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: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
I am not a 14th amendment citizen. I'll leave this discussion to those who are or who have subjugated themselves as such.




posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by bozzchem
I am not a 14th amendment citizen. I'll leave this discussion to those who are or who have subjugated themselves as such.



Can you please elaborate on what that means? The difference between the two?



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Ah...

You Americans are silly, but the OP doe make a point though.

I wonder how far this line can be drawn until you end up facing the barrel of a shotgun;



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Does this mean I can fly a plane without a pilot certificate? The Gov. built the interstates so I can understand them requiring you to know how to use them correctly so you don't hurt others and/or cause damage to their road. However, they didn't build nor do they own the air! As long as I don't fly into a restricted air space my right to travel and nose-dive freely in the air above the U.S. should be allowed too, right?




posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   
I seem to recall something along the lines of, at least within California, vehicles are defined as commercial- used for profit and personal- used for personal reasons. Commercial would be used-... trucks, bus, taxis and limosine services, to perform transportation duties to those willing to pay or unwilling to transport themselves and thus the vehicle and operator must be licensed for such operation, and personal vehicles used for the purpose of shopping trips, transportation to/from work facilities, etc. are not operated "for profit", as in money is not earned by operating the vehicle and thus not required to be licensed for operation nor is the operator required to be licensed to operate said vehicle.

I could be wrong, or mis-interpreted what I read though.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by abecedarian
 


In fact you are correct. All operators (for hire/paid) are required to be licensed. However, all non use of a car does not require any license, registration or insurance. Insurance is illegal in the US as it comes under the RICO act but since the Gov can use it as a form of debt/tax collection it OK. Making a "traveler" responsible for what they do while traveling would curb many from not following safe practices. Insurance absolves one of such responsibility.

Though a license is not required it is only fair to the public as a whole to require people too have passed a competency test showing they have the knowledge and practical skill to do so. In the end it is a tight rope that both the traveler and Gov must walk without getting in the way of each other.

As to the question regarding non-commercial aircraft by another poster, the same would apply. But should a person decide to attempt flight without proper training and demonstrating your ability to do so via a knowledge test and practical test is a recipe for disaster. Would you really want someone flying a plane without first proving that they can? I think not! There are rules of the road, air and sea that need to be followed for the safety of the public. You just can't hop in a car, plane or ship and do what you want, thus the need for a license/certificate saying you know how to do so safely.

There are pro's and con's on both sides of the license fence. Using a license/certificate as proof of competency is the right way of doing things but using the license as a form of taxation and restriction is not.

Just my $.02 worth.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by pstrron
 

Star and flag for you my friend .Second line .



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by againuntodust
 


ive been on the same lines, one can only speculate but it just some how looks like a private company policy has become a govermental standard

i mean one would assume that the laws are as they are laid out ,plain and simple



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by tooo many pills
Does this mean I can fly a plane without a pilot certificate? The Gov. built the interstates so I can understand them requiring you to know how to use them correctly so you don't hurt others and/or cause damage to their road. However, they didn't build nor do they own the air! As long as I don't fly into a restricted air space my right to travel and nose-dive freely in the air above the U.S. should be allowed too, right?




If you buy a plane, you might need a little lesson on how to fly it and get certified, but if you build your own flying machine you already know how it works so a certificate would be unnecessary. It would seem that under the precedents in the Original Post that you certainly should be able to, with or without a certificate, either way.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   
I personally prefer that the general population be licensed in order to drive. Can you imagine what the roads would be like if not? Can you imagine millions of unlicensed teenagers driving all over creation? Not a pretty thought.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by abecedarian
I seem to recall something along the lines of, at least within California, vehicles are defined as commercial- used for profit and personal- used for personal reasons. Commercial would be used-... trucks, bus, taxis and limosine services, to perform transportation duties to those willing to pay or unwilling to transport themselves and thus the vehicle and operator must be licensed for such operation, and personal vehicles used for the purpose of shopping trips, transportation to/from work facilities, etc. are not operated "for profit", as in money is not earned by operating the vehicle and thus not required to be licensed for operation nor is the operator required to be licensed to operate said vehicle.

I could be wrong, or mis-interpreted what I read though.


Commercial vehicles... reminds me of UCC, uniform commercial code. As a matter of fact, now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure that's how they're getting away with violating the constitution. They say their jurisdiction to do so comes from the constitution's commerce clause, where they are able to regulate commerce.

Originally, a driver's license was granted to COMMERCIAL vehicles, because they needed the money to help repair the roads due to the increase in travel thereon:


"The statutory requirement that licenses be procured for motor vehicles used upon the highways is based on the servitude put on the highways by such use and the advantage which the improved highways may afford the business in which the motor vehicle is employed." Patterson vs. Southern Ry. Co., 198 S.E. 364, 214 N.C. 38.

"The privilege of using the streets and highways by the operation thereon of motor carriers for hire can be acquired only by permission or license from the state or its political subdivisions." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., p.920.


Now if it can get any clearer we have this:



"No statutory duty lies to apply for, or to possess a driver license for personal travel and transportation as defendant is not within the class of persons for whose benefit or protection the statute was enacted." Routh v. Quinn, 20 Cal 2d 488.


So my right to travel somehow became a privilege where I need government permission. How did that happen?

Also note: The ability for government to "regulate commerce" was also the line they were using when the current administration wanted to FORCE every American to BUY health insurance. The other side of the fence made such a big stink about it that it was found unconstitutional. I wonder if someone made a big enough stink about this, if we could get our right to travel back.
edit on 15-1-2011 by againuntodust because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by daryllyn
I personally prefer that the general population be licensed in order to drive. Can you imagine what the roads would be like if not? Can you imagine millions of unlicensed teenagers driving all over creation? Not a pretty thought.


I prefer that drivers know how to drive. I don't prefer the license. I don't see teenagers driving all over creation since they won't be able to afford a car, and if their parents buy them a car they will be taught how to drive. Driving tests are a sham. You learn on your own, they don't teach you anything. And after a period of time, you show them that you can drive and they give you a piece of paper with your picture on it stamped "GOOD TO GO". How about we just learn on our own and after a period of time we can drive, and take the government out of it.

It's brake, gas, and steer. I think most people are smart enough to figure that out.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by againuntodust

Originally posted by daryllyn
I personally prefer that the general population be licensed in order to drive. Can you imagine what the roads would be like if not? Can you imagine millions of unlicensed teenagers driving all over creation? Not a pretty thought.


I prefer that drivers know how to drive. I don't prefer the license. I don't see teenagers driving all over creation since they won't be able to afford a car, and if their parents buy them a car they will be taught how to drive. Driving tests are a sham. You learn on your own, they don't teach you anything. And after a period of time, you show them that you can drive and they give you a piece of paper with your picture on it stamped "GOOD TO GO". How about we just learn on our own and after a period of time we can drive, and take the government out of it.

It's brake, gas, and steer. I think most people are smart enough to figure that out.


Upon reading the OP, I had the image of people that should not be allowed to drive, driving all over the place. I have to agree that you learn from experience more than anything.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by againuntodust
 


What if someone without a drivers license who doesn't know how to drive ends up crashing into my car and killing me. Doesn't that impose on my right to Life?



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by freedish
reply to post by againuntodust
 


What if someone without a drivers license who doesn't know how to drive ends up crashing into my car and killing me. Doesn't that impose on my right to Life?


Yes.

And?

What if someone with a drivers license who doesn't know how to drive ends up crashing into your car and killing you. Doesn't that impose on your right to Life?



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by nasdack24k
 


Good point. But driving a car isn't like riding a bike. People need to be educated on how to use it. Maybe the government shouldn't do it, but if they don't who will?
I guess people could teach themselves...but i really don't see a problem with the current system.
I have an honest question, I'm too lazy to do the research- how do our countries traffic deaths compare to other countries who don't have gov controlled traffic regulations.

edit on 15-1-2011 by freedish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   
We are being duped.

Travelling is a right. Driving is a commercial activity. By registering your car you are handing over the title of the car to the government. A title is a certificate of ownership. (Just as Mr or Mrs is a title, yes you are owned too but that is for another thread.) We therefor have agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of a contract.

On a UK car registration form is clearly states that you are the registered keeper, not the owner. The government owns your car and thus they can make you abide by whatever regulations they like as you are driving their car.

There is quite a lot of information about this and common law jurisdiction at TPUC.org

edit on 15-1-2011 by Namaste1001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-1-2011 by Namaste1001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Very interesting post. I came to the same conclusions, the whole driving-shools industry is a big scam, especially here in France, with a minimum of 20 hours, the whole thing costs about 600 to 1500 €, if u r lucky.

The "road code" (signalization, priorities etc..) should be taught in schools, for free.

The whole car thing is a real golden egg goose for the government, from oil taxes, to speeding tickets...

I'm still laughing thinking about this dude who said " the state built the roads" ... with whom money ?



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by freedish
 


I'm glad you brought up that it's not like a bike, but the thing is... It really is like learning to ride a bike.
Both are simply a means of getting from one place to another, both are simply a metal frame on rubber tires and a power source. Both have the same consequences if the operator fails to follow the rules of the road in a crucial moment: an accident.
You must learn to safely operate a bicycle and to follow the rules of the road just like when operating a car, and on a bicycle you have much less protection in the event of a wreck, yet we still allow people to ride their bikes on the roads with no need for license, registration, minimum age, etc..

So why do we feel the need to license people to operate a car?

edit: I also want to include that I agree that we should still have officers enforcing traffic rules, but it shouldn't be a rule in itself to have to pay for and continually renew driver's licenses. I do also think it should be against the law to refuse to identify yourself to a traffic enforcement officer in the event you're being cited for breaking other traffic rules.


edit on 1/15/2011 by nasdack24k because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   
I learned to drive when I was 8, and by the time I was 10 I could drive way better than a lot of those idiots out there with licenses lol. Probably had something to do with a fear of getting my ass whooped if I smashed the old truck.




top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join