Driver License vs Right to Travel

[Ivysaur]

A lisence is a contract. Why do I need to contract with the government to travel during my daily routine and not making money to transport People or goods? What crime was commited, because according to Common Law, no victim, no crime.

Because the US law does not work solely according to Common Law, as much as you'd like it to be the case, it isn't. In the last centuries, legislative law was introduced (aka laws written by a parliament), and that's the system the US took when they created the best example of legislative law there is: a written Constitution. Therefore the Congress can pass laws regulating things even though there isn't a direct, physical victim, precisely in cases like this, to reduce the likelihood of victims ever happening in the first case by making sure people know how to drive before being allowed to.

 

[PknTrainerKatelyn]

Just because someone is "licensed", doesn't mean that everyone is automatically safe and just because a law is passed that doesn't mean its constitutional. Marbury v Madison says that for a secondary law to come into conflict with the Supreme Law was ILLOGICAL, for the Supreme Law would prevail. If Congress went out and passed a law saying you couldnt drink more then 6 soda products in a 7 day period or that cheeseburgers are only allowed on Tuesdays, would you obey that law? Would that law have any jurisdiction? No of course you wouldn't and it would have no jurisdction whatsoever. No citizen is bound to obey an unjust law and no court is bound to uphold it. The Common Law is Supreme Law of the Land and the Constitution is the written contract to guarentee the Individual Rights of all citizens and no court may go against it. Why do you think they take an oath to the Constitution before being able to take office? 200+ years old or not, it still applies today.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

Because the US law does not work solely according to Common Law, as much as you'd like it to be the case, it isn't. In the last centuries, legislative law was introduced (aka laws written by a parliament), and that's the system the US took when they created the best example of legislative law there is: a written Constitution. Therefore the Congress can pass laws regulating things even though there isn't a direct, physical victim, precisely in cases like this, to reduce the likelihood of victims ever happening in the first case by making sure people know how to drive before being allowed to.

Again, this topic just makes me question what the hell is your problem with the system anyways considering the fact that you have made it clear that a) you cannot even point out what you're actually mad about and b) you dodge points made by the opposition, even in attempts to understand what the hell you even mean. Sounds like you lost your license and you're pissy about it.

I do find it a tinge hilarious that you're willing to admit that blind people driving is a ludicrous idea but handing out licenses to people who have no idea how to operate a complicated machine such as a vehicle is fine and since the US government doesn't agree with that it is corrupt and evil.

 

[PknTrainerKatelyn]

Again, I'm not "mad" about anything. I'm stating that the Right is established and I wish to excersise said Right. The Supreme Court has ruled this as well. I'm not some idiot whos just going to "drive" like a crazed maniac or drive drunk. Hell, I'll give you my license number and you can call the DMV to show that my lisence is valid. Again, this is something that I just recently found out about. I'm not saying that licenses should be handed out. It doesn't need to exist in the first place except for those in commerce upon the highway.

 

[for him.]

Marbury v Madison says that for a secondary law to come into conflict with the Supreme Law was ILLOGICAL, for the Supreme Law would prevail. If Congress went out and passed a law saying you couldnt drink more then 6 soda products in a 7 day period or that cheeseburgers are only allowed on Tuesdays, would you obey that law?

I am starting to question whether or not you have any knowledge of US History because from my stand point, you don't.

MARBURY VS. MADISON established JUDICIAL REVIEW. I do not remember them ruling anything on secondary law. I am pretty sure it had nothing to do with it since it had to do with court justices.

Plus, yes we would have to obey or face the consequences of fines or jail time if congress actually passed the law. Ever heard of SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND? If Congress makes a rule we have to follow unless ruled unconstitutional by the SUPREME COURT. SO YES, IT HAS JURISDICTION.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

Again, I'm not "mad" about anything. I'm stating that the Right is established and I wish to excersise said Right. The Supreme Court has ruled this as well. I'm not some idiot whos just going to "drive" like a crazed maniac or drive drunk. Hell, I'll give you my license number and you can call the DMV to show that my lisence is valid. Again, this is something that I just recently found out about. I'm not saying that licenses should be handed out. It doesn't need to exist in the first place except for those in commerce upon the highway.

Honestly I have no response to that because that is the most outrageous thing I've read in this thread. You've actually outdone yourself. Regardless of whether or not you own a valid driver's license the demonstration you put forth is both embarrassing and noteworthy.

I'll reiterate simply for making this post on topic since I know you won't listen, but the reason why we have licenses is because cars and traffic are complicated, and even though it may not seem like it is to someone who doesn't drive, it is. And I'm sure you know this. So why are you saying that anyone can hop into such a complicated vehicle and drive? Just because it "doesn't go with our constitutional rights?" We could go on all day about what the meaning of constitutional rights are. There's a LOT of instances where I can easily argue that our constitutional rights are being ignored. For example, gay marriage (right to privacy), owning "obscene" materials in select cities (free speech), drug testing (right to privacy), low minimum wage (right against cruel and unusual punishment). These are all things that are far more relevant than some bloke driving without a license. I can come up with three very logical reasons why people should have proof that they know how to operate a vehicle right now:
a) A vehicle is a complicated piece of machinery.
b) A vehicle is a large heavy piece of machinery capable of taking the lives of yourself and others if operated incorrectly
c) A vehicle is relatively easy to obtain with the proper funding, and are common.

Because of these three issues regarding road-safe/highway safe vehicles it is quite clear that "impeding" on our "constitutional rights" is necessary for the protection of you and others. If you don't know how to properly operate a vehicle, then you could kill someone. If you do, just get a ****ing license you nimrod.

And finally, it doesn't even impede on your constitutional right to travel because you can travel via other means. Just because it costs money doesn't mean that it's "wrong".

 

[Ivysaur]

If you think a law is unfair, then, by all means, protest. Demonstrate against it. Vote for politicians who promise to abolish it. Several philosophers from the Modern Age did it against oppressive rule. They inspired modern-day heroes, like Luther King or Mandela. But take into account that nowhere in the US Constitution it's written "If you don't like some law, you can ignore it, it's okay, we aren't actually forcing you to obey laws you don't like".

If you don't like paying taxes or driving with a licence, rally against them, don't pay taxes, burn your licence. Accept the fines, accept jail time. Henry David Thoreau said "when law is unjust, the place for a just man is in prison."

But don't pretend to be given a free pass for ignoring the law.

 

[for him.]

Again, I'm not "mad" about anything. I'm stating that the Right is established and I wish to excersise said Right. The Supreme Court has ruled this as well. I'm not some idiot whos just going to "drive" like a crazed maniac or drive drunk. Hell, I'll give you my license number and you can call the DMV to show that my lisence is valid. Again, this is something that I just recently found out about. I'm not saying that licenses should be handed out. It doesn't need to exist in the first place except for those in commerce upon the highway.

Someone please slap me. Please, I did not just read this ridiculous paragraph. EVER right?

Of course it needs to exist. Do you want people with no knowledge on how to drive on the streets? Do you know how many accidents will occur? How many people who could be killed? The license is a symbol of the bare knowledge a person has to drive a car safely! A CAR. A complicated piece of MACHINERY.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

It's fairly obvious that Kevo has no idea about anything with History and is simply using big names that we all know to try to add some sort of validity to his argument. Sounds like Marbury v Madison is the justification to say that since I don't like something it should be illegal.

 

[PknTrainerKatelyn]

American Jurisprudence Book 16: Constitution Law Section 16Am Jur 2d: 16AmJur2d., Sec. 97: "Then a constitution should receive a literal interpretation in favor of the Citizen, is especially true, with respect to those provisions which were designed to safeguard the liberty and security of the Citizen in regard to person and property." Bary v. United States - 273 US 128 "Any constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor in the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary" (You are the Beneficiary of the US Constitution)

16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 256: "The general rule is that a unconstitutional statute, whether Federal or State, though having the form and name of law as in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the enactment and not merrily from the date of the decision so braining it. An unconstitutional law in legal contemplation is as inoperative as if it never had been passed. Such a statute lives a question that is purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not ever been enacted. No repeal of an enactment is necessary, since an unconstitutional law is void. The general principles follows that it imposes no duty, converse no rights, creates no office, bestows no power of authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. A contract which rests on a unconstitutional statute creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law. No courts are bound to enforce it. Persons convicted and fined under a statute subsequently held unconstitutional may recover the fines paid. A void act cannot be legally inconsistent with a valid one and an unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede an existing valid law. Indeed, in so far as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. Since an unconstitutional statute cannot repeal, or in anyway effect an existing one, if a repealing statute is unconstitutional, the statute which it attempts to repeal, remains in full force and effect and where a statute in which it attempts to repeal remains in full force and effect and where a clause repealing a prior law is inserted in the act, which act is unconstitutional and void, the provision of the repeal of the prior law will usually fall with it and will not be permitted to operate as repealing such prior law. The general principle stated above applied to the constitution as well as the laws of the several states insofar as they are repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States."

https://archive.org/stream/Constitu...- Your Ironclad Guarantee of Freedom_djvu.txt

 

[Ivysaur]

Exactly. And as soon as the Courts decide that a law violates the US Constitution, they can remove it. But it's the courts that decide whether a law is Constitutional or not, not you. As long as a court doesn't declare a law unconstitutional, you can't go by yourself and decide that you don't want to follow it because you and you alone don't like it.

 

[PknTrainerKatelyn]

Please re-read:

16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 256: "The general rule is that a unconstitutional statute, whether Federal or State, though having the form and name of law as in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the enactment and not merrily from the date of the decision so braining it. An unconstitutional law in legal contemplation is as inoperative as if it never had been passed. Such a statute lives a question that is purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not ever been enacted. No repeal of an enactment is necessary, since an unconstitutional law is void.

 

[for him.]

Exactly. And as soon as the Courts decide that a law violates the US Constitution, they can remove it. But it's the courts that decide whether a law is Constitutional or not, not you. As long as a court doesn't declare a law unconstitutional, you can't go by yourself and decide that you don't want to follow it because you and you alone don't like it.

Please reread Went's statement. You do not decide if it is constitutional. The COURT SYSTEM DOES.

I have come to the conclusion that you Kev, do not understand your own supporting evidence. You have not only contradicted yourself, but have also shown your complete lack of historical knowledge. Please, you need to understand your own argument and your supporting ideas. Throwing them around incorrectly just makes your point sink and makes you look not credible. I am trying really hard not to be mean, so I'll end it here.

 

[PknTrainerKatelyn]

Not credible? I would indeed say that these Supreme Court cases are pretty credible.

CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
CASE #2: "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.
CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

 

[for him.]

Hm if you read, then I am pretty sure I said you and not the Supreme Court. :D

I am pretty sure the Supreme Court is credible. I just can't believe a single thing you say because many of the historical facts you have spewed have been false.

 

[PknTrainerKatelyn]

Hm if you read, then I am pretty sure I said you and not the Supreme Court. :D

I understood what you meant, but according to the documentation I presented, its unconstitutional from the date of enactment and not when branded unconstitutional in an open court. Obviously some people aren't going to agree with me even though I've presented plenty of information to back my argument, so I will provide a challenge. After I denounce my license and other documents and have finished writing my Common Law documents and had them notorized, I will be travelling without a license. The first time I have to appear in court, I will provide the court with the evidence I've accumulated and if I lose I will apologize to everyone and will never show up in the debates section, but if I win (well actually when i win), you will see the validity of my argument and I won't expect an apology. I wil provide full documentation as far as the case number and any audio and/or video I may capture during the process.

 

[Kanzler]

Not credible? I would indeed say that these Supreme Court cases are pretty credible.

CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
CASE #2: "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.
CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

The right to travel cannot be rightfully deprived, but who said licensing amounts to "depriving" individuals the right to travel, other than you? You should find a court decision that refers to licensing /as/ infringing on people's rights, because bringing these cases as evidence is missing the point.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

Obviously Kevo said that since it's against the constitution that it should be. Obviously this country's forefathers knew in advance that people would be driving motorized vehicles and with such knowledge made an educated decision that would still guaranteed be forced to hold weight almost 250 years later.

now pardon me I'm just gonna be like this for a while

 

[PknTrainerKatelyn]

License=privilege. You don't need permission to excersise a Right. By having a license you are agreeing that the activity you are about to partake in is illegal without said license. Again, no state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and/or fee for it. Murdock v Pennsylvania and Shuttlesworth v Birmingham, AL states this clearly.

Also, please do not compare Nelson Mandela with the great Martin Luther King Jr. The two were nothing alike. Mandela was a Marxist Communist who overthrew one tyranny for another. Where's the freedom in Communism? There is none. The fact that they were "spreading democracy" according to mainstream media shows the tyranny that exists. Democracy leads to destruction. MLK promoted individual Rights for those of color because of government mistreatment which is a direct violation of their Rights. He didn't care about the color of your skin, he cared about the character of a person and that's a man I can respect. It doesn't matter the color of skin, everyone deserves equal protection of Rights under the Color of Law as long as they don't steal, injure or otherwise damage, commit treason, purjury or slander. That's all I'm going to say about that since that's for another topic.

 

[for him.]

License=privilege. You don't need permission to excersise a Right. By having a license you are agreeing that the activity you are about to partake in is illegal without said license. Again, no state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and/or fee for it. Murdock v Pennsylvania and Shuttlesworth v Birmingham, AL states this clearly.

Also, please do not compare Nelson Mandela with the great Martin Luther King Jr. The two were nothing alike. Mandela was a Marxist Communist who overthrew one tyranny for another. Where's the freedom in Communism? There is none. The fact that they were "spreading democracy" according to mainstream media shows the tyranny that exists. Democracy leads to destruction. MLK promoted individual Rights for those of color because of government mistreatment which is a direct violation of their Rights. He didn't care about the color of your skin, he cared about the character of a person and that's a man I can respect. It doesn't matter the color of skin, everyone deserves equal protection of Rights under the Color of Law as long as they don't steal, injure or otherwise damage, commit treason, purjury or slander. That's all I'm going to say about that since that's for another topic.

What are you even talking about? When did any of us bring up Mandela and Martin Luther King Jr.? If you are referring to the .gif then that's Michael Jackson....