Massachusetts-State of Emergency

page: 9
22
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Well, the governor just came on for an update. The driving ban may last through tomorrow




posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 08:39 AM
link   
Snow doom.

I do love this type of thread.






posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
That is what a State of Emergency is and is perfectly legal. State Governors are granted the power to declare a State of Emergency as well as Martial Law as long as there is justifiable reason, the same as the President. Here in the northeast we are facing a very dangerous storm and it is well within the Constitution for Presidents and Governors to have this authority and has always been this way.


A state of emergency is a governmental declaration which usually suspends a few normal functions of the executive, legislative and judicial powers, alert citizens to change their normal behaviors, or order government agencies to implement emergency preparedness plans. It can also be used as a rationale for suspending rights and freedoms, even if guaranteed under the constitution. Such declarations usually come during a time of natural or man made disaster, during periods of civil unrest, or following a declaration of war or situation of international or internal armed conflict. Justitium is its equivalent in Roman law.

wiki



non-Statutory American National, see the word 'citizen" in your quote, that is NOT a Human Being, it is a legal fiction,a member of the corporation/state. This type of BS is all too common, people do not understand the legal speak. Also, under UCC9-109, your auto is private property and DOES NOT fall under the jurisdiction of the 'states" or federal government.

Man existed long antecedent tot he creation of government, that which man creates CAN NEVER have jurisdiction over the the thing which created it. what yo and every one else who believes this BS is stating, is wrong. And can be ignored as if it had never been published. Sorry, one must know the legal system and the terms used within it.

Once one becomes educated in Roman Civil Law and the Natural Born rights and liberties, and one is a responsible human Being, the government ceases to exist or be of relevance.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by daddio
 


I don't think that would be good advice to follow. The state issues your drivers license. Disregarding what IS a legal action and you risk losing your driving privileges.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Oh no.. if they will ban driving because of possibly the worst snow storm in the last 100 years, what is next?!


People just can't wait to overreact to anything the government does. Clearly such decisions are made because it makes sense. Not because they are trying to steal your freedoms away. It's not as if 2 inches of snow 2 weeks from now create the same situation. They are not trying to find a way to start restricting you. They are trying to prevent people from dying because they are being stupid. Why would you even want to be driving in a blizzard of that magnitude?



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by strokker
 


I sort of understand you point but look at it from his...is it fair to have you driving around and wreck and then have to send emergency crews out to save you risking their lives because you wanted to go joy riding in a bad storm ?

the less people out and about means less accidents and less lives lost because of stupidity



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by beezzer
 


It's also about keeping the roads free of traffic so that snow and ice removal apparatus can stay on top of the storm as opposed to letting 2 feet of snow pile up and shutting down the roads for days. That keeps them clear for emergency apparatus and utility apparatus as well.
Ummm..........That would be all fine and dandy......if it were true...fact is that during a heavy snowfall the road crews park the plows and wait until it stops...then...plow the road. News from the snowbelt...(I just cleared my driveway of about 18" this morning.)...Think I'll go skiing.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 10:08 AM
link   
On this topic, I just have one thing to say:

He's doing this in the face of a snow storm that he clearly fears will provide the worst of conditions for motorized vehicles. Your rights don't count for much when you have a severe concussion and a broken leg in an upside down car stuck in a snow drift off the shoulder of some highway.

He said no vehicles. If you really have to go somewhere that badly, then walk.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Your supposed SCOTUS Case law IS NOT CASE LAW.. For goodness sake.. It is AN OPINION of ONE.. 1... UNO.. Justice

SHEESH

You are obviously confused with STATES RIGHTS vs FED LAW

So many students so little time

Here are 3.. YES 3.. Rulings


relating to traffic laws: state govt can restrict driving on the public roads to drivers with valid current licenses, and restrict drivers to vehicles registered as having passed inspection, notwithstanding argument about a "right to travel". Hendrick v. Maryland (1915) 235 US 610 (a state may restrict the use of its highways to drivers who have complied with the license, insurance and vehicle registration laws of this state or, if the driver is a non-resident, of his home state); Bell v. Burson (1971) 402 US 535 (state statute which denies or suspends drivers license for failure to carry insurance or comparable financial responsibility does not violate constitution); (this authority to prescribe reasonable requisites for the "privilege" of driving on the public highways is inherent in state and local govts) State v. Booher (Tenn.Crim.App 1997) 978 SW2d 953 ("the appellant asserts that the state ... has unduly infringed upon his 'right to travel' by requiring licensing and registarion .... However, contrary to his assertions, at no time did the State of Tennessee place constraints upon the appellant's exercise of this right. His right to travel ... remains unimpeded..

Idiot Arguments

Sorry of the name offends, I did not make it, it is the name of the site

You can argue all you want.. If you drive without a license, you will be arrested and no amount of money, court time or fantasy arguments will change the law

Semper



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by strokker
 


I live in Mass. and as I am not currently traveling...and BELIEVE ME...I wish I was...I am looking out the window of my office watching 40 to 70 mile per hour winds blowing snow into high drifts.

The 4pm thing reay pissed me off as I had a few things I needed to do and because of this driving ban I could not.

This is a case of an over zealous State Official pacing constraints on the puplic as to not look as if he did not take control of a dangerous situation from the get go.

Split Infinity



Would you rather there was no State of Emergency and people ended up dead by being idiots out driving around? Or better yet how would you like it if a tree came through your living room window and injured some of your family and rescue vehicles were detained because some dips**t was blocking the street to your home? You should think of that before complaining about petty inconveniences.



See, the thing is, I don't need someone else to tell me what is safe or how to drive.

It's snow, that's it. Snow tires, chains, sand, AWD/4WD and that all important thing...... SKILL.

Thanks, I can handle myself.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 11:01 AM
link   
My goodness.
No one was prohibited from going outside.
No one was prohibited from walking anywhere.
No ones freedoms were taken away.
No one is over reacting to a 'normal' storm.
Record breaking, means record breaking for our area, not ever in the history of the world.
Stop being so silly.

The amount of snow that's fallen isn't catastrophic, sucks to shovel but nearly 3 feet... it has happened before and will again.

What made the storm so dangerous is how rapid the snow was accumulating. 2-4 inches an hour is severe and deadly. The storms duration is also a major factor because it spanned 2 astronomical high tides causing severe flooding along coastal areas.

2-4 inches per hour in white out conditions is too damn dangerous to drive in but of course some idiots will try. It was important to declare a state of emergency and call a driving ban before the worst of the storm hit so that people could get home instead of being stranded on the roads which in the rate 2-4 inches an hour is exactly what happens, you cannot drive in that. Then you become a problem for emergency workers as well as risking the lives of anyone emergency workers are needing to get to.

For instance a 4 alarm fire broke out in an apartment complex destroying 10 units, no one was killed but residents are displaced. Imagine if the Fire Department had not been able to respond right away...



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by beezzer
 


It's also about keeping the roads free of traffic so that snow and ice removal apparatus can stay on top of the storm as opposed to letting 2 feet of snow pile up and shutting down the roads for days. That keeps them clear for emergency apparatus and utility apparatus as well. Power lines go down, basements flood knocking out heat, pipes freeze, people have heart attacks shoveling, or serious falls... this is really common sense guys...cmon. If you have a problem with this then maybe go back and time and tell the founders to not give Governors and Presidents this power. Good lord.


Look, it's common sense, I get that.

Guess I just get ouchy when they suspend freedoms. Even for safety.


I do to, but unfortunately, we're suppose to adide for the stupidity of humanity.

One dumb apple spoils the bunch, which is why we have more than half the laws and rules we have.

- "Don't stand on railing"
- "No jay walking"
- "Keep off the tracks"
- Seatbelt/helmet laws
- "Caution: Hot coffee"
- "Don't put your hands in the tigers' cage"
- "stay indoors during raging blizzards"

I personally believe in Darwinism, but society has become soft... squeamish, and now feels the need to protect the foolish. The result? People don't get weeded out and now we have and entire generation of these people.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by CranialSponge
 


The order is to be off the roads it says nothing about business closing. Essential businesses like hospitals, police, fire etc will remain open as usual. If you work for the power co you know you will be working. People at work will have to stay there and people who have not yet left for work will have to stay home. I've seen it here in Va where two inches of snow is a problem due to inadaquit snow removal appratus'. Hospital personal had to stay on shift.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by daddio
 


I don't think that would be good advice to follow. The state issues your drivers license. Disregarding what IS a legal action and you risk losing your driving privileges.



You really do not want to get into it with me on the fraudulent "drivers license" do you? You do not need a license for something you already have the right to do as such license would be meaningless, U.S. Supreme court decision.

Also, if a 'drivers license" is a contract between you and the state...WHO IS THE STATE? You are moron, you can not make a contract with yourself and then restrict yourself from using it can you?

Government was created by man, WE control and have the authority OVER any government, I could post thousands of court cases here which define the illegitimacy of the fraudulent 'drivers license" scam, but not the time or space. Needless to say, keep eating the BS you have been eating and ignore the truth. That is what is wrong with this country.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by daddio
 


Beautiful rhetoric but empty. I don't know how many guys have come through my jail on extended driving beefs that had nothing to do with drinking. Like I said, you go ahead with that but I recommend that others don't.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Exactly

Everyone has the absolute RIGHT to go to jail if they choose too




posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by daddio
 


Beautiful rhetoric but empty. I don't know how many guys have come through my jail on extended driving beefs that had nothing to do with drinking. Like I said, you go ahead with that but I recommend that others don't.




CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

CASE #2: "The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.



CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the Citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

I have gone to court so many times, I am STILL not in jail. Knowing how to speak the legal terms and define yourself and state your right and authority is what most people lack.

Citizens who involve themselves in commerce upon the highways of the state. Here is what the courts have said about this: "...For while a Citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways...as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..." State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073. There are many court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the right of the Citizen to travel and a government privilege and there are numerous other court decisions that spell out the jurisdiction issue in these two distinctly different activities.


"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.

Courts also recognized that private travel is fundamental right: "The right to travel on the public highways is a constitutional right." Teche Lines v. Danforth, Miss. 12 So 2d 784, 787.

"Operation of a motor vehicle upon public streets and highways is not a mere privilege but is a right or liberty protected by the guarantees of Federal and State constitutions." Adams v. City of Pocatello 416 P2d 46.

"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn 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." Slusher v. Safety Coach Transit Co., 229 Ky 731, 17 SW2d 1012.

The socialists tried early on to step beyond their limits of regulating commercial travel. This conversion of the citizen's rights through a compelled licensing scheme was initially stopped by the courts: "Where a private statute exists of which the intent is regulation of commercial common carriers, the particular agency enforcing that private statute, shall not apply it by trickery and deceit, to persons who are not noticed by the statute as persons regulated and taxed, nor should it permit any party to do so in violation of a person's right to stay out of compelled license/contract, when he is not a person subject to the statute, unless clearly within its words." State v. Ebershart, 179 P 853, 246 P 2d 1011.


I could post thousands of cases I have on file, this is what you people keep BS'ing about and have no clue what you are talking about. Man created government, WE have the authority. I am sorry you people fear the bad boogie men you elect.


Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have the right to do as such license would be meaningless. City of Chicago v Collins (19__) 51 NE 907, 910.


Again, please comprehend exactly what you are talking about, ever read American Jurisprudence? I thought not. Know the "Law", legisaltion IS NOT LAW!!!!!!!

edit on 9-2-2013 by daddio because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


And you may want to put in a call to Sheriff (retired) Richard Mack, I have spoken with him personally many times, he can explain it to you as well. Maybe you could look him up on his site and get some decent information from him on the actual "Law".



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Your supposed SCOTUS Case law IS NOT CASE LAW.. For goodness sake.. It is AN OPINION of ONE.. 1... UNO.. Justice

SHEESH

You are obviously confused with STATES RIGHTS vs FED LAW

So many students so little time

Here are 3.. YES 3.. Rulings


relating to traffic laws: state govt can restrict driving on the public roads to drivers with valid current licenses, and restrict drivers to vehicles registered as having passed inspection, notwithstanding argument about a "right to travel". Hendrick v. Maryland (1915) 235 US 610 (a state may restrict the use of its highways to drivers who have complied with the license, insurance and vehicle registration laws of this state or, if the driver is a non-resident, of his home state); Bell v. Burson (1971) 402 US 535 (state statute which denies or suspends drivers license for failure to carry insurance or comparable financial responsibility does not violate constitution); (this authority to prescribe reasonable requisites for the "privilege" of driving on the public highways is inherent in state and local govts) State v. Booher (Tenn.Crim.App 1997) 978 SW2d 953 ("the appellant asserts that the state ... has unduly infringed upon his 'right to travel' by requiring licensing and registarion .... However, contrary to his assertions, at no time did the State of Tennessee place constraints upon the appellant's exercise of this right. His right to travel ... remains unimpeded..

Idiot Arguments

Sorry of the name offends, I did not make it, it is the name of the site

You can argue all you want.. If you drive without a license, you will be arrested and no amount of money, court time or fantasy arguments will change the law

Semper



You show your ignorance sir. They are case law everything I posted ARE SUPREME COURT RULINGS that means they were the majority opinion and still stand. They trump appellate rulings you posted and ever judge in the land is obliged to uphold them via the supremacy clause of the Constitution.

Sure you can be arrested for driving without a license or registration by ignorant cops and you can lose in court of you do not know your constitution and rights. However if you assert your rights based on these cases and the constitution you will prevail every time!

The Supremacy clause
U.S. Constitution, Article Six, Clause 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;
and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the
supreme Law of the Land; and Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


Read that again : "and Judges in every State shall be bound thereby"

None of the cases you cites apply for instance you quoted:

'Hendrick v. Maryland (1915) 235 US 610 (a state may restrict the use of its highways to drivers who have complied with the license, insurance and vehicle registration laws of this state or, if the driver is a non-resident, of his home state)"

This only applies if you signed up for the license insurance and registration scheme key words: "to drivers who have complied" They can only restrict the use of highways if you agreed to it and entered into the contract with them for the scheme...

Just because you have never seen a tree free American assert his rights doesn't mean it does not happen every day!





new topics
top topics
 
22
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join