It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The style of the acts shall be: "The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:".
SECTION 6. Laws.—Every law shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected therewith, and the subject shall be briefly expressed in the title. No law shall be revised or amended by reference to its title only. Laws to revise or amend shall set out in full the revised or amended act, section, subsection or paragraph of a subsection. The enacting clause of EVERY law SHALL read: “Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:”.
KENTUCKY COURT OF APPEALS. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, Appt., v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD' COMPANY. (— Ky. —, 170 S. W. 171.) Statute — absence of enacting clause — effect. A statute without an enacting clause is void where the Constitution provides a form of law which includes such clause.
Under a constitutional provision requiring an enacting clause, the majority of the courts hold that an enacting clause is a necessity, the requirement of such a clause being regarded as mandatory. Burritt T. State Contract Comrs. 120 111. 322, 11 N. E. 180; May v. Rice. 91 Ind. 546: People v. Dettenthaler, 118 Mich. 595, 44 L.R.A. 164, 77 N. W. 450; Sjoberg v. Security Sav. & L. Asso. 73 Minn. 203, 72 Am. St. Rep. 616, 75 N. W. 1118; State ex rel. Chase v. Rogers, 10 Nev. 250, 21 Am. Rep. 738; State v. Patterson, 98 N. C. 660, 4 S. E. 350; State ex rel. Gouge v. Burrow, 119 Tenn. 376, 104 S. W. 520, 14 Ann. Cas. 809; Montgomery Amusement Co. v. Montgomery Traction Co. 139 Fed. 353, affirmed in 72 C. C. A. 6S2, 140 Fed. 988.
Chapter 68, Acts of 1914 (2J-ccnt fare Law), is void for want of an enacting clause.
Consequently, a statute which has no enacting clause is void. Walden v. Whigman, 120 Ga. 646, 48 S. E. 159; People v. Dettenthaler, 118 Mich. 505, 44 L.R.A. 164, 77 N. W. 450; Sjoberg v. Security Sav. & L. Asso. 73 Minn. 203, 72 Am. St. Rep. 610, 75 N. W. 1116; State v. Patterson, 98 N. C. 000, 4 S. E. 350.
Some decisions in which the enacting clause is absent go merely to the extent of holding that at least a substantial compliance is necessary, and there being none the statute is void. Vinsant v. Knox
Originally posted by ThichHeaded
I want to give this a bump.. I would like to see a cop answer some of this that has been put on here and see what they have to say.. I know we have a few on ATS..
Originally posted by Hefficide
And the "why" of this is glaringly obvious and simple...
Most motor vehicle laws, including licensing, registration, as well as most traffic violations, exist as state or local revenue creation devices. The fees and fines involved literally provide the honey pot that our "protectors" feed from.
Originally posted by YouSir
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Ummmm........I have read through the entirity of this thread, whenever, I read threads like this, one question stands out glaringly and I have not asked it yet, nor have I seen an adequate representation of an answer anywhere.......
How can an individual, lawfully, be considered to have entered into a binding contract with a federal or state corporate entity, when the individual in question was 1... too young to have lawfully represented or been represented or informed of such contract, ie., social security, as per an social security number. 2... never been informed of or approached by a federal, state, or local corporate entity, that a contract was even implied, when various federal, state, or local, "statuates" were entered in upon by said individual. ie., licensing, taxation, registration, etc...?
Wouldn't the noninformative, unimplied, nature of any contract, unknowingly, entered into, by purposeful, nondisclosure of said contractual nature, be considered nefarious and coercive, therefore unlawful...?
Is this a lawful argument, in regaining your "strawman"...?
YouSiredit on 30-1-2011 by YouSir because: edit to add final lineedit on 30-1-2011 by YouSir because: edit to add salutationedit on 30-1-2011 by YouSir because: edit to readd salutation
Originally posted by 23refugee
Originally posted by macman
Ok, so what is the point?
The point of the threads from the cops is kind of a "please understand" thread.
Cops don't know you from Adam. They are paid to uphold the law and enforce the same.
But, they are paid to win and go home at the end of the day.
If you want to fight a cop, do it so after the traffic stop, ticket or arrest. Work your way through the chain of command, then to Internal Affairs onto the Chief of Police. Nothing hurts a cop more then an IA investigation.
If you want to physically fight a cop, doom on you.
Aside from your assurance, how is one to know that "Nothing hurts a cop more then an IA investigation"?
If all cops "are paid to win and go home at the end of the day", it would seem that working your way up the chain of command is little more than an exercise in futility designed to deter the complaintant.
Driving recklessly, for example, is a threat to individuals, both driving in traffic and walking as pedestrians. It matters not whether a person has a license to drive or not, if they are endangering other people, they are not acting by right, but acting criminally, and as a police officer it is your sworn duty to deal with such people.
Farm Tractor Road Safety.pdf
Operator Responsibilities If an operator is impaired by the use of drugs, alcohol, prescription drugs or fatigue, he places his life and the lives of others in danger. While operators are exempt from the licensing portion of the law, they are not released from liability resulting from improper or illegal acts.
2. The following vehicles are not required to be registered or inspected or to display a license plate when operated temporarily upon the highways:
a. Farm tractors.
b. Farm trailers, farm semi-trailers, and certain fertilizer and cottonseed trailers weighing not more than 4,000 pounds gross.
c. Implements of husbandry.
d. Power sweepers.
e. Certain golf carts.
Exemptions: Persons operating the following vehicles are exempt from a Commercial Driver License (CDL): 1. A vehicle that is: a. controlled and operated by a farmer;
b. used to transport agricultural products, farm machinery, or farm supplies to or from a farm;
c. not used in the operations of a common or contract motor carrier; and
d. used within 150 miles of the person’s farm.
7. Farm registered vehicles, in addition to use for farm and ranch purposes, may be used as a means of passenger transportation for members of the family to attend church or school, to visit doctors for medical treatment or supplies, or for other necessities of the home or family - but not for gainful employment.
However, in Texas, the terms "Farm to Market Road" or "Ranch to Market Road" indicate a road that is part of the state's system of secondary and connecting routes, built and maintained by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). This system was established in 1949 as a project to provide access to rural areas. The system consists primarily of paved, two-lane roads. Roads occurring west of U.S. Highway 281 (or Interstate 35 in some locations) are designated Ranch to Market Roads, while those occurring east of US 281 are generally designated Farm to Market Roads, though there are exceptions to this naming system.