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.

 

Driver's Licenses violate the 5th and 14th Amendments - Disagree?

page: 1
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
I'm still trying to work this out for myself, so if you can lend understanding or criticism to this idea then please do.

The Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution declare that governments cannot deprive any person of "life, liberty or property" without due process of law.

"The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles 357 U.S. 116, 12

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon,
either by a carriage, or automobile
, is not a mere privilege which a City may prohibit or permit at
will, but a common right which he has under the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of
Happiness."
Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579.

According to these precedents and amendments, it seems to me that it is perfectly legal to drive a car without a driver's license, registration, or insurance. If government cannot PERMIT or prohibit a citizen to travel in an automobile, then they cannot issue a PERMIT aka license, unless you let them have that power over you.

Here is the document that got me interested in this. It is a "notice of right to travel" that you give a police officer during a traffic stop, instead of giving him your license and insurance.


Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and registrations.


This article leads to the conclusion that Government -- in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question -- is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to travel.

I'm not a lawyer and have always done what I've been told to do by the authorities when it comes to matters such as this, but I am inclined to believe that we do not require driver's licenses and can only be punished for not having them if we voluntarily allow ourselves to be.

Any deeper insight on this? Any opinions on the "notice" document I have referenced?
edit on 14-1-2011 by againuntodust because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
While it certainly sounds good, I am really unsure about this whole "driving is a privilege" crap. Then you are not allowed to walk on certain roads(interstates, toll roads and others) so how are they not interfering with our right to travel? I just do not have enough information to formulate a good opinion here.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
The Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution declare that governments cannot deprive any person of "life, liberty or property" without due process of law.
- Don't understand how this would give you the right to drive without a license tbh. you can have a car, you have the liberty to buy one, but nothing about using it for purposes that aren't legal.

"The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles 357 U.S. 116, 12
- It doesn't say that it is free to choose which transportation you use, you can travel to ervery place, but you can't choose how.

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon,
either by a carriage, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which a City may prohibit or permit at
will, but a common right which he has under the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of
Happiness." Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579.
- Here stands clearly a city can't prohibit you, but it says nothing about the state.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Very interesting argument here....

IMO, you can walk anywhere you want... so travel is not limited or prohibited.

Since the government(s) oversee the roadways and are responsible for public safety and well-being, I can certainly see the need to pass a few tests that show that you can be responsible about other people's safety. Thus, having a license would make sense, qualifying you to travel in a vehicle on the roads they are responsible for. A car can be used as a weapon, not just for travel, so it is up to the driver to be responsible and not do such a thing. This seems logical then, to put provisions in place such as a driving test to make sure you are responsible, and registration and insurance that allows them to find you if you hurt someone, and ask you to pay for damages if there is someone else's property damaged or life lost.

Just my opinion... I'm sure others will have far better input.

Good post and very intriguing question. S&F


~Namaste



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Right , you do not need any permits to drive a car at all.

Where they get you, is when you sign documents and agree to the Commerce Clause.

That's when you need permits. After you sign away all of your rights to the mafia. I mean Govt.

But please be warned. Most cops in America are completely illegally minded and tyrannical in nature. They never studied law because they can merely MAKE IT UP AS THEY GO.

So just watch out. Just because the law is on your side doesn't mean a cop won't beat you up and arrest you for something you are rightfully entitled to do.

This is the problem we are facing. An illegitimate government tyranny fueled by ignorance and lies.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   
I think you're correct and I also think you could apply that to most if not all other 'license' requirements.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Here is a short video that may help, also a link that may also help.
14th Amendment Citizenship: Citizen or citizen?


Also, www.natural-person.ca...

Peace, NRE.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   
I'm always interested in this subject too, and here is a link to an old ATS thread people might find useful

www.abovetopsecret.com...

apparantly this guy got off although it seems like a hassle

and another link about how driving USE to be a RIGHT. At least it was in Detroit:

www.us-highways.com...



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Naradia
 


You make a good point about being able to travel is a right, but "how" is another matter. I think a reasonable court would find that travel by the method of the day whether it be foot, horse, or car, would fall under the travel doctrine but I'm not certain, hence the thread.

The other point about a city vs a state, again I can't say for certain, but I lean toward the opinion that if a city cannot then a state cannot in this instance.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Car comes from Carriage. The horse drawn type.

Riding a horse or driving a carriage never required special permissions.

All you do is hop on, and ride away.

It's a natural right based on practicality.

Everything is dangerous. I could be walking on foot and trip and die. So what should we require licences to walk?

The only true purpose of licencing is two-fold. Raise tax $ and restrict your human rights.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


What you're suggesting is a certificate rather than a license, which I think I agree with!



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by againuntodust
 




What you're suggesting is a certificate rather than a license, which I think I agree with!


As long as they get something proving they can drive. One city I used to live in had an influx of immigrants, with the husbands from India, teaching their wives how to drive on the wrong side of the road! What a nightmare.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   
A "license" to show that you are qualified to drive an automobile, yes.
However governments have made it that you must have this license to drive whether you are qualified or not.
They have gotten into the debt collection business.
In cooperation with other parties they take your license to force you to pay certain debts.


For instance. Auto accident, no insurance. Injured parties "uninsured motorist insurance" pays.(altho reluctantly) Then injured party's insurance co. goes after both the driver at the time and the owner of the auto.
Gets a judgment. Now State revokes license of both driver and owner until judgment is paid.

In this case without a driver's license neither party can work to pay the judgment.
Something is really wrong with this.

As to insurance....it should be that everyone insures himself and family. The blame game is financially inefficient.
Oh, it is efficient and profitable for Lawyers. The insurance companies however would do better if they didn't have to hire lawyers in the process of settling and or making claims. Seems like a Make Work set up.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   
You are 100% correct all forms of licences are illegal under natural law . Licences, permits and even passports are govened by corporate law . You are only govened by it because you are entering into a legally binding contract with a corporation upon application .Any penalties incurred are from breach of contract .You are consenting to be governed by entering into a agreement with the corporation .Very simple deception that the corporation will never inform you of or the corporation would not exist. Licences are illegal because they are restrictive of trade and anti compeditive meaning any kind of business that requires a licence to opporate is being controlled , manipulated ,restricted and penelized by another business (the corporation) .Drivers licences and passports opporate on the same principle .



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by againuntodust
reply to post by Naradia
 


You make a good point about being able to travel is a right, but "how" is another matter. I think a reasonable court would find that travel by the method of the day whether it be foot, horse, or car, would fall under the travel doctrine but I'm not certain, hence the thread.

The other point about a city vs a state, again I can't say for certain, but I lean toward the opinion that if a city cannot then a state cannot in this instance.


Perhaps, but I also think that the court would think about safety, and they will say that mobility like a bus/tram/... is as quick as a car so the car doesn't have to be included in that right.

They wanted to give that power to the highest ruler in the country (the state), and wanted to make sure a city couldn't make such a big decision.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   
It's really about the semantics. You have the right to travel. But nowhere does it say you have the right to "operate" a vehicle which are two entirely different things. Having or not having a license does not entail whether or not you're allowed to travel. It says whether or not you're qualified to operate the vehicle in question.
edit on 1/14/2011 by Terrormaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
kinda been thing about this lately.. mostly because my car failed a smog check in June of last year.. Iv paid my registration already for the year (which is total BS, because i already registered the car with Ca. when i bought it, why i have to re-register it every year is stupid) anyways... the DMV wont give me a 2011 tag for the plate until i pass a smog... so, expired tag = pulled over and possible impound on the spot... BAM.. depriving me of my property without due process of law!



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2012DragonSlayer
kinda been thing about this lately.. mostly because my car failed a smog check in June of last year.. Iv paid my registration already for the year (which is total BS, because i already registered the car with Ca. when i bought it, why i have to re-register it every year is stupid) anyways... the DMV wont give me a 2011 tag for the plate until i pass a smog... so, expired tag = pulled over and possible impound on the spot... BAM.. depriving me of my property without due process of law!


Actually the law says your vehicle must be registered and certified safe to be on the road. If that's not done you've clearly broken the law. In this case I would be tempted to say that due process is their database showing you haven't registered your vehicle. The impound is like jail for your vehicle. Get the right paperwork and registration done and your car can make bail ;-)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Terrormaster
 


Just because it's a law doesn't mean it will hold up in court... if he decides to drive his car with a homemade license plate and get pulled over, he can just provide to the police officer the notice I provided in the original post. What happens from there, though, I have no idea about - rather curious actually.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   
This is under the law of kings title. Also known as allodial title.
Look it up, it is far to confusing for me to explain.

Basically unless you have allodial title to an item you don't own it. That is why police can impound your car, take your home or any other real property.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join