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.

 

Ga. Lawmaker Proposes Doing Away With Driver's Licenses

page: 9
35
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Wow I'm amazed this guy hasn't been topped yet. Yes you do have the common law right to travel freely upon all public lands and some in many private cases right of way access applies to a common resource.
You also have the right to freedom of movement, the right to freely associate, the right to life in the pursuit of happiness amongst many others. The constitution is a slavery document/for commercial 'persons' and is actually 'just a piece of paper'. About the only true thing George Bush said.

However you have none of these rights as an ignorant slave who signs them all away through various contracts.

Gotta take responsibility to travel this path in life. And I applaud this lawmaker for having the guts to say the truth, which they all so surrepticiously like to keep under the covers.




posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Face it,

anyone who actually believes driver licenses should be removed and anyone should be able to drive a vehicle is a nutbag and a douchebag.

Get a sense of reality.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeventhSeal


Really? I thought you were going to provide a legit argument. Alright, cool.

To acquire a driver's license you need to:
-Take permit test.
-Pass to drive with an adult in the vehicle with you.
-Wait for the proper amount of time to get your license.
-Take driver's test.
-Get your license if you pass.
-Congrats, now you have a license because you passed the test to ensure you know how to operate a vehicle.

Now, let's see if you actually read my post or not:
Did I say drivers don't break the law? Of course we do. Many (including you and I) go over the speed limit in some (if not many) instances. Many drivers are intoxicated while driving. Many talk on the cell phone while driving. ETC.

But let's say you remove the License and the Tests to operate a vehicle and now you can just Drive. Do you really want someone who's mentally unstable to drive on the same road as you? Do you want someone who's not Qualified to operate a vehicle on the same road as you?

I'm probably the biggest patriot on this web site but goddamn, this is the most moronic argument a politician has ever brought up.

Absolutely insane.


I Bolded the important part here. This is why you don't even know what you're talking about actually. You are using this word and not even knowing it's legal definition.

DRIVE

DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals.

A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.


The term "driver" in contradistinction to "traveler" is defined as: "Driver One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle..." Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 940.



"Travel: To journey or to pass through or over; as a country district, road, etc. To go from one place to another, whether on foot, or horseback, or in any conveyance as a train, an automobile, carriage, ship, or aircraft; Make a journey." Century Dictionary, p.2034.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
Face it,

anyone who actually believes driver licenses should be removed and anyone should be able to drive a vehicle is a nutbag and a douchebag.

Get a sense of reality.


Driver's licences are only for taxing commerce.

They should not be removed. I agree with taxing commercial activity.

I don't need a licence because I don't profit financially from driving. I don't drive, I just travel in a automobile. lol.

The only thing I want removed is the rampant illiteracy of folks in relation to learning LAW.
edit on 1-2-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by zcflint05
I'm curious where it states in the constitution that we have a "right" to drive.

Hell, I live in the most conservative state in the union and they even call it the "driving privlidge".

I tend to agree with most people that drivers should be licensed and if there were no drivers licenses then how the hell are we supposed to stop people with multiple DUIs from hitting the road? Do you still have the "right" to drive after you get wasted and drive multiple times? Do you still have your "right" to drive if you've murdered someone with a car?

There are plenty of decent reasons to license drivers---maybe not to force insurance on people--but licensing and regulation of drivers is pretty important especially with how deadly humans seem to be with cars. There has to be some type of standardization to make sure we're not putting total morons on the road.


For the LAST TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IT IS A PROPERTY RIGHT!!

The right to OWN property ALSO ENCOMPASSES the RIGHT to use that property so long as you harm no one or damage anothers property.

ITS THAT SIMPLE!!



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
Face it,

anyone who actually believes driver licenses should be removed and anyone should be able to drive a vehicle is a nutbag and a douchebag.

Get a sense of reality.


Driver's licences are only for taxing commerce.

They should not be removed. I agree with taxing commercial activity.

I don't need a licence because I don't profit financially from driving. I don't drive, I just travel in a automobile. lol.

The only thing I want removed is the rampant illiteracy of folks in relation to learning LAW.
edit on 1-2-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)


A bazillion stars and flags. I hope there are mor eout there than just you and I who "get it"!!

Second line



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Primordial



If this is indeed the case and proves the right to unlicensed driving, why has every case brought before a court for driving without a license not been thrown out?


Because they signed a Contract agreeing to follow the Motor Vehicle Code.

What is so hard to understand about this?

If you sign these Contracts, you AGREE to them. Therefore none of this applies because you are under obligation by your agreement!
That's why it's not thrown out. Contracts got signed.

Those who can prove they did not sign these contracts, are not held liable for them. Example : The Amish.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Common sense.

This thread lacks it.





posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
Common sense.

This thread lacks it.




Is this your rebuttal?

Alright.

You win.

There is no common sense here.

Just legal definitions and references.
Your right.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
What applied laws?


I'm sure that people get convicted of ''driving without a licence'' in the USA.

These laws are constantly applied in practice; those that contravene these laws are liable for fines and prison time because of their violation of these said laws.

Ergo; actual applied law > idealistic, unproven claims.


Originally posted by muzzleflash
Bet you can't link a single one that stands up to 1minute of scrutiny (simple cross-referencing will show you don't even understand what you are reading, as exampled above).


I have no wish to scour cases from some local papers in a foreign country ( these are the only ones who will report a minor driving offence ), but I think we can both cut the BS, and accept that those who drive without a recognised licence in the USA may get charged with ''driving without a licence'', and feel the legal consequences and ramifications of their action.

This charge appears to go against your claims that someone can legally drive a vehicle without a licence.


I think that the burden of proof falls on you to provide some evidence for your claim that driving without a licence is legal, and I'd like a link to somebody who has been legally acquitted on these grounds.


Originally posted by muzzleflash
The law you link will be true, but you will misunderstand it.

Driving = Commerce
Motor Vehicle = Commerce


Why on earth would I misunderstand it ?

It's the über-constitutionalists that deliberately or inadvertently misunderstand every Amendment, and every intention of the US Constitution.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by Primordial
While I am fully aware of the 9th amendment and it's implications I must ask this question(s).

Since the constitution never mentions driving specifically and also never mentions the consumption of alcoholic beverages(originally), we could assume based on the 9th amendment that both should be rights. Further, since it's not specifically mentioned, should we also assume that it is a right to engage in both at the same time? Do you (we) have a RIGHT to get inebriated then hop in our car and head on down the highway without care?

At what point is the safety of others considered when considering what we can and can't do?

Can I, lets say, pull out a constitutionally protected firearm on a crowded city street and set up some cans on the other side of the intersection and exercise my right to the pursuit of happiness with a little target practice?

In other words, do you believe everything is a right? By the logic that the ninth makes everything a right not specifically restricted by the constitution we should be able to do near anything without restriction.


This is to say, that while I strongly believe in the Ninth Amendment, I do also strongly believe in sound regulation and just laws. A law that serves for the public safety is just. I cannot call licensing a just law though. It has no merits other than revenue and as I pointed out, in some states much more. That being required to provide a thumb print and your social security number. Those two items as required in some states do not prove me to be a capable and competent driver. Yet, proponents of a driver's license ignore those items and fall back on "it makes the roads safer".

Which I am sure we can agree, a license doesn't do such a thing. My argument is with the process, which is the state charging you for your preferred mode of private transportation; that being an automobile.


We actually agree more than you know but I am forced to see the reality of some extremely bad judgment that too many in our society display on a regular basis. While the argument can be made that the lack of a license doesn't really stop someone from driving if they really wanted to, it at least ensures that the majority have displayed at least some level of competency doing so.

There is plenty that the constitution doesn't mention. I've seen the argument made that as long as it doesn't effect someone else it should not be restricted. That truly does sound logical and for the most part I agree with it. The problem I have related to the current topic is that driving on public roads does effect others.


But again, arguing that a license somehow guarantees that those who access the public roads will be competent solely upon receiving a license just isn't true. So why even have the process? The laws and regulations pertaining to the roads and an automobile provide the framework in which we operate such a machine. Those laws are not unjust and they are sound (for the most part-different thread.)

Even a licensed driver runs the risk of overstepping their own right to travel by private vehicle runs the risk of endangering another. This is why I say the laws and regulations of the road work just fine.


Should blind people be allowed to just get behind the wheel regardless of training or assistance? They are citizens and protected by the constitution.


No and common sense rules the day on this one. It is reasonable to restrict and regulate drivers that are incapable of following the rules of the road from the start. I am sure a majority of blind people know their limitation and have qualms about not being able to drive.



As it relates to travel should I be allowed to buy an airplane, having never even been in a cockpit, and just wing it? I'm pretty sure I could take off, not so sure about the landing part though ... but hey I have a right to travel. What if the end of my travels brings me to a fiery death as I crash my plane into a shopping mall full of people?

The problem I see with the unrestricted right to travel vs. driving is that driving encompasses more than traveling. It involves being able to properly operate a piece of machinery among the public. As I stated in an earlier post, you CAN drive without a license on your private property where the public safety is not a concern.

I am usually the one arguing for more freedom and rights, however in this case I must disagree. I feel that those for unlicensed and unrestricted driving rights might feel differently when someone crashes through their house or kills one of their children.


This is similar to the argument that you hear that you pointed out earlier. If what I do does not infringe upon the rights of others, I should be allowed to do it. Which in this case, holds true because anyone with proper training to operate a much more complex piece of machinery.

It is also to note that not all aircraft pilots need a license to fly. An ultralight single-seat needs no license to fly.

Considering the nature of flying, I see no problem with requiring a license to fly an airplane, that requires much more skill and know with all to do so safely. Radio operation, instrument operation, visual flight rules, instrument flight rules, understanding of airspace classifications and most off the potential to slam into a jet that is carrying 200+ people.

Here is the FAA requirements to receive your certificate:

be at least 17 years
have a current FAA third-class medical certificate
log at least 40 hours of flight
have at least 20 hours of flight with an instructor
have at least 10 hours of solo flight
pass the FAA Private Pilot Airmen Knowledge written test
pass a FAA Private Pilot flight exam

Again, given the complexity of flying, the regulation and licensing of such is sound in my opinion. Thank you for your time to debate such a topic.
edit on 1-2-2011 by ownbestenemy because: didn't close a quote...



So what I'm getting is that you do agree that laws in place to, at least try to, ensure public safety are a good thing. What I see as your problem with licensing is that you don't agree that the tests, written- to show basic knowledge of laws and a road test to show basic proficiency in operating an automobile as contributing to the safety to the public and are therefore unnecessary.

Do you believe having people with no knowledge of the laws, what the various road signs mean, what laws are in place to promote safe and efficient movement of traffic and never had the need to demonstrate the ability to even drive in a straight line, turn safely against oncoming traffic and perform other basic skills promotes the general safety of the roads and highways?

How can a test demonstrating knowledge of the laws and a road test to demonstrate an ability to control a motor vehicle not promote safer roads vs. everyone driving having never demonstrated, nor ever even having to learn such things?

I understand someone can demonstrate an ability to be safe then later drive unsafely but I don't believe not requiring such demonstrations could possibly produce the same level of safety seen with those requirements.

I do agree that the fees involved can be a hindrance to some and therefore restrict their ability to obtain a license.

I suppose we could go back and forth for some time so maybe we should just agree to disagree on certain points.

Been good debating with you.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Declaring Supreme Court rulings as nonsense makes your post lack any merit. Those rulings, would have to be overturned in other rulings at the high court. No lower court can declare irrelevant nor supersede it.


Nowhere did I suggest that Supreme Court rulings were nonsense.

Please give me details of people who have been charged with driving a car without a licence, and who have successfully cited this Supreme Court decision to acquit themselves of this charge.

I would appreciate it if you could cite any kind of example.




Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Plus, it wasn't a ruling by one judge. I know you have already explained that you are not an American, but be careful when trying to speak with authority on a subject you don't know.


You're right. I'm not an American.

Please exercise your right to drive without a licence on your State's highways. Considering that, allegedly, it is not illegal to drive on the roads without a licence, then, please, rip up your driver's licence and go about your normal business in your car.


Please take your case to court.


I will honestly and sincerely help contribute to fund your defence case.

Put your money where your mouth is !



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 


Not so fast buddy. You aren't reading deep enough.

The motor vehicle code was promulgated to increase the safety and efficiency of our public roads.



Ever read Title 18 USC 31???


"Motor vehicle" means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.


Look it up. Mr. Wisden Lost because he had signed a contract agreeing to follow the Motor Vehicle Code. Therefore he was participating in Commerce.

Nice try, but you aren't going to win this one.

edit on 1-2-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-2-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)


Oh, lord, I can't believe I'm doing *this* again. You can go to your State constitution and find every single little minuscule definition you need.

Do you understand that defined terms within laws and statutes are within the context of the document in which
they appear or reference only? You can't just take a quote from someone and then just cherry-pick which definition you want to inject into what they said! You find find the definition of "Motor Vehicle" in numerous statutes across numerous states and they will all be a little bit different.

As in, within a particular law or statute, the term motor vehicle precisely means a commercial vehicle and nothing else. It's not surprising that references to commercial vehicles are found in the federal US code since the federal government regulates Commercial Driver's Licenses (as opposed to non-commercial driver's licenses).

Besides, your reference hasn't anything to do with anything else, considering that the motor vehicle code being referenced was the Utah State Motor Vehicle Code, Utah Code -- Title 41 -- Motor Vehicles, and has nothing to do with the definition of "Motor Vehicle" within the context of a federal law describing penalties for felony crimes committed in commercial vehicles.

By the way, you don't find it odd that you ignored this stuff:




(1) "the right to travel encompasses 'the unrestrained use of the highway' is wrong".

(2) "The right to travel granted by the state and federal constitutions does not include the ability to ignore laws governing the use of public roadways."

(3) The ability to drive a motor vehicle on a public roadway is not a fundamental right.

(4) [driving is] a privilege that is granted upon the compliance with the statutory licensing procedures."


and just concentrating on this:



The motor vehicle code was promulgated to increase the safety and efficiency of our public roads. It enhances rather than infringes on the right to travel.


.. and referenced a very specific definition of "Motor Vehicle" within a federal law concerning crimes?

You must understand that they have no connection, don't you?

Surely, you can't be so stupid.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Please give me details of people who have been charged with driving a car without a licence, and who have successfully cited this Supreme Court decision to acquit themselves of this charge.


You clearly do not get it.

You said "DRIVING a car without a licence" which is ILLEGAL.
DRIVING = Commerce.
Licence = Regulating Commercial Activity called "Driving"

Please please understand what you are saying.

I can tell you just are willfully ignoring all of the information a dozen folks have kindly linked to you which explain in PLAIN terms exactly what the law is.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Please give me details of people who have been charged with driving a car without a licence, and who have successfully cited this Supreme Court decision to acquit themselves of this charge.


You clearly do not get it.

You said "DRIVING a car without a licence" which is ILLEGAL.
DRIVING = Commerce.
Licence = Regulating Commercial Activity called "Driving"

Please please understand what you are saying.

I can tell you just are willfully ignoring all of the information a dozen folks have kindly linked to you which explain in PLAIN terms exactly what the law is.


The Laws and Statutes themselves explain in PLAIN terms exactly what they are conveying. They all have pages upon pages of CONTEXTUAL DEFINITIONS to make it clear.

What you are doing is taking a law from a document describing non-commercial driving, and coming back with a definition for driving that is given as a definition within a law that specifically describes commercial driving.
edit on 1-2-2011 by RestingInPieces because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Primordial
 


Quite true we can go back and forth.

To your final question I answer it as such. The term ignorance is no excuse for the law can easily be applied here. Because in today's world, nearly everything and every activity has some sort of law attached to it, we surely cannot know them all. It is a duty as a free citizen to understand the law regarding an activity you are engaging upon and operate within.

You don't need to take a test to ride a bicycle upon the roads, but yet you are expected to know the signs, the rules and the laws and follow them accordingly. Why then must we do the same when operating an automobile? Should we not then apply the law governing the use of automobiles upon the roads equally to those that utilize it for travel by different conveyance?



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by RestingInPieces


(1) "the right to travel encompasses 'the unrestrained use of the highway' is wrong".

(2) "The right to travel granted by the state and federal constitutions does not include the ability to ignore laws governing the use of public roadways."

(3) The ability to drive a motor vehicle on a public roadway is not a fundamental right.

(4) [driving is] a privilege that is granted upon the compliance with the statutory licensing procedures."




(1) The right to travel does not encompasses "unrestrained use" TRUE - Commerce is Regulated.
(2) Anyone engaged in Commerce cannot ignore these laws.
(3) Motor Vehicle = defined in post above as COMMERCE terminology.
(4) DRIVING = COMMERCE TERMINOLOGY, AGAIN

You are just ignoring all of the linked information in this thread.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by RestingInPieces


(1) "the right to travel encompasses 'the unrestrained use of the highway' is wrong".

(2) "The right to travel granted by the state and federal constitutions does not include the ability to ignore laws governing the use of public roadways."

(3) The ability to drive a motor vehicle on a public roadway is not a fundamental right.

(4) [driving is] a privilege that is granted upon the compliance with the statutory licensing procedures."




(1) The right to travel does not encompasses "unrestrained use" TRUE - Commerce is Regulated.
(2) Anyone engaged in Commerce cannot ignore these laws.
(3) Motor Vehicle = defined in post above as COMMERCE terminology.
(4) DRIVING = COMMERCE TERMINOLOGY, AGAIN

You are just ignoring all of the linked information in this thread.



"I may be ignoring the links, but you sir are ignoring the law."



Ok, what State are you from? I'll do all the work for you since you are so lazy.
edit on 1-2-2011 by RestingInPieces because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

(4) DRIVING = COMMERCE TERMINOLOGY, AGAIN



WRONG!!! DRIVING = GOLF TERMINOLOGY!!

I CAN SHOW YOU THE LINKS.




posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by RestingInPieces


The Laws and Statutes themselves explain in PLAIN terms exactly what they are conveying. They all have pages upon pages of CONTEXTUAL DEFINITIONS to make it clear.

What you are doing is taking a law from a document describing non-commercial driving, and coming back with a definition for driving that is given as a definition within a law that specifically describes commercial driving.
edit on 1-2-2011 by RestingInPieces because: (no reason given)


LOL The contextual definitions CLEARLY indicate there is no such thing as "non-commercial driving" , ALL DRIVING is COMMERCIAL.

If your act of moving from one place to another, on the public highways, is not commercial, it is automatically "Traveling".

In the Court of Law, each word has a meaning.

These meanings are NOT the same as common language that you and I use in everyday life or on the street. That is why people study for years to become lawyers.

How can you argue about Law and not know this basic fact???
edit on 1-2-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join