Driver License vs Right to Travel

[PknTrainerKatelyn]

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....

Went posted "They inspired modern-day heroes, like Luther King or Mandela."

 

[Kanzler]

You have the liberty to get yourself a license, you're also at a liberty to travel in any way you choose. I don't need a license to take the bus or ride the train or walk on my own feet.

The right to travel (also referred to as the freedom of movement) has nothing to do with the mode of transportation, it has to do with your right to be at a certain place at a certain time - certain place being everywhere in the country, certain time being anytime you want, as long as you're not infringing on the rights of others. Does a driver's license prevent me from moving from Detroit to San Francisco? It doesn't. The freedom of movement is not infringed at all by licensed driving. The "free" in freedom of movement refers to time and place, not how you do it. That's how it's understood, not only by most Americans and presumably the justice system, but also in the rest of the world.

Let me give you an example of what would be an infringement of the right to travel. Say there was a zombie outbreak in Anytown, USA. The US military sets up a system of checkpoints surrounding said township and prevents anybody from entering and leaving for the sake of quarantining the outbreak and preventing the spread of the infection. Now that would be infringing the right to travel (although there's arguably a good reason for it). Complaining about how licenses turn your "right to drive" into a "privilege", especially when the definitions are arbitrary and taken out of context is just really entitled.

Murdock v. Pennsylvania decided that legislation to require Jehovah's witnesses to solicit (because they do go door to door) infringed on their right to freely exercise their religion.

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham has nothing to do with licensing, it prevented a certain municipality from restricting the right of protest. The City Commission was unwilling to give a protest permit for a protest for blacks' civil rights, citing section 1159 of the city's General Code. The Supreme Court decided that the City Commission cannot use unlimited discretion in deciding who gets a protest permit or not, which makes sense - you can't stop people protesting because you don't like their ideas.

 

[PknTrainerKatelyn]

I know what the cases are about and license and permit is the same thing and though neither are about travel, the relevence is there because its still a Right that's being infringed upon. Also, refer to my previous cases that I posted including Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago, IL.

 

[Ivysaur]

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.

State of Tennessee v. Anthony Troy Williams,
Date Filed:
Wednesday, October 3, 2012

https://www.tncourts.gov/courts/cou...10/03/state-tennessee-v-anthony-troy-williams

Appellant, Anthony Troy Williams,was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for driving on a canceled, suspended or revoked license, second offense. Appellant was convicted by a jury and sentenced to six months in jail and a fine of $2,500. On appeal, Appellant, pro se, challenges the constitutionality of the State's requirement that he have a license to drive in Tennessee. After a review of the record, we determine that Appellant was properly convicted of driving on a canceled, suspended, or revoked license. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Good luck, I eagerly await your story. Although I'd be sad if you disappear from here forever, to tell the truth.

Went posted "They inspired modern-day heroes, like Luther King or Mandela."

Regardless of your feelings about Mandela (I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with them, by the way), he spent decades in prison fighting peacefully against a law he considered unjust. Are you ready to do the same?

 

[PknTrainerKatelyn]

State of Tennessee v. Anthony Troy Williams,
Date Filed:
Wednesday, October 3, 2012

https://www.tncourts.gov/courts/cou...10/03/state-tennessee-v-anthony-troy-williams

Appellant, Anthony Troy Williams,was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for driving on a canceled, suspended or revoked license, second offense. Appellant was convicted by a jury and sentenced to six months in jail and a fine of $2,500. On appeal, Appellant, pro se, challenges the constitutionality of the State's requirement that he have a license to drive in Tennessee. After a review of the record, we determine that Appellant was properly convicted of driving on a canceled, suspended, or revoked license. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Good luck, I eagerly await your story. Although I'd be sad if you disappear from here forever, to tell the truth.



Regardless of your feelings about Mandela (I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with them, by the way), he spent decades in prison fighting peacefully against a law he considered unjust. Are you ready to do the same?

That's a lower court's desision, which was not in compliance with the Supreme Court rulings.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

You know the Supreme Court doesn't hear every single last case ever. The Supreme Court can even reject to hear an appealed case and many cases aren't even heard by the Supreme Court despite appeals. Reason being is usually **** like this. The Supreme Court is the end all be all when they say something but if they don't that doesn't mean it's not valid jurisdiction.

 

[for him.]

You know the Supreme Court doesn't hear every single last case ever. The Supreme Court can even reject to hear an appealed case and many cases aren't even heard by the Supreme Court despite appeals. Reason being is usually **** like this. The Supreme Court is the end all be all when they say something but if they don't that doesn't mean it's not valid jurisdiction.

Dai's right you know....

I am really starting to wonder if you passed American Government or US History in high school... Or if you have ever taken it.... Seems like you haven't in my opinion.

 

[Ivysaur]

That's a lower court's desision, which was not in compliance with the Supreme Court rulings.

Geez, I wonder why a Court in 2013 would bother passing a ruling so blatantly against SC precedent.

It's as if your SC precedent did not actually exist or had nothing to do with driving without a licence. Or else the guy's lawyer was so extremely incompetent he didn't think of bringing up a SC precedent that would have won him the case instantly. I wonder.

Oh, also, I forgot to address this:

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.

But that doesn't make legal sense. Of course, if a court deems a law unconstitutional, you can demand to be paid back for the trouble it caused you (as long as the court ruling doesn't add some sort of exception, such as the destruction of the Voting Rights Act- the ruling specified the law had been constitutional but no longer was from that day on, so nobody could complain about it having been applied to them previously). But sure, as long as a court kills it off, all the effects it ever had are null and void.

But the key here is that A COURT HAS TO SPECIFICALLY DECLARE A LAW VOID. You can't decide whether a law is unconstitutional or not by yourself. Even if you challenge it, you have to wait until it's branded illegal to be allowed to ignore it. Otherwise, we would have a la carte law, with every person choosing to decide whether they would like to follow a law or to ignore it because they think "it's unfair". Courts are there to rule, not you. And if a court says that law A is unconstitutional or has to be applied in X way, that doesn't give you the power to decide by yourself that a somewhat related law B must therefore be unconstitutional as well, which is what you are doing by bringing random rulings about vehicles and freedom of movement and somehow deciding that they allow you to drive without a licence, despite no court having ever specifically declared any licence laws unconstitutional ever in history.

Because if any court (specially the SC) had ever specifically declared that the requirement of holding a licence is not needed to drive and any law mandating that is unconstitutional, I can guarantee you there wouldn't be any courts in Tennessee appling those very laws just a year ago.

 

[PknTrainerKatelyn]

Here's two cases, same guy, from Sept for driving without license and other for no tag. Both dismissed. Third link is full report.

https://ccc.nashville.gov/portal/pa...eSearchPublicResults/?a1=1614182|3826517|CJIS

https://ccc.nashville.gov/portal/pa...eSearchPublicResults/?a1=1614183|3826519|CJIS

https://ccc.nashville.gov/portal/pl...names=a1&p_arg_values=STROUD|RANDALL|06101987

Also, what do you mean it doesn't make any sense that its unconstitutional upon enactment and not merely when its branded unconstitutional? Please see American Jurisprudence Book 16 and the following from within: AmJur2d Sec. 97, Sec.117, Sec. 255 and Sec. 256.

And Dai, in case you missed it, here's 4 case laws that support my claim:

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.]

And Kevo, you should know by now we shot all those cases down. Bringing them up again to fill up holes in your argument isn't going to work anymore. >.> Especially since you contradicted yourself with those cases earlier.

 

[Ivysaur]

Here's two cases, same guy, from Sept for driving without license and other for no tag. Both dismissed. Third link is full report.

https://ccc.nashville.gov/portal/pa...eSearchPublicResults/?a1=1614182|3826517|CJIS

https://ccc.nashville.gov/portal/pa...eSearchPublicResults/?a1=1614183|3826519|CJIS

https://ccc.nashville.gov/portal/pl...names=a1&p_arg_values=STROUD|RANDALL|06101987

A) Could you tell me more about the case? Other than a link that says "dismissed". I don't know, a small summary of what happened, and why it was dismissed. Maybe the cop didn't follow the proceedings in a proper way?

B) Again, you don't understand what jurisprudence means. Since you linked me back to the same link you posted several posts ago, I will just quote myself.

The key here is that A COURT HAS TO SPECIFICALLY DECLARE A LAW VOID. You can't decide whether a law is unconstitutional or not by yourself. Even if you challenge it, you have to wait until it's branded illegal to be allowed to ignore it. Otherwise, we would have a la carte law, with every person choosing to decide whether they would like to follow a law or to ignore it because they think "it's unfair". Courts are there to rule, not you.

C) Interestingly, none of the cases you mention says a single word about licences, so it's all your interpretation, not the courts'.

 

[PknTrainerKatelyn]

How can you shoot down those cases, especially case #2?? Its in clear, plain English! They're Supreme Court cases, so obviously, its ruled in my favor.

Here's a video that the defendant made explaining his case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfUYVn6RBiI&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[Ivysaur]

How can you shoot down those cases, especially case #2?? Its in clear, plain English! They're Supreme Court cases, so obviously, its ruled in my favor.

Here's a video that the defendant made explaining his case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfUYVn6RBiI&feature=youtube_gdata_player

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.

I still don't see the word "licence" anywhere. Notice they mention "a city", not "a state". And you can travel by automobile upon a public highway without being allowed to drive- just hitch someone else's car, or ride a bus.

And I don't want to hear the defendant. I want to hear the reason why the judge dismissed the case, to know his reasoning. That's all I ask for.

 

[for him.]

They're Supreme Court cases, so obviously, its ruled in my favor.

I guess we must bow down to you, oh holy one. >.>

That's condescending and overly confident. The world doesn't revolve around one single person, so sorry to say, but the Earth and the universe does not revolve around you.

 

[PknTrainerKatelyn]

^This kid... lol. I'm not saying the world revolves around me. I'm clearly stating that my arguments are valid and backed by the Supreme Law of the Land. He never saw the judge because when he was given a future court date, he went to make sure his papers were filed and when they pulled up his info it said dismissed on both charges. He went back and spoke to the DA to confirm and he said there's no need for him to go back to court over the matter.

Also, once again a privilege and license are the same thing. Rights do not require licensing.

 

[Kanzler]

You have the right to travel anywhere in this country freely - you don't have a right to drive a vehicle (at least not a constitutionally protected one). You're conflating the two, but they're separate ideas.

/endthread

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

Actually no, keep going, I'm not done with the popcorn yet.

I mean it's honestly pretty entertaining to read the mutilation of facts for someone's beliefs. I mean I have just one question that I must ask for probably the 5th time in this thread... what is the point to your arguing Kevo? You're basically saying that there should be no licenses because of some obscure court cases that never really went anywhere for aforementioned reasons (probably because the guy was pissed that he lost his license). Your facts don't line up and they're completely dismissing the fact that while yes, right to transportation is in the constitution, but ultimately a) there are other forms of transportation, b) the writers of the constitution had no way to foresee the dangers of driving a complicated vehicle such as an automobile (the writers of the constitution knew that times would change though and implemented that into the constitution, making literal readings of the document fairly foolish) and c) that the laws of licensing were enacted to protect people as opposed to oppressing people's rights.

There are some instances of c which are debatable (marijuana comes to mind) but I think the big difference is that while smoking marijuana may have some long term effects that can cause issues, with just the drug alone you're not gonna kill someone, most likely. With just a car and no skills to drive it you can kill yourself and plenty of others while you're at it. It's very black and white with driving.

Are you going to ***** about the legality of the Louisiana Purchase because it's basically the same ****.

I'm kind of bummed because if this was a public transportation debate this would be interesting and I'd have a lot to input but alas ;-;

 

[for him.]

How can you shoot down those cases, especially case #2?? Its in clear, plain English! They're Supreme Court cases, so obviously, its ruled in my favor.

Here's a video that the defendant made explaining his case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfUYVn6RBiI&feature=youtube_gdata_player

That statement says other says other wise Kevo. You clearly say that since they are Supreme Court cases, they are automatically supporting your argument.

But yes, what is your point, because I am not getting it. You are only giving us cases that have nothing to do with the title of this thread.

 

[Ivysaur]

I also want to point out that basic understanding of US law implies that if no court has removed the laws telling you to get a licence after decades of existence, you still have to get a licence today, as long as the law is still written. Look, the article of the Utah Constitution prohibiting same sex marriage is gone! A judge wrote it out! If madating licences was illegal, some judge would have done the same by now.

But regardless of US legal mumbo jumbo (I have no relationship with the US anyway), I think every driver should be forced to carry a permit to prove they can drive, because a car is not a freaking bike but something that can kill people in a matter of seconds (including the driver themselves) if not controlled correctly. If such a requirement is in some ridiculous pseudolaw way vetoed by the US constitution, then the US constitution should be amended. Because you might be able to drive (you said you own a licence already), but who says that random dude on the street can drive? Or why should a guy who has ran over 252 people and keeps ignoring every single traffic signal be allowed to keep puting people's lives at risk?

 

[PknTrainerKatelyn]

Since nobody seems to be getting my point, I'm going to try really hard to clarify though I've made myself pretty clear before. You have the Right to property. You have the Right to transport your property. If you buy an automobile, it is your property, therefore you have the Right to transport it at free will as long as you aren't using said vehicle to transport people or good FOR A FEE. No license or recurring tax need be imposed on property because its a direct vilation of your Rights. The only way a Right may be removed from a person is if they abuse that Right, but it has to be done property through Due Process and just because one person abuses a Right, doesn't mean it can be taken from everyone. If you kill or hurt someone or damage property with your automobile, of course you should (and will) be liable. Obviously, if a person is clearly travelling safely and not imposing a danger on people or property around him, there's no need for him to have a license. Again, its about common sense. Learn it before you use it. Public safety does NOT reign over Individual Rights and though safety is important, it should be crafted carefully to avoid violating Rights. Stops signs and traffic lights are important, I agree, but none of those impose a violation of the Right, whereas a license does. The Right to tavel in your private automobile should be regulated in the same sense that guns are. If you're convicted by the jury of a crime that involved an automobile (on a felony level), then you lose your Right to own an automobile, just like it is with guns.