FHP announces daytime driver license, vehicle inspection checkpoints

page: 5
17
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by Kevinquisitor
 


In Pennsylvania, we are required to have a vehicle inspection EVERY year. The cost for a car is $36 and it is at least double that for a pickup if I am not mistaken.

As well as getting a sticker that is a certain color for that month/year, you are also required to show proof of insurance to get the inspection sticker. Not to mention we also have to get an emmisions test which just tacks on MORE money we have to pay the state, just to have the priveledge to drive.......

With that being said, I disagree with Florida using this "stop and search" tactic, however, being that (to my understanding) Florida does not have yearly inspections, this most likely will be the legal issure that they will use to get around this facist enforcement technique.


Fellow PA boy here, truck is $81 a year.

I always thought the PA Constitution mentioned that the state cannot restrict our right to travel?

Florida is just doing fishing trips, looking to see what revenue they can generate. I see it every month here in my neck of PA, cops out in force towards the end of the month on the highway looking for reasons.

Derek




posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Kevinquisitor
 

That's exactly what it's about and it's not uncommon for this to happen; what is uncommon is for a forewarning to be issued. I've lived in four states during the course of my life and have been stopped at inspection checkpoints at some time in each state (usually on a ramp leading to a major highway) - it's a matter of revenue. Is it right? Absolutely not, but does it occur on a fairly common basis? Yep. Welcome to the good ole US of A!



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 06:01 PM
link   
I,have not read all the posts here but here in the UK we have to have an MOT every single year to prove our vehicles , trucks and buses are roadworthy on that day. They check just about everything and it is an offence if you don't have one that is up to date. Also insurance and road tax plus a valid licence to drive said vehicle.
We can be stopped at any time and vehicle checked if police think there is something illegal in the vehicle.
When I was 21 I was always being stopped by the police because I was driving a 40 footer truck but I only looked about 18 so that's why they did it!
Wish I was that age again

I don't see why there is an outcry about it, maybe if you were stopped 3 or 4 times in the one day but if you have nothing to hide then what's the problem?
Trucks can be taken off the road to be weighed at any time by the police.
edit on 7-2-2013 by scotsdavy1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


really? cuz there's this in the definitions:
"state" means any state in the United States of America and includes the District of Columbia;

I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make. Yes, the noun "state" is defined in the NS Motor Vehicle Act (NS MVA) as "any state in the United States of America and includes the District of Columbia." It is so you know that every time the noun "state" is used in the statutes, it means "any state in the United States of America and includes the District of Columbia" without having to write that out each time.

If the NS MVA stated it was illegal to turn right on a red, it does not mean that this action would then be illegal in New Brunswick, Alberta, or Maine. Nova Scotia has no jurisdiction outside its borders.


btw: black's law dictionary stated that "person" in the general use (every day language) means human being, but that in statutes it has a different meaning altogether. i give evidence of this, see the definition of "person" in the MVA.

The Black's Law, 5th Ed, definition you supplied says "may include a firm,...". The NS MVA says that "person" includes "a body corporate or politic, and party." Neither definition excludes the more general meaning "human being" from applying in a statute. Therefore, this does not mean that the statutes found in the NS MVA do not apply to you if you fall within the geographical boundaries of Nova Scotia.


you're the one making things up i thought we might have a decent discussion on the subject of law, but it seems you are not interested in what is true.

The quote you posted regarding the use of Black's various editions has no attribution. No one can either confirm whether or not the person apparently stating this has any facts to back it up or even if you quoted him accurately.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Here is what is very funny about this. The "law" that prevents them from searching without cause does not apply to your own property. The State is WELL within its rights to search their own property - the car, for whatever reason. The FHP is simply searching the State's property for violations of the code of conduct. You would be able to search your car too, if you could own it. The "person" who is driving is a bit different and the acceptance of the driver's license does have an effect there.

The reason the State is searching their own property is, if you look carefully enough, no one actually OWNS title to their car. The State owns/holds the title and allows, via the "registration" of said vehicle the right to use THEIR car, as long as you abide by their rules - codes of conduct. The rules also allow them to take, ticket and search their property if they deem necessary. No one can really get alloidal title to their car, were they to do this, then, and only then, would the car be exempt from a search without cause per the constitution, which would require a judge to issue a warrant on the matter before it could be done. The same applies for houses, "taxes" are the lease of the land, and, the owner has the right to search the land.

It is right in people's faces, only they never look, never bother to read, never bother to investigate and they accept the bull*&^% reasons given to them without protest. Look at your car registration and look up the meaning of the terms, not via the google internet, but via actual legal books created at the time of the creation of the vehicle registration, what you'll find is most interesting.

You live on a plantation, all the "property" on the plantation is owned by the plantation owner, not you, slaves are not allowed to own anything at all. The plantation owner, graciously and generously - in the most godlike fashion possible, allows you the use of things like: cars, houses, computers, computer programs, phones, cellphones, fiat currency (company script) and so on.

The plantation owner is a wonderful being for allowing us to use "his" things, via the process of "licensing", and, in the same magnanimous vein, he is wonderful for taking away the privilege when he sees fit - thereby saving us from ourselves.

One of the most helpful things the plantation owner does, is make the slaves pay for their own screw ups. When the slave fails to follow the "codes of conduct" also known as "codes" or "ordinances" he is blessed with a way to pay back the master without the usual hanging or lashing, he uses the more fair process of tax, fines, fees, or jail.

The plantation owner is truly great and wonderful for all he does for mankind for without him we would have nothing, nothing at all. The plantation owner is not afforded the recognition he truly deserves by the masses who serve him.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by UberL33t


Here's an example. The Guy in front of you has his tailgate duct taped to his bed and it falls off bounces off the road and into your windshield...had there been an inspection checkpoint to catch it...he may be more inclined to have it repaired.
edit on 2/7/2013 by UberL33t because: tags


Probably wouldn't matter seeing he probably doesn't have insurance.

Why doesn't this backwards hillbilly state just enforce state inspection? I never understood this and I've been here 8 years.
If anything it would quell a lot of these POS cash & drive car lots and..... put plenty of shysters out of business!



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by erwalker
 


Blacks Law's legal definitions are very much valid & proper legalese even though an updated edition has been released... it still stands.

Blacks Law Dictionary 3rd edition, copyright, 1891 pub 1933

Person. A man considered according to the ran he holds in society, with all the right to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes.

..It may include artificial beings, as corporations, quasi-corporations..territorial corporations..under statues forbidding the taking of property without due process of law and giving to all persons the equal protection of the laws.. and concerning the admissibility as a witness of a party in his own behalf when the opposite party is a living person.. A corporation is also a person under a penal statue.. Corporation are "persons" as that word is used in the first clause of the XIVth Amendment.. But a corporation of another state is not a "person" within the jurisdiction of the state until it has complied with the conditions of admission to do business in the state.. and a statutory requirement of such conditions is not in conflict with the XIVth Amendment..

It has been held that when the word person is used in a legislative act, natural persons will be intended unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons..but as a rule corporations will be considered persons within the statues unless the intention of the legislature is manifestly to exclude them.. A county is a person in a legal sense; but contra within the meaning of a statue, providing a penalty for the fraudulent alteration of a public record with intent that any "person" be defrauded; and within the meaning of a covenant for quiet and peaceful possession against all and every person or persons.. An Indian is a person.. and a slave as so considered, in so far as to be capable of committing a riot in conjunction with white men..
..The estate of a decedent is a person.. and here the statute makes the owner of a dog liable for injuries to any person, it includes the property of such a person..

..but where the statue provided damages for the bite of a dog which had previously bitten a person, it was held insufficient to show that the dog had previously bitten a goat..a dog will not be included in the word in an act which authorizes a person to kill dogs running at large;

It includes women;here the statue was in reference to admission the the bar, and it was held that, while the term was broad enough to include them, such a construction could not be presumed to be legislative intent.

Where the statute prohibited any person from pursuing his usual vocation on the Lords Day, it as held to apply to a judge holding court.

A child en ventre sa mere is not a person; but an infant is so considered.

In the United States bankruptcy act of 1898, it is provided that the word "persons" shall include corporations, except where otherwise specified, and officers, partnerships, and omen, and, when used with reference to the commission of acts which which are therein forbidden, shall include persons who are participants in the forbidden acts, and the agents, officers, and members of the board of director or trustees, or their controlling bodies, of corporations.

Persons are subject of rights and duties; and, as a subject of a right, the person is the object of the correlative duty, and conversely. The subject of a right has been called by Professor Holland, the person of inherence; the subject of a duty, the person of incidence. "Entitled" and "bound" are the terms in common English and for most purposes they are adequate. Every full citizen is a person; other human beings, namely, subjects who are not citizens, may be persons. But not every human being is necessarily a person, for a person is capable of rights & duties, and there may well be humans beings having no legal rights, as as the case with slaves in English law.

A person is such, not because he is human, but because rights & duties are ascribed to him. The person is the legal subject or substance of which the rights & duties are attributes. An individual human being considered as having such attributes is what lawyers call a natural person.

therefore..


a "person" is a fictitious legal entity, NOT a human being.


is a true legal statement.


64 Subject to Section 65 and subsection (6) of Section 75, no person shall operate any motor vehicle upon a highway in the Province unless such person has a valid driver's license under the provisions of this Act for the type or class of vehicle being driven. R.S., c. 293, s. 64.

a natural person would already have said rights & duties and no need to be granted an incorporeal right of travel. A fiction can only interact with a another fiction legally.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by reeferman
 


Did you even read what you wrote, or cut and pasted as the case may be?


An individual human being considered as having such attributes is what lawyers call a natural person.

Attributes = rights and duties.


It has been held that when the word person is used in a legislative act, natural persons will be intended unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons..but as a rule corporations will be considered persons within the statues unless the intention of the legislature is manifestly to exclude them


So the word "person", when used in a statute, at the very least means a human being with right and obligations.

One must keep in mind that legal dictionaries are merely a reference for how words are used in legal documents and not the law itself. Definitions found in statutes take precedence over any definition found in a legal dictionary such as Black's.

Given this thread is about Florida rather than Nova Scotia, here is the definition of person as found in the Florida Statutes governing motor vehicles:

(29) PERSON.--Any natural person, firm, copartnership, association, or corporation.


As for right to travel, did you not read the court cases I cited which ruled on the subject of right to travel and the regulation of the operation of a privately-owned non-commercial motor vehicle? Note that these cases have not been overturned, are binding precedent in their respective States, and are persuasive precedent in other jurisdictions.

State v. Skurdal (1988) 235 Mont 291, 767 P2d 304 ruled:
1. it was not "unconstitutional for the state to require him to procure a driver's license before OPERATING a motor vehicle on the public highways.";
2. the "notion of right to travel remains wholly separate from the right or privilege to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways in Montana", citing City of Salina v. Wisden (Utah 1987), 737 P.2d 981, 983, and "Whether it is termed a right or a privilege, one's ability to travel on public highways is always subject to reasonable regulation by the state in the valid exercise of its police power."; and
3. Skurdal's private automobile non-commercial use argument was baseless in Montana and there was NO LAW in any other jurisdiction to support it either.

The following court cases all cited State v. Skurdal (1988) in rejecting appeals of convictions:
1. State v. Deitchler (1991, MT);
2. Jess v. State Dept. of Justice (1992, MT);
3. State v. Folda (1994, MT);
4. State v. Schaible (1994, MT);
5. Tennessee v. Booher (1997, TN);
6. State v. Wilson (1998, MT);
7. City of Billings v Beckman (2002, MT); and
8. Idaho v. Wilder (2003, ID).



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf10
 


Wow, I was watching in amazement of that video, lol.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by erwalker
 



Did you even read what you wrote, or cut and pasted as the case may be?


Of course I read it. I also typed every word. Had you researched it for yourself, that would have been apparent. I question your motives for posing such a ludicrous assertion. Perhaps someone called you out on cutting & pasting leaving you feeling foolish at one time? Now, having been so hurt inside, you think it is the ultimate insult and somehow denotes a lack of intelligence or understanding on the part of the poster? Or is it more likely an occupational hazard, in your line of work of shilling for the man?

You obviously did not read nor understand what I posted. Assumed you knew all there possibly is and no other revelations could possibly exist. Cut & pasted what I wrote. Sprinkled on some arrogant words and relaxed triumphant in your ability to cite court cases & correct those less intellectual than yourself unable to comprehend the steer excrement of the courts.

Sorry to burst your bubble..

..but as a rule corporations will be considered persons within the statues unless the intention of the legislature is manifestly to exclude them.

So if it does not specifically exclude a corporation or variation thereof by definition, a corporation is considered a person. It could also be argued that the intention of the legislature itself must manifestly.. exclude them within the context of this legal definition.

Then you even went so far as to help prove the original point of..

Bob Sholtz - a "person" is a fictitious legal entity, NOT a human being.

by the "quote" you provided, even though your link goes to nowhere, that is revealing enough..


(29) PERSON.--Any natural person, firm, copartnership, association, or corporation.


Question, if an automobile was created with its intention & design configured to be operated by, and transport a human being, why does the State include a corporation within the definition of the regulations of its license to do so?

When you order a pizza delivered, does Pizza Hut drive a vehicle to your home?
When you take a taxi, does Yellow Cab drive you to your destination?
When you ship a package, does UPS drive to the destination?

No, it does not. A Natural Person does. Common sense, or any 5yr old will tell you that.

A intangible fictitious entity can not cross over into the real world, but a natural person can unknowingly contract & cross over thereby becoming liable. Happens everyday.

A fictitious entity can only interact with another fictitious entity.

A natural person is a living human being with unalienable rights, that can only be taken by consent, as in a contract.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz


i plan to record the session and charge the police officer who stops me with committing a felony and perjury.



How soon do you intend on putting this plan into action ?

How many camera angles can you set up ?

_________

Try and get an ATS Logo into one of the shots


_________



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by reeferman
 


You haven't burst my bubble.

You may have typed every word but every word of it is copied from the definition found in Black's Law 3rd Edition that you cited. A copy-typist no more needs to understand the meaning of the original text than a person who is able to cut-and-paste said text.
To claim that you wrote anything is a stretch.


So if it does not specifically exclude a corporation or variation thereof by definition, a corporation is considered a person.


You have no argument from me on that.


It could also be argued that the intention of the legislature itself must manifestly.. exclude them within the context of this legal definition.


While you could argue that, it doesn't mean that interpretation is true. In fact, the very definition you so laboriously typed out notes that in the Bankruptcy Act of 1898 the word person includes corporations, among other entities.

You and your misguided compatriots can argue that a person is a fictitious legal entity and not a human being all you want. Firstly, a person is a legal entity and while a person can be an artificial entity they are certainly not a fictitious one. Secondly, if a person can defined as be a natural person and a natural person is a human being with legal rights and obligations, then a person can be defined as a human being, one with legal rights and obligations.

I apologise for the link not working. For whatever reason, the url for the page does not work when pasted as a link. It may be because it shows up as the result of the search function on the Florida Statutes website.
The definition of person is found in Florida Statute Title XXIII, Chapter 316.003 (29).


Question, if an automobile was created with its intention & design configured to be operated by, and transport a human being, why does the State include a corporation within the definition of the regulations of its license to do so?

When you order a pizza delivered, does Pizza Hut drive a vehicle to your home?
When you take a taxi, does Yellow Cab drive you to your destination?
When you ship a package, does UPS drive to the destination?


Florida's Title XXIII, like most other vehicle codes, is not just concerned with the person who is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle. It also has statutes governing the obligations of the owner of said motor vehicle. Title XXIII 316.003 (26) defines an owner as "A person who holds the legal title of a vehicle"
If a person was not defined as including a firm or corporation, then such as UPS or Pizza Hut would not have to comply with many of the statutes.
For example, Title XXIII Chapter 316.605 requires "Every vehicle, at all times while driven, stopped, or parked upon any highways, roads, or streets of this state, shall be licensed in the name of the owner".
In all three of your examples the owner of the vehicle is or can be a corporation, namely Pizza Hut, Yellow Cab, or UPS.

While a natural person is a living human being with unalienable rights, it does not require consent to necessarily take them away. Rather it requires due process. Ask any inmate in a Federal prison if he consented to having his right to travel taken away.
edit on 10/2/13 by erwalker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by erwalker
 

first of all, you claimed I cut & pasted the definition. Which you used as a condescending introduction, to somehow belittle the definition I thoroughly laid out to verify a person is, in fact a fictitious artificial corporation.

To claim that you wrote anything is a stretch.

Are you serious? are you asserting I claimed I created the definition of a "person"?
As this is the case, then you have confused yourself. Its clear now why you can not grasp what is being said to you.

You and your misguided compatriots can argue that a person is a fictitious legal entity and not a human being all you want.

one again, by its very definition which I have posted above, that is what it is. Fictitious; having been fabricated.


Secondly, if a person can defined as be a natural person and a natural person is a human being with legal rights and obligations, then a person can be defined as a human being, one with legal rights and obligations.

I will clarify again.
We are Homo sapiens, the modern day species of humans.
We are Human beings. We are natural to this planet.
We are male or female, man or woman. We have natural RIGHTS.
I have used legal terms to describe & define us without using the word "person" once & I know you understand exactly what I am talking about.

As per the Florida State regulations, as you have copied & pasted, the definition of a "Person" for the licensing requirement for the physical real world operation of motor vehicle includes a Corporation.

(29) PERSON.--Any natural person, firm, copartnership, association, or corporation.

As I have pointed out before, A legal entity can NOT function in the real world. period.

We drive cars. Corporations do not. It can own the title of a vehicle. Another artificial construct.

so having been able to describe a natural human being with rights not using the word "person"..

and also pointing out the fact a natural man can unwittingly contact him or herself out of those natural god given rights legally.

I once again point out that there is no reason to include a corporation in the definition of a license to drive that which being a fictitious, artificial intangible construct of a human beings mind, is absolutely impossible to do, drive a vehicle.

Corporations are granted PRIVILEGES under the laws which brought the artificial fictitious entity into legal existence.

you are claiming that a license to drive is a privilege. the RIGHT to travel is reserved for a natural human being.

A human can contract himself out of his RIGHTS into the state of being a PRIVILEGE.

as is clearly demonstrated by the very definition of a "person" that includes the impossible corporate motor vehicle operator, that a human contracts himself into by signing the Florida State license forms with a signature.

a Human can be both a Legal & a Natural entity, thereby moving between the real and the artificial.

there is no other reason for including it in the verbiage other than to unknowingly coerce a human to do so.

it could read:a Natural Human being, a natural Homo Sapien, a natural Man or natural Woman.
These perfectly convey the Natural "person" meaning of a human that CAN operate a vehicle.

but it does not.

You on your body, you own your vehicle, you pay your taxes. You have unalienable rights to use the public grounds designated for right of passage. To gather food, goods or entertainment to sustain you life. This is a fundamental right of law.

this is not to say we can all drive unregulated & are not responsible for our actions if we infringe upon another human being.. that is common sense & also common law.

this is the difference between being a serf and being a sovereign free man with unalienable rights according to the Constitution.

so..once again, Bob Sholtz was correct & legally speaking when he said ..

sorry, but i'm not a "person" i'm a human being.
all of these statutes and acts apply to "persons" NOT "human beings"



"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135

Right to Drive

and with that I'm done



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by reeferman
 



first of all, you claimed I cut & pasted the definition.

Actually, I questioned whether or not you had read and understood what you had posted.


the definition I thoroughly laid out to verify a person is, in fact a fictitious artificial corporation.

Nowhere in the definition of that you laboriously copied does it define a "person" as a "fictitous" entity. That is merely your interpretation.


are you asserting I claimed I created the definition of a "person"?

No I am not asserting that nor did I type any such thing. You wrote on 10/2/13 the following:


Cut & pasted what I wrote.

What you did was quote the definition of person. You wrote nothing except for the first sentence and the last two sentences in your post on 8/2/13. My response to that post quoted from the definition and not from the little that you actually wrote.


one again, by its very definition which I have posted above, that is what it is. Fictitious; having been fabricated.

Again claiming that the definition defines a person as a fictitious entity, which it is does not do. Your claim is an opinion rather than fact. It certainly has not been fabricated.

From Black's Law, 3rd Edition (1933), which you seem to like:


p. 773
FICTITIOUS. Founded on a fiction; having the character of a fiction; false, feigned, or pretended. Imaginary; not real; counterfeit. People v. Carmona, 79 Cal. App. 159, 251 P. 315, 317; State v. Tinnin, 64 Utah, 587, 232 P. 543, 545, 43 A. L. R. 46. Arbitrarily invented and set up, to accomplish an ulterior object. West Virginia Mortgage & Discount Corporation v. Newcomer, 101 W. Va. 292, 132 S. E. 748, 749.

p. 772
FICTION. An assumption or supposition of law that something which is or may be false is true, or that a state of facts exists which has never really taken place. New Hampshire Stafford Bank v. Cornell 2 N. H. 324; Hibberd v. Smith, 67 Cal. 547, 4 P. 473, 56 Am. Rep. 726; Murphy v. Murphy, 190 Iowa, 874, 179 N. W. 530, 533. An assumption, for purposes of justice, of a fact that does not or may not exist. Dodo v. Stocker, 74 Colo. 95, 219 P. 222, 223.

p. 736
FABRICATE. To invent; to devise falsely. Invent is sometimes used in a bad sense, but fabricate never in any other. To fabricate a story implies that it is so contrary to probability as to require the skill of a workman to induce belief in it. Crabbe, Syn. The word implies fraud or falsehood; a false or fraudulent concoction, knowing it to be wrong. L. R. 10 Q. B. 162.



I will clarify again.
We are Homo sapiens, the modern day species of humans.
We are Human beings. We are natural to this planet.
We are male or female, man or woman. We have natural RIGHTS.
I have used legal terms to describe & define us without using the word "person" once & I know you understand exactly what I am talking about.

Bravo. The above does nothing to contradict that a "person" CAN be defined as a human being with legal rights and obligations.


We drive cars. Corporations do not.

Motor vehicle statutes, including Florida's, are not solely concerned with the physical act of driving. The licensing of a vehicle for use on public roads is separate from the licensing of an individual to physically operate, aka "drive", a vehicle on the same.


demonstrated by the very definition of a "person" that includes the impossible corporate motor vehicle operator

Except that the chapter dealing with the licensing of drivers, chapter 322, does not include a definition of person as a corporation. The definition of person found in chapter 316 is limited to that chapter. Therefore your above statement is demonstrably false, rendering a number of your subsequent statements as irrelevant or nonsensical.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by reeferman
 


Your quote of a portion of Thompson v. Smith, that you no doubt plucked from the page that you linked, ignores the two paragraphs that immediately followed it in the actual court opinion. Something I pointed out in a post I made on 7/2/13.


1. "The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it."

2. "The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to others of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions."


Those using this case to argue that the state can't require a person be in possession of a driver's licence must pretend that these two paragraphs don't exist.

These same people like to cite cases that, while they rest on the concept of "right to travel", have absolutely nothing to do with the constitutionality of regulating the operation of privately owned automobiles on public roads. For example:

1. Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), which dealt with denial of welfare assistance payments based on durational residency requirements; and

2. Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958), which was a landmark case on PASSPORT restrictions and the right to travel as they relate to 1st Amendment free speech rights. The Court ruled that the Secretary of State did not have the authority to deny a passport on the basis of being a Communist Party member or holding views consistent with Communist Party ideals. It also stated "The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived WITHOUT THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW under the Fifth Amendment."





top topics
 
17
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join