95; 4-30-97; 18.2.3.11 NMAC - Rp 18 NMAC 2.3.11, 6-29-00]
[emphasis mine]

 

[MyWifeSaidYes]

So the state adopts a set of existing laws as their own. Then they can amend those laws as that state sees fit.

How does that mean you do not have to register your motor vehicle, etc., etc.?

 

[eye95]

You are mistaken, every state in the union has a State Plan in place, adopting the traffic laws as found in the Code of Federal Regulations.
In NM it reads as follows:

18.2.3.12 DRIVING OF MOTOR VEHICLES:
The department of public safety hereby adopts Part 392 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR 392 - Driving of Motor Vehicles)***, with no amendments.
[2-3-93; 11-17-93; 2-14-95; 11-17-95; 4-30-97; 18.2.3.11 NMAC - Rp 18 NMAC 2.3.11, 6-29-00]
[emphasis mine]

Cities adopt standard building codes too. They don't have to. They can adopt them in full or amend them or not at all and develop their own. So?

You picked the wrong site to pull your crap. Folks here don't just swallow BS from strangers who come here posting like they know what the hell they're talking about when they don't. I've never posted anywhere where the folks study and know as much law as they do here.

Back to the original point that was refuted that you tried to resuscitate with the above BS: The Congress has nothing to do with the issuance of DLs. The States do that. No US constitutional authority is needed.

Try again.

 

[idea(l)s]

So the state adopts a set of existing laws as their own. Then they can amend those laws as that state sees fit.

How does that mean you do not have to register your motor vehicle, etc., etc.?

They can somewhat "amend" those laws but they cannot however amend the intent of the laws. The intent of 49 CFR 392 is to regulate "traffic", not you or I tooling around in our automobiles.

Part of the MD code reads as follows:

Code of Maryland Regulations, Public service Commission
20.95.01.03
.03 Definitions.
(3) Motor Vehicle.
(a) "Motor vehicle" includes all vehicles or machines propelled by any power other than muscular used upon the public roads, not on rails, for public transportation of persons for compensation.
(b) "Motor vehicle" does not include a taxicab.
(4) "Operator" means any person engaged in driving a motor vehicle for which a permit has been issued.
(5) "Owner" means the individual, partnership, carrier, or company to whom a permit has been issued.
(6) "Permit" means the permit issued by the Commission
[emphasis mine]

Ask yourself the question: were you issued the required "permit" prior to "operate" and register your "motor vehicle"?
The "registration" part of the various motor vehicle codes is uniform throughout the states codes as well.

In NM it reads as follows:

66-1-4.21. Additional definitions.

As used in the Motor Vehicle Code [66-1-1 NMSA 1978]:

A. "evidence of registration" means any documentation issued by the department identifying a motor carrier vehicle as being registered with New Mexico or documentation issued by another state pursuant to the terms of a multistate agreement on registration of vehicles to which this state is a party identifying a motor carrier vehicle as being registered with that state; provided that evidence of payment of the weight distance tax and permits obtained under either the Special Fuels Supplier Tax Act [Chapter 7, Article 16A NMSA 1978] or Trip Tax Act [Chapter 7, Article 15 NMSA 1978] are not "evidence of registration";

Looking up the definition of motor carrier, motor carrier vehicle, vehicle or any combination thereof, will show that your automobile does not qualify for "registration".

 

[idea(l)s]

Cities adopt standard building codes too. They don't have to. They can adopt them in full or amend them or not at all and develop their own. So?

You picked the wrong site to pull your crap. Folks here don't just swallow BS from strangers who come here posting like they know what the hell they're talking about when they don't. I've never posted anywhere where the folks study and know as much law as they do here.

Back to the original point that was refuted that you tried to resuscitate with the above BS: The Congress has nothing to do with the issuance of DLs. The States do that. No US constitutional authority is needed.

Try again.

Building codes are commercial in nature as well. The fact that you point those out proves that you're still missing a most important point: the United States in Congress assembled has the authority to regulate commerce, not private lives.

Once you understand that premise we can have a meaningful conversation about it. It seems though as if all you are interested in is spewing invective commentary and hurling insults...!?!

Men's natures are alike; it is their habits that separate them.
Confucius, Analects

 

[idea(l)s]

Back to the original point that was refuted that you tried to resuscitate with the above BS: The Congress has nothing to do with the issuance of DLs. The States do that. No US constitutional authority is needed.

Try again.

You are mistaken, the Code of Federal Regulations, as adopted through the various individual States' plans (see my post above), CAUSES the issuance of the licenses by the states.

Without Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as adopted by the United States in Congress assembled, no licenses are ever issued.

 

[wrightme]

Here is the applicable portion of NV statute for a dl.

NRS 483.230  Licensing of drivers required; vehicle being towed; possession of more than one license prohibited.

1.  Except persons expressly exempted in NRS 483.010 to 483.630, inclusive, a person shall not drive any motor vehicle upon a highway in this State unless such person has a valid license as a driver under the provisions of NRS 483.010 to 483.630, inclusive, for the type or class of vehicle being driven.

Here is the NV definition of 'vehicle' which is also referred to for the definition of 'motor vehicle.'

NRS 482.135  “Vehicle” defined.  Except as otherwise provided in NRS 482.36348, “vehicle” means every device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a public highway. The term does not include:

1.  Devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks;

2.  Mobile homes or commercial coaches as defined in chapter 489 of NRS; or

3.  Electric personal assistive mobility devices.

[Part 1:202:1931; A 1951, 165; 1953, 280]—(NRS A 1979, 1222; 2003, 1205; 2003, 20th Special Session, 299)

Here is the NV code that requires registration:

NRS 482.205  Registration required for certain vehicles.  Except as otherwise provided in this chapter and NRS 706.188, every owner of a motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer intended to be operated upon any highway in this State shall, before the motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer can be operated, apply to the Department or a registered dealer for and obtain the registration thereof.

[Part 6:202:1931; A 1941, 51; 1949, 511; 1953, 52]—(NRS A 1963, 1276; 1995, 1861; 2009, 390)

Didn't see any reference to federal code forcing a requirement.

 

[wrightme]

You are mistaken, the Code of Federal Regulations, as adopted through the various individual States' plans (see my post above), CAUSES the issuance of the licenses by the states.

Without Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as adopted by the United States in Congress assembled, no licenses are ever issued.

BS.


States can easily 'force' it absent CFR.

 

[idea(l)s]

Here is the NV code that requires registration:

Didn't see any reference to federal code forcing a requirement.

Simply look up the definition of "registration" or "evidence of registration" in your vehicle code, it is well defined, see the NM example above.

The reference to the federal code is contained in the NV state plan which you can request by foia from your local DMV or Public Safety/Services Commission.

Incidentally:

NRS 706.151 Legislative declaration of purpose.
1. It is hereby declared to be the purpose and policy of the Legislature in enacting this chapter:
(a) Except to the extent otherwise provided in NRS 706.881 to 706.885, inclusive, to confer upon the Authority the power and to make it the duty of the Authority to regulate fully regulated carriers, operators of tow cars and brokers of regulated services to the extent provided in this chapter and to confer upon the Department of Motor Vehicles the power to license all motor carriers and to make it the duty of the Department of Motor Vehicles and the Department of Public Safety to enforce the provisions of this chapter and the regulations adopted by the Authority pursuant to it, to relieve the undue burdens on the highways arising by reason of the use of the highways by vehicles in a gainful occupation thereon.

The authority of the Nevada DMV is well delineated within the above statute...!

Laws and sets of laws need to be read and understood within the entire set of statutes because they are "inter woven". A single statute or part of a code does not give one the full picture, that why it is important as well to read the federal and state registers which confer the true meaning and intent of the law, as opposed to the codified legalese we find in the various codes.

 

[idea(l)s]

BS.

States can easily 'force' it absent CFR.

Ok, then you show me where and how they can "force" it absent the CFR, please do show me where they have obtained and established that authority.

 

[wrightme]

<snip a bunch of red herring>.

That is the motor carrier chapter. It is valid to convey upon the DMV the authority to regulate motor carriers.


CHAPTER 706 - MOTOR CARRIERS

REGULATION AND LICENSING OF MOTOR CARRIERS

The code you refer to is under the TITLE 58—ENERGY; PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SIMILAR ENTITIES

NRS 481.019  Creation; powers and duties.

1.  The Department of Motor Vehicles is hereby created.

2.  The Department is vested with the powers and authority provided in this chapter and shall carry out the purposes of this chapter.

(Added to NRS by 1957, 609; A 1985, 1930; 2001, 2542)

To be on subject, you should check in TITLE 43—PUBLIC SAFETY; VEHICLES; WATERCRAFT

 

[wrightme]

Ok, then you show me where and how they can "force" it absent the CFR, please do show me where they have obtained and established that authority.

Sigh.......

Amendment X

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.

You aren't making a case for your position. The people of the state created the bodies and voted the legislators into place. Those elected officials passed the statutes through the defined regimen into law.

 

[eye95]

Again, buddy, you picked the WRONG site to pull this crap. Most folks here are very familiar with their State codes and know how to find things in them. You will find folks here who absolutely HATE federal authority, yet even they have taken the time to show that you are full of it.

I, for one, will waste no further time on you or your BS. If you decide to get rational, maybe we'll talk about the law in the future. If not, this site comes equipped with an ignore button.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[idea(l)s]

That is the motor carrier chapter. It is valid to convey upon the DMV the authority to regulate motor carriers.

The code you refer to is under the TITLE 58—ENERGY; PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SIMILAR ENTITIES

To be on subject, you should check in TITLE 43—PUBLIC SAFETY; VEHICLES; WATERCRAFT

There you go: "the authority to regulate motor carriers", you are right on point. This ties in with the fact that they have the authority to regulate commerce, not private lives.

I am very well on subject, Title 58 tells how the DMV was established and by whom and what their "powers" are. It's pretty evident
NRS 481.019  Creation; powers and duties.

1.  The Department of Motor Vehicles is hereby created.

2.  The Department is vested with the powers and authority provided in this chapter and shall carry out the purposes of this chapter.

It is imperative to understand that chapter so that we know their power and authority (god forbid they should ever act outside of that scope...!)

We will deal with Title 43 later.