It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Police encounter. Freeman gets off driving without a license.

page: 8
55
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Yea, just asking really, I mean if someone were to do this all the way, wouldn't that pretty much end their citizenship, thus, all protections under the United States Constitution?



The Bill of Rights is not a grant of rights but a prohibition on Congress from abrogating and derogating rights. Rights are not limited to citizens, at least not inalienable rights which are those rights enumerated in The Bill of Rights. Consider the 9th Amendment as evidence of the inalienable nature of rights and precisely who they belong to:


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


~9th Amendment, Bill of Rights; The Constitution for the United States of America~

Take note how these un-enumerated rights are retained by the people, not citizens.

I keep thinking you are in the State of Michigan, is that correct? If it is, consider what that state constitution has to say about rights beginning with the Preamble:


We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom, and earnestly desiring to secure these blessings undiminished unto ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution.


Almighty God is mentioned to make clear where these rights have come from, and it ain't from government. Also take note how it is "we the people, not citizens. For further evidence look at Article I, Section 1 of the Declaration of Rights of that same constitution:


Sec. 1. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal benefit, security and protection.


Again, political power inherent in the people, not citizens. There are civil rights, which are legal rights granted by government, and there are inalienable rights that remain non-transferable. Government under our Constitution, and your constitution in Michigan can not take an inalienable right and turn it into a civil right.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]




posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by twitchy
 


But it's states that issue drivers licenses, you don't get a federal drivers license, you get one from the state, therefore it's a 10th Amendment issue isn't it?



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


when going to a DMV I have been damn near hit more times then I care to count, seen people suddenly tear out into traffic where they almost get tboned, etc. I don't have a license yet, I go to entertain someone when they need to go there!

I want to know who gave them their license, and how do I get one? Everything i've seen these people do is a instant fail on a driving test... who was asleep when they gave them their license?

"licensed" does not mean anyone is better....



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


I am by no means an expert so don't read anymore into my opinion than you would any other on this one, but it's my understanding that a licensce is commerce related. You already have the constitutional right to 'travel', but as a liscensed 'driver', you are consenting to abide by the statutes and rules governing your 'commerce' as a corporate entity conducting commerce in your state of residence. You're agreeing to a contract of sorts and therefore becomming a licensee of that contract. You already had the right to travel, you were born with it.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by twitchy]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by twitchy
 


But it's states that issue drivers licenses, you don't get a federal drivers license, you get one from the state, therefore it's a 10th Amendment issue isn't it?


Keeping with my assumption that you are in the State of Michigan, (which is why I linked that Driver's Handbook from 1937 from Michigan), consider what Section 27 of The Michigan constitution say's which practically mirrors the 9th Amendment. If the people, or any individual that is a person, retains the right to drive, or travel if semantics matter, then what say you of that?

[edit on 26-6-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by twitchy
 


The right to travel freely, I can absolutely agree with that, that is why we don't need paperwork to go from state to state. Now, when you get into a 2000 lb vehicle and travel 70+ miles an hour, on the interstate highway system, a system by the way that was created by the federal government for the purpose of interstate commerce.

Don't get me wrong, I don't really know how I feel about this whole thing, I am merely asking questions in order to formulate an educated opinion.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 



Keeping with my assumption that you are in the State of Michigan, (which is why I linked that Driver's Handbook from 1937 from Michigan), consider what Section 27 of The Michigan constitution say's which practically mirrors the 9th Amendment. If the people, or any individual that is a person, retains the right to drive, or travel if semantics matter, then what say you of that?


I am not really sure, I am reserving an opinion till I have more facts on the matter. Initially it seems that one would have the right to travel. (That is of course a given, we are allowed to roam freely in this country) But does that give us the right to use a motor vehicle for that same purpose? Maybe that is why many states put the distinction on a drivers license saying it's a "Motor vehicle operators license"

After all, one does not need a drivers license to operate a bicycle. But it seems that one needs a license to operate the engine of a motor vehicle.

As I said, I don't know, I am just asking questions at this point.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


It is good you are asking these questions, but did you look at that handbook I linked earlier? That simple book gives great examples as to why we have traffic and parking ordinances, and it isn't about denying rights, but about protecting rights. Licensing schemes are hardly that, as is evidenced by the current dogma of DMV's which is to assert that driving is a privilege and not a right. With that kind of assertion, you can be sure rights are not being protected. Also, read you state constitution, as I suspect you will, or all ready have, but that rights are guaranteed to all is point of law.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


you make a good point about the GITMO/Freeman thing. Being a Freeman sounds good until they can detain you for not being a citizen. I wonder if being born here and renouncing your citizenship makes you an "alien" in legal terms. But thats a great point and a reason I wouldnt do it unless i had all the facts.

also the whole drive vs travel thing is interesting. I've been stopped by the police just riding my bicycle in the twilight hours and they asked for my ID. I said I didnt have it on me because i didnt think I needed it. They seemed annoyed but they let it go and mumbled something about me needing a bike headlight (they should come with them if you HAVE to have them I say).

next time I'll be sure to say that I am "traveling" around for exercise


and whaddya know, I'm in MI too...

[edit on 26-6-2010 by Totalstranger]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher
 


I was not directing that to you I was directing the question to Grossac who ...


the question you are referring to is against the terms and conditions of ATS, i think ...

www.abovetopsecret.com...&addstar=1&on=59392#pid59392


You will not solicit personal information from any member.


but, when held in the context of all the laws i do not know, maybe that law too, is ..... ???

what do i know,
ET



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher
 


Of course, the "laws" or rules of this site are predicated on the natural law of ownership, which reminds me of a commercial that used to run on television; A young man has just been given the keys to the new home he has purchased from a real estate agency, then immediately goes to the air conditioning thermostat and turns on the air conditioner. After that, he begins opening all the doors and windows, and when that is accomplished, picks up the phone and dials a number:

"Hello Dad? Yeah, I just got the keys just now, and I am officially in my new home, and I just wanted to let you know that I have all my doors and windows open and the air conditioner is on!"

...

"My house, my rules Mr.!"



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


You remind me of someone I know from "long ago and far away" [on another internet forum
] You're first name wouldn't happen to be Chuck would it?


Anyway, I understand what you are saying, especially the Wiccan Rede. Heck... I've said *exactly* the *same* thing.

But, I must ask, what of someone such as myself, who does NOT believe in God? Does that mean that these "Natural Laws" don't apply to me and when y'all toss out the "tyrants" of today I will be ABSOLUTELY FREE to do ANYTHING I WANT because I don't acknowledge your god's sovereignty over my earthly being?


"God" is the creative power behind the universe. He follows natural law, apparently, as that is the rules the govern the universe. Your life should be no different. Deviation from natural law is an affront to this.

Whether you believe this creative force to be sentient or not does not change the fact that it obviously exists, as evidenced by the fruits of its creation.

If you are an atheist, would you not say that this creative force is logic and reason, as it follows the logical progression of events defined by the concepts of Newtons Laws of Thermodynamics? And would an atheist not hold logic and reason in reverence?

Funny thing is, even though i am not atheistic (i am a deist) i still hold logic and reason in reverence as being just a facet of this creative force, which i do believe to be sentient.

edit to add: no, i am not "Chuck" (thankfully...who wants to be named after a cut of meat?)


[edit on 26-6-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
It absolutely astounds me that people think America is "fascist" or "tyrannical". As someone who lived her early years (until about 14) under the Soviet Union, I can absolutely promise you that you have no clue what you are talking about. You are free to buy what you'd like, move where you'd like, you don't have to let other families, whom you don't even know, share your home, you can choose your physicians, your schools, and your employers, and you are free to vote for any person and any party you see fit, even if they aren't on the ballot.

To call what you have in America fascist or tyrannical only highlights how self-absorbed and ethnocentric the culture has become.


You know, the funniest part about this post is that i had to look no further than your own signature line to refute what you just said:



"Fascism is capitalism in decay" ~Vladimir Ilyich Lenin



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by angrysniper
 



i have a 12 year old that loves guns. He is a good kid, but i am not taking any chances at him mistakenly doing something horrible.

I am a large, former powerlifting champion. Putting a firing pin in only takes a few minutes for someone who knows what they are doing, and i feel sorry for anyone who comes into my home. You may take me....but it ain't gonna feel very good.

i am not a violent man. but like any human, when cornered i am not the same person.

I don't fear anything. it is just part of the mindset of someone who is bigger than everyone else, and treats everyone they meet with compassion and logic. you just kind of get used to being kind of fearless in daily life.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   
i dont vote, i dont care what the government does, i want government to leave me alone as i dont depend on it in any way, and i dont ever want to depend on it ever!!!



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe

True, but in my state sales tax on a car, any car, no matter the value, does not exceed $300.00. And sales tax is based on sales price by some formula...



i've paid almost almost $90,000 in mandatory insurance payments required by law of me.



Dude you're getting hosed. I have full coverage on two cars (one a relatively new Buick) for about $97 a month. It would take me decades upon decades to pay $90,000 for insurance. I would probably be dead before I ever paid that much.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by warequalsmurder
Oops, somebody needs to go look in the encyclopedia and educate themselves and her handle starts with the letter V!. What you just descibed in no way defines fascism. It only shows the end results and contrary to what you say here, the historians beg to differ with your assertion that Stalin was a fascist to begin with. The only person who is having trouble comprehending things right now is you because you are obviously mixing up Totalitarianism (i.e. Stalin's form of government) with Fascism. As to the rest of this paragraph, sob, sob but that was all the results of totalitarianism not fascism.

Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2][3][4] Fascists seek to organize a nation on corporatist perspectives, values, and systems such as the political system and the economy.[5][6]

Source

Please look into Soviet history and the oligarchs. This was fascism.



Yeah, like us Americans haven't gotten off our butts and tried that already. That's a nice lecture reserved for cogs like yourself. "Oh dear, oh my, let's go visit the Diebold laptops that are so honest and true with never a shred of controversy on throwing elections!" Just one more example of your head being stuck in the sand.


You know you can request a paper ballot at any polling place, right? I did, simply because I prefer it. My vote showed up in the 1% of the county that voted Socialist or Green. Seems like it was counted to me. Why is it so hard for you to believe that the results are actually how people voted?


VneZonyDostupal
Well whoopy F##ing doo! Did you all obtain a permit before you marched like we have to do here now? Was it approved? Did they tell you all you could march a few miles away from the government buildings like they do to us now? Or did they send in police agitators like they do here now in order to break the peaceful march into a violent melee so that they could come in with their batons swinging? And by the way, you marched for a drunk. Good on you. Pull your head out of the sand.


No, we didn't obtain a permit, and you don't need one to protest in America, either. We protested Bush when he came to our medical school in 2008, holding signs in the road, on the sidewalk, on the campus, and not once were we asked my city or campus police if we had a permit. You're confusing peaceful protests with the idiots who SAY they were protesting epacefully and are, in fact, throwing stones, blocking roadways, and damaging property.


VneZonyDostupal

Yeah, that's nice. But you all were still stuck with Totalitarianism and not Fascism so you ain't squirming out of the bag with these statements Doc.


No, not really. We had a nationalised corporate system, a central committee in Moscow and smaller committees in each city/town/village, and a collectivist style economy. None of those fit totalitariansim.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


I'm not sure how that's a refutation? America is not, and never has been, a purely capitalist society. Lenin was referring to the "ideal" societies in the statement, namely, ideal capitalism, ideal communism.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


I'm not sure how that's a refutation? America is not, and never has been, a purely capitalist society. Lenin was referring to the "ideal" societies in the statement, namely, ideal capitalism, ideal communism.


So you are saying that America is not a capitalist society? Even though every Communist leader throughout the Cold War described us as such?

You are aware of the part of WWII history where it was basically far right ideology (Nazi's) vs far left idealism (Russia). Europe was attempting to just stop losing sovereignty. When the war ended, Project Paperclip brought on board many of the ex-Nazi's (Facists), some of whom served as the seed for the CIA (who seems to be running the show now, honestly).

But, to your point...perhaps that is why you don't see the USA as facist currently. You are looking for pure forms of government, and there aren't any. We are somewhat capitalist, which has degraded into a somewhat facist government.

And neither is within the vision of how our nation was founded. As a matter of fact, our founding fathers warned against much of what ails us today. They warned explicitly.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


No, America isn't capitalist. It is a social democracy by every definition. And I'm not looking for "pure forms of government", I was simply putting the quote in my signature in context for you. American schools don't seem to teach anything about Lenin, nor any of his writing, which is why I assumed you didn't know what the quotes was referring to.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Perhaps this link will provide more insight into the situation: www.apfn.org... It appears that these situations hold up in court quite well, and I would love to exercise my rights I think I will talk to my lawyer about this...

"It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution."

Now lets tackle the insurance issue:

The way I view it your vehicle is your private property just like your home, and if you value your property you have the option to purchase insurance in fear that something detrimental happens to said property. So if someone hits your car and you don't have insurance that is your own fault for not protecting your investment, same way if a tree falls on your house and you don't have home owners insurance then that is your fault for not protecting your investment. Since home owners insurance is not a requirement to own a home, auto insurance should not be required to operate a motor vehicle.

I guess I better start hitting the streets of Russia to voice my opinion or I will be considered a lazy American
That little girl cracks me up...


No, America isn't capitalist.


capitalism--an economic (not political or governmental) system that favors and requires a free market, competition, and private (as opposed to governmental) ownership of the means of production (i.e., businesses)

Wrong America IS capitalism...


[edit on 26-6-2010 by arpanet]




top topics



 
55
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join