The Right to Travel

reply to post by RestingInPieces


(Sigh)

You have made numerous absurd declarations in this thread. Beginning with:

Public roads are constructs. You don't travel on public roads. Travel is from point a to point b, with only natural elements as obstacles.

This, of course, is not an idiomatic expression made by you, but simply a false statement. There is no federal statute that defines travel in a legal sense, and as far as states go, to the best of my knowledge there is no legal definition of the term travel as well. Certainly the State of California, the state in which I reside does not make any legal definition of the term travel. When there is no legal definition of the word to rely upon we must turn to the every day usage of the term:

Travel Defined:

1. To go from one place to another, as on a trip; journey.

Travel Defined:

a : to go on or as if on a trip or tour : journey b

(1) : to go as if by traveling : pass

(2) : associate avels with a sophisticated crowd> c : to go from place to place as a sales representative or business agent 2 a (1) : to move or undergo transmission from one place to another

(2) : to withstand relocation successfully b : to move in a given direction or path or through a given distance c : to move rapidly

Travel Defined:

To go from one place to another, as on a trip; journey.

At no point in any standard usage of the term is the ridiculous qualification you've imposed upon the word; "only natural elements as an obstacle" a part of the definition. This is your invention and not a part of reality.

Here is another absurd statement of yours:

On public roads, there is a complex system of artificial signs, lanes, guides, markers, traffic control devices, other vehicles, and "judges" (police) that are all traversing the artificial obstacle course that you've so naively confused with traveling.

What would be naive is to buy into your load of crap.

Another absurd statement made by you:

Words used in a legal context hardly ever have absolute meaning.

"Hardly ever have absolute meaning" is, at best, hyperbolic. It is a cardinal rule and according to the rules of statutory construction that each and every word, whenever possible, be given significance:

In construing a statute, we are obliged to give effect, if possible, to every word Congress used.

~REITER V. SONOTONE CORP., 442 U. S. 330 (1979)~

It is well established that a statute should be construed so that each of its provisions is is given full effect; interpretations which render parts of a statute inoperative or superfluous are to be avoided.

~Quarles v. St. Clair, [1983] USCA5 1008; 711 F.2d 691, 701 n. 32 (5th Cir.1983)~

...a statute ought, upon the whole, to be so construed that, if it can be prevented, no clause, sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant.

~Washington Market Co. v. Hoffman, [1879] USSC 96; 101 U.S. 112, [1879] USSC 96; , 25 L.Ed. 782 (1879).~

This rule of statutory construction has been repeated by The Supreme Court and lower courts countless times. Your cavalier attitude towards absolute meaning of words in a legal context is not an accepted view at all, even if, at times ambiguity will be found in certain words. Indeed, because ambiguity can be found in some words, this is what distinguishes competent legal counsel from incompetent legal counsel. So, when you chide the O.P. by declaring that:

You'll read this and then go on about what you think "motor vehicle" really means and repeat some stupid definition you got off of a "truth" site. Why not just read the actual definition within the document that it is used?

You not only contradict yourself, as you had all ready done in the full context of the sentence I quoted earlier, that full paragraph being:

Words used in a legal context hardly ever have absolute meaning. The majority of the time, their meanings are given within the document that they are used. For other times, the common definition is used. You can almost 100% of the time find out what whichever word means in the context of the legal document that it was written.

Of course, if you can, "almost 100% of the time", find out whichever word means in the context of the legal document, this is fairly absolute. However, granting that at times there can be an ambiguity found within a poorly written statute or code, it is hardly foolhardy to uncover that ambiguity and determine how that affects the person being held liable to that statute or code. Indeed, an article titled Statutory Construction: Not for the Timid written by Jon May, a criminal defense attorney, begins as such:

By far the most exciting part of a defense lawyer’s practice is parsing the words of a criminal statute to uncover its latent ambiguity. Nothing, not an impassioned plea for the life of the accused, not a cross-examination that reduces the government’s lead witness to tears, comes close to the excitement that comes from demonstrating the lawfulness of a defendant’s conduct from the placement of an adverb in a sentence. Few realize the spark that inspired many of the giants of our profession occurred during those sessions at the black board (def. antecedent of white boards involving the use of chalk against a slate surface) in elementary school where sentences were de-constructed under the admiring gaze of our classmates. Little did we know that our facility with parallel and vertical lines identifying the subject from the predicate and showing which clauses modified which phrases would become so valuable later in our professional lives.

Following with this paragraph:

Amazingly, there are still lawyers practicing who fail appreciate the beauty of the poorly drafted statute; who eschew examination of the crime charged, failing to appreciate the obfuscation that led their client astray. It is to those lawyers that this primer is directed.

It is hardly the domain of the foolish to take seriously the precise meaning of every word within a statute or code. Your willingness to treat such a characteristic as something belonging to idiots says far more about you than it does any person who actually honors the rules of statutory construction.

Beyond the rules of statutory construction, there is the matter of constitutionality. While the courts will generally construe a statute or code to be constitutional, once that statute or code is challenged as unconstitutional, and while the burden of proof certainly belongs to the one challenging the constitutionality, the courts cannot just willy nilly dismiss this challenge and presume constitutionality and must consider the arguments being made as to its unconstitutionality.

As I mentioned earlier, I live in the State of California, and you have pointed to the vehicle code for the State of Florida. Let's take a look at both of those Constitutions and their Declaration of Rights:

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

~Declaration of Rights, Article I, Section 1; California State Constitution~ (Emphasis added)

SEC. 13. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable seizures and searches may not be violated; and a warrant may not issue except on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons and things to be seized.

~Declaration of Rights, Article I, Section 13; California State Constitution~

SEC. 19. (a) Private property may be taken or damaged for a public use and only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner.

~Declaration of Rights, Article I, Section 19; California State Constitution~ (In part, emphasis added)

This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.

~Declaration of Rights, Article I, Section 24; California State Constitution~ (In part)

SEC. 26. The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory and prohibitory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise.

~Declaration of Rights, Article I, Section 26; California State Constitution~

Thus, when the California legislature declares in V C Section 14607.4 Legislative Findings that:

(a) Driving a motor vehicle on the public streets and highways is a privilege, not a right.

They are, in fact, violating their own Constitution by declaring that driving is not a right and instead a privilege. The legislature has no legal authority to make such a declaration and are by Constitution bound to the mandatory and prohibitive nature of that Constitution that has expressly declared that all people have inalienable rights.

Inalienable means that which cannot be transferred to another, or others. Since it has been expressly declared that rights not enumerated by this Constitution cannot be construed to deny or impair other rights retained by the people, the fact that driving is not expressly enumerated does not matter.

Further, in Section 1, the right to pursue happiness is expressly mentioned, and pursuit is an action that in this context means to proceed along, or to travel. It is not up to the legislature to decide how people obtain and pursue this happiness unless such pursuit actually tramples upon the rights of another, or others. Driving a motor vehicle in and of itself does not deny other people of any rights. That law enforcement officers seem to have the right to seize vehicles without any due process of law can be fairly construed as a waiver of the right against unreasonable seizures by application of a license.

The Florida State Vehicle Code is not so blatant in its arrogance and doesn't seem to declare driving a privilege and not a right and Section 322.03 merely states:

Drivers must be licensed; penalties. —

(1) Except as otherwise authorized in this chapter, a person may not drive any motor vehicle upon a highway in this state unless such person has a valid driver’s license issued under this chapter.

However, when comparing this code against their own Constitution, we again find profound contradictions:

SECTION 1. Political power.--All political power is inherent in the people. The enunciation herein of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or impair others retained by the people.

~Declaration of Rights, Article I, Section 1; Florida State Constitution~

SECTION 2. Basic rights.--All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property; except that the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship may be regulated or prohibited by law. No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability.

~Declaration of Rights, Article I, Section 2; Florida State Constitution~

SECTION 12. Searches and seizures.--The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and against the unreasonable interception of private communications by any means, shall not be violated. No warrant shall be issued except upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, particularly describing the place or places to be searched, the person or persons, thing or things to be seized, the communication to be intercepted, and the nature of evidence to be obtained. This right shall be construed in conformity with the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. Articles or information obtained in violation of this right shall not be admissible in evidence if such articles or information would be inadmissible under decisions of the United States Supreme Court construing the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

~Declaration of Rights, Article I, Section 12; Florida State Constitution~

Much like the California State Constitution, the Florida Constitution acknowledges that the rights of the people are inalienable, and that any rights not enumerated by that Constitution may not be construed to deny or impair other rights. Any declaration that driving is not a right is not a legal declaration, and any person who naively takes such a declaration as being the truth accepts full responsibility for the outcome of that naivete.

Whatever the form in which the Government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the Government stays within the bounds of his authority.

~FEDERAL CROP INS. CORP V. MERRILL, 332 U. S. 380 (1947)~

The reason, I believe, so many people insist on referencing their right to drive as being the right to travel, stems from a Supreme Court ruling regarding the absolute right to travel:

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. So much is conceded by the Solicitor General. In Anglo-Saxon law, that right was emerging at least as early as the Magna Carta.

~KENT V. DULLES, 357 U. S. 116 (1958)~

As well as lower court decisions, such as:

Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience.

~Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 22~

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 at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

~Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 179~

Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to move from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the 14th amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution.

~Schactman v. Dulles, 96 App DC 287, 293.~

You can smirk and poo-poo and caw-caw all you like, as a point of law, the fundamental right to drive is real, despite legislators and motor vehicle agencies efforts to declare it a privilege.

reply to post by RestingInPieces


For your information, the sheer fact that I have taken the time and effort, and do in fact have the cognitive ability to, "waste my time on stupid "research,"" in and of itself should suffice to say that I am unequivocally not a moron. Clearly, you have faulted in realizing this. It is no fault of my own that you would like to continue playing AND paying into this system; and I should not be flamed because I am choosing to extricate myself from said system.

Furthermore, I have no points against my Lisence, but have spent close to $100 to retain it for the last 7 years of my life. Lucky you for living in a State that doesn't have such a ridiculous revenue collection scheme.

Also, I am actually in a position that I will not have to attend court and "get arrested." It is going to be rather simple to have the case dismissed with a written dismissal.

On the note of priorities. You mean to tell me that I should make being subjugated to arbitrary power a priority? I'm sorry but I would gladly sacrifice my physical freedom in an attempt to end such arbitrarities; the sad fact is that so many of us are not willing to do the same.

In closing, your posts are absolutely absurd and from this point forward I am going to pay them no mind.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by RestingInPieces

 

(Sigh)

You have made numerous absurd declarations in this thread. Beginning with:

Public roads are constructs. You don't travel on public roads. Travel is from point a to point b, with only natural elements as obstacles.

This, of course, is not an idiomatic expression made by you, but simply a false statement. There is no federal statute that defines travel in a legal sense, and as far as states go, to the best of my knowledge there is no legal definition of the term travel as well. Certainly the State of California, the state in which I reside does not make any legal definition of the term travel. When there is no legal definition of the word to rely upon we must turn to the every day usage of the term:

It's an ironic, detailed response to this "movements" absurd made-up definitions, like the one that says that driving implies commercial use, when it OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT. Apparently you missed it.

Travel Defined:

1. To go from one place to another, as on a trip; journey.

Travel Defined:

a : to go on or as if on a trip or tour : journey b

(1) : to go as if by traveling : pass

(2) : associate avels with a sophisticated crowd> c : to go from place to place as a sales representative or business agent 2 a (1) : to move or undergo transmission from one place to another

(2) : to withstand relocation successfully b : to move in a given direction or path or through a given distance c : to move rapidly

Travel Defined:

To go from one place to another, as on a trip; journey.

At no point in any standard usage of the term is the ridiculous qualification you've imposed upon the word; "only natural elements as an obstacle" a part of the definition. This is your invention and not a part of reality.

... and at no point does the definition say that you must be in a car to "travel". You have the right to "travel" with your two feet all you want.

Certainly the State of California, the state in which I reside does not make any legal definition of the term travel.

So tell me again, since the definition of travel is not weighed down by the requirement of automobiles, that you seem to inject this meaning into the word to serve your purposes of not having a driver's license?

"Hardly ever have absolute meaning" is, at best, hyperbolic. It is a cardinal rule and according to the rules of statutory construction that each and every word, whenever possible, be given significance:

... and if you payed any attention at all, you'd see that I said exactly that. It looks like your next batch of quotes took a full circle around where I did say that... AND THEN came back to it in a futile attempt to illustrate that I was somehow contradicting my self. lol. Great work

You can smirk and poo-poo and caw-caw all you like, as a point of law, the fundamental right to drive is real, despite legislators and motor vehicle agencies efforts to declare it a privilege.

You can quote all the constitutional right to privacy, property and happiness you want, but it doesn't have anything to do with traveling down the highway in an automobile. There is no fundamental right to drive on public roadways and more than there is a fundamental right to fly over a military base.

You are fighting a losing battle. If I were you, I would divert my resources to something more worthwhile, and most of all, more important.

In the end, it's obvious that you are ignoring anything and everything you read when it doesn't agree with you, and are clearly falling back on a few constitutional clauses like the right to life, liberty, happiness, and property.

reply to post by RestingInPieces

... and at no point does the definition say that you must be in a car to "travel". You have the right to "travel" with your two feet all you want.

More "irony"? At no point does the definition say that I must have two feet to travel, nor does it say I must own a horse, or a buggy with a horse, or a bicycle.

So tell me again, since the definition of travel is not weighed down by the requirement of automobiles, that you seem to inject this meaning into the word to serve your purposes of not having a driver's license?

So tell me this, since the definition of travel is not weighed down by the requirement of two feet, that you seem to inject into this meaning into the word to serve your purposes of having a drivers license? Tell me this as well, was there a DHB prior to a DMV? You know, a Department of Horse and Buggy?

... and if you payed any attention at all, you'd see that I said exactly that. It looks like your next batch of quotes took a full circle around where I did say that... AND THEN came back to it in a futile attempt to illustrate that I was somehow contradicting my self. lol. Great work

I most certainly was paying attention, and it was quite obvious that while you were yammering on, you weren't really paying attention to what you were saying. Great work.

You can quote all the constitutional right to privacy, property and happiness you want, but it doesn't have anything to do with traveling down the highway in an automobile.

Say's who? Since rights are protected as being expressly inalienable, by what authority does any legislature turn around and alienate this specific right?

There is no fundamental right to drive on public roadways and more than there is a fundamental right to fly over a military base.

Say's who? Inalienable rights are inalienable rights, and no amount of obfuscation and pointing to administrative agencies declaring authority not Constitutionally mandated can change what the term inalienable means.

You are fighting a losing battle. If I were you, I would divert my resources to something more worthwhile, and most of all, more important.

If I were you, I would take great care in whom you decide to dictate what is more worthwhile and more important. No one is telling you what you should view as more worthwhile and more important, but then again, no one else in this thread seems to be as enamored with tyranny as you are. Keep telling I, and others, what we should view as more worthwhile, and more important, and things will likely get far less civil. In other words, mind your own business sport, and don't pretend that you can take current dubious administrative agencies such as DMV's and use them as an excuse to yourself begin regulating the speech of I and others in this thread.

In the end, it's obvious that you are ignoring anything and everything you read when it doesn't agree with you, and are clearly falling back on a few constitutional clauses like the right to life, liberty, happiness, and property.

Oh yeah, falling back on those meaningless rights such as life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. These rights, in your estimation, after all, are merely privileges deigned granted by the insidious and magnanimous nature of people like you.

So.. let's say that no one has licenses due to your 'constitutional' challenge.

Cop stops a drunk driver.

In today's world, license gets taken away for 24 hours - 6months depending on severity.

In a world with no licenses, how does one prevent mr. drunk driver from getting back into HIS car and driving away, still drunk, to another bar? And then he drives home only to hit a car full of kids killing half of them..

Don't forget, you have already taken away the cop's only recourse of getting the guy off the road..

Oh, and by the way, you may not wish to get caught driving up here in Canada without a license.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by RestingInPieces

 

... and at no point does the definition say that you must be in a car to "travel". You have the right to "travel" with your two feet all you want.

More "irony"? At no point does the definition say that I must have two feet to travel, nor does it say I must own a horse, or a buggy with a horse, or a bicycle.

You have poor reading comprehension.

So tell me this, since the definition of travel is not weighed down by the requirement of two feet, that you seem to inject into this meaning into the word to serve your purposes of having a drivers license? Tell me this as well, was there a DHB prior to a DMV? You know, a Department of Horse and Buggy?

Was there a department of transportation and a public road/interstate system?

I most certainly was paying attention, and it was quite obvious that while you were yammering on, you weren't really paying attention to what you were saying. Great work.

It's obvious that the very thing you are attempting to defend doesn't even exist. If it did, you might be concentrating on it instead of illustrating your lack of reading comprehension and poor aptitude at masking logical fallacies as valid argument points.

Say's who? Since rights are protected as being expressly inalienable, by what authority does any legislature turn around and alienate this specific right?

That's not even a valid question. The constitutional phrases you cite don't give you the freedom or right to drive a car any more than they give you the freedom or right to molest small children.

There is no fundamental right to drive on public roadways and more than there is a fundamental right to fly over a military base.

Say's who? Inalienable rights are inalienable rights, and no amount of obfuscation and pointing to administrative agencies declaring authority not Constitutionally mandated can change what the term inalienable means.

... and driving an automobile on public roadways is NOT AN INALIENABLE RIGHT. If anything, driving is a LEGAL right, and as such, one that can be taken away after you get done with your drunk driving spree, or mow down a family, or crash into a fire station...

Although, since you believe driving is an INALIENABLE RIGHT, that anyone who does the above should be able to just keep on doing it after being proven to be INCOMPETENT.

If I were you, I would take great care in whom you decide to dictate what is more worthwhile and more important. No one is telling you what you should view as more worthwhile and more important, but then again, no one else in this thread seems to be as enamored with tyranny as you are.

I see, you are one of those fools who will argue with me that a circle is a square, and then just leave saying that we'll have to agree to disagree.

Keep telling I, and others, what we should view as more worthwhile, and more important, and things will likely get far less civil.

They already have. Your attitude concerning this is rather barbaric and anarchistic.

Oh yeah, falling back on those meaningless rights such as life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. These rights, in your estimation, after all, are merely privileges deigned granted by the insidious and magnanimous nature of people like you.

I'm not the one attempting to qualify such a phrase for my own shallow means of avoiding legal licensure, which is required in all 50 states if you wish to drive on public highways.

reply to post by juniperberry


In today's world the man behind the wheel driving drunk out of control to the extent that he is pulled over for doing so isn't probably going to be the same guy that took the responsibility of educating himself about the Legal System he was in and placed it squarely on his shoulders. As I believe a person that would behave in such an irresponsible manner probably hasn't taken much responsibility in anything he does at that point in his life.

Secondly, they'd prevent it in the same way they did 40 years ago here in the States; they'd take him home and leave his truck where it was. Generally no DUI involved unless it became problematic; as in an accident involved or repeat offenders. Also, if injured parties were involved we do in fact have a remedy for that. It's called criminal and civil court systems. The Lisence trick will absolutely NOT work when there is damage to persons or property. You ARE still accountable for infringe upon the Freedoms of others.

Please understand that I am not doing this because I want to be irresponsible. I am doing this is an act to demonstrate the responsiblity I have taken for myself, and my actions. In essence telling the court system that although I am not above the Law, I am not going to be subjugated to arbitrary legislation designed to get me to "behave," or in many cases the attemtped legislation of ethics and morals.

If I hurt someone I am most definitely responsible and should be held accountable, but if I am just headed to work minding my own I should be left alone entirely.

reply to post by RestingInPieces

You have poor reading comprehension.

My reading comprehension is fine, it is your reasoning that is poor.

Was there a department of transportation and a public road/interstate system?

This is a perfect example of your poor reasoning. The Department of Transportation in relation to interstate highways is a federal agency, and the bogus licensing schemes are not federal.

It's obvious that the very thing you are attempting to defend doesn't even exist. If it did, you might be concentrating on it instead of illustrating your lack of reading comprehension and poor aptitude at masking logical fallacies as valid argument points.

I am defending the right to drive, and it does exist, and you are just a petty little tyrant who has no valid argument so has no other recourse but to fall back on ad hominem attacks.

That's not even a valid question. The constitutional phrases you cite don't give you the freedom or right to drive a car any more than they give you the freedom or right to molest small children.

Inalienable rights are not given. Rights are not given by Constitution, and of the phrases I cited, one made clear that the Constitution was prohibitive and what it clearly meant by prohibitive was that it prohibited the State government from disparaging the rights of the people. You can attempt to frame this however you want, I nor other people do not have reading comprehension problems and are quite capable of reading the desperation in your posts. Just because you have a license to drive this does not give you the right to molest children, and even if the state gave you a license to molest children, it would not be legal, and you would still face the harsh judgment of the parents of whose children you molested.

.. and driving an automobile on public roadways is NOT AN INALIENABLE RIGHT.

It most certainly IS AN INALIENABLE RIGHT, and much like it is with all tyrants, the necessity to fight for those rights remain constant by the people.

If anything, driving is a LEGAL right

Where inalienable rights exist, legal rights are not necessary.

and as such, one that can be taken away after you get done with your drunk driving spree, or mow down a family, or crash into a fire station...

If you mow down a family because of your pathetic drunk driving spree your inalienable right to drive can be taken away and you can be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and convicted and imprisoned for manslaughter, and reckless endangerment, and no licensing scheme is necessary to prosecute you for your heinous crimes.

Although, since you believe driving is an INALIENABLE RIGHT, that anyone who does the above should be able to just keep on doing it after being proven to be INCOMPETENT.

It has nothing to do with INCOMPETENCE and every thing to do with personal accountability and when you are caught for your drunken escapades, after killing innocent women and children, having a drivers license will not protect you from the law, and you will be prosecuted for your heinous crimes.

I see, you are one of those fools who will argue with me that a circle is a square, and then just leave saying that we'll have to agree to disagree.

Then clearly you are blind, and anyone who knows me, knows full well I will never agree to disagree. I will continue to fight for the inalienable rights of all people, even yours, and if you choose to waive your inalienable rights, this is your choice, but you have no right to disparage or disregard the rights of other people.

They already have. Your attitude concerning this is rather barbaric and anarchistic.

Tyrants are barbaric, and it is always the strategy of the tyrant to declare freedom and inalienable rights as anarchy.

I'm not the one attempting to qualify such a phrase for my own shallow means of avoiding legal licensure, which is required in all 50 states if you wish to drive on public highways.

Your petty tyranny is indeed shallow, and the only thing that makes licensing schemes legal is the voluntary nature by which people apply for those licenses. It matters not that all 50 states have imposed these bogus license schemes, when they are successfully challenged in court the numbers don't matter, and I have all ready cited plenty of case law, backed up by Constitutional Clauses that make clear your shallow need to control other people has no legal basis what-so-ever.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by RestingInPieces

 

This is a perfect example of your poor reasoning. The Department of Transportation in relation to interstate highways is a federal agency, and the bogus licensing schemes are not federal.

Each state has a department of transportation. I wouldn't expect you to know that based on how little else you know about all things related to trafic.

I am defending the right to drive, and it does exist, and you are just a petty little tyrant who has no valid argument so has no other recourse but to fall back on ad hominem attacks.

You're right, you do have a right - it's just no inalienable.... it's legal.

Just because you have a license to drive this does not give you the right to molest children, and even if the state gave you a license to molest children, it would not be legal, and you would still face the harsh judgment of the parents of whose children you molested.

Why wouldn't it be legal? Do you also not know what 'legal' means?

Oh, don't tell me: You've created your own definition.

.. and driving an automobile on public roadways is NOT AN INALIENABLE RIGHT.

It most certainly IS AN INALIENABLE RIGHT, and much like it is with all tyrants, the necessity to fight for those rights remain constant by the people.

It can't be an inalienable right. Unalienable, or natural rights can not be taken away by their very nature.

Public Highways, for one,were created politically and legally, so therefore your right to drive on them is purely legal, and as such, it can be taken away.

It is obvious that it is a LEGAL right to drive the speed limit, while it is ILLEGAL to drive past the speed limit.

It's also your LEGAL right to drive in the proper lane, yet it is ILLEGAL to drive into oncoming traffic.

If driving was inalienable, then it would be absolutely inalienable and have no restrictions at all. Driving on public highways is full of legal restrictions.

.. Of course, your head is probably so clouded that you think the restrictions are just there because the tyrants are trying to subjugate your mind and freedom.

If you mow down a family because of your pathetic drunk driving spree your inalienable right to drive can be taken away and you can be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and convicted and imprisoned for manslaughter, and reckless endangerment, and no licensing scheme is necessary to prosecute you for your heinous crimes.

Piss poor job. You are actually saying that inalienable rights can be taken away?

Jesus man, isn't it obvious to you yet that you have no idea what you are talking about?

It has nothing to do with INCOMPETENCE and every thing to do with personal accountability and when you are caught for your drunken escapades, after killing innocent women and children, having a drivers license will not protect you from the law, and you will be prosecuted for your heinous crimes.

So, is that really why you don't want a driver's license? Because it didn't protect you?

Then clearly you are blind, and anyone who knows me, knows full well I will never agree to disagree. I will continue to fight for the inalienable rights of all people, even yours, and if you choose to waive your inalienable rights, this is your choice, but you have no right to disparage or disregard the rights of other people.

The inalienable rights that can be taken away, eh?

Your petty tyranny is indeed shallow, and the only thing that makes licensing schemes legal is the voluntary nature by which people apply for those licenses. It matters not that all 50 states have imposed these bogus license schemes, when they are successfully challenged in court the numbers don't matter, and I have all ready cited plenty of case law, backed up by Constitutional Clauses that make clear your shallow need to control other people has no legal basis what-so-ever.

You haven't cited anything substantial, precisely because there IS NOTHING SUBSTANTIAL REGARDING YOUR FRIVOLOUS CLAIMS. You don't even know what 'inalienable' means for crying out loud.

Hey, just so I can cement for everyone how confused you are, why don't you give me a list of no less than 20 rights that you think are inalienable?

This ought to be good.

reply to post by Namaste


I dislike government regulation more than any other living human. That being said, there are holes in your argument. First, you don't have to have a valid license. It's your choice. Second, you can travel without one, you simply aren't supposed to drive. Under your theory, the guy that drives everwhere at 100 mph and wipes out a family in a minivan for the second time, along with a few pedestrians would be able to continue to drive. Do you really want that guy on the road?
But I appreciate the sentiment. I refuse to wear a seatbelt. It's my car, It's my seatbelt, and I pay for my own insurance. It isn't the gummints business to protect me from myself. Similarly, I feel for all the kids wearing those stupid looking helmets wherever they go. Never wore one when I was a kid, and I'm still above ground. I plan on getting a segway, and damn sure won't strap on one of those goof-assed plastic hats. It's my head. Unfortunately, despite my best efforts, my protest goes unnoticed. You see, I'm 50, and almost always in a suit, so despite driving a Mustang GT with a big honkin' V8 just as fast as I want, the cops won't pull me over.

This story will make you wonder about your right to travel.

Me and my friend went to the mechanic today and we found this on his car. imgur.com... i am pretty confident it is a tracking device by the FBI but my friend's roommates think it is a bomb..any thoughts?

www.reddit.com...

reply to post by RestingInPieces

Each state has a department of transportation. I wouldn't expect you to know that based on how little else you know about all things related to trafic.

Uh-huh, and this coming from the person claiming I have a reading comprehension. Try reading again what you quoted:

This is a perfect example of your poor reasoning. This is a perfect example of your poor reasoning. The Department of Transportation in relation to interstate highways is a federal agency, and the bogus licensing schemes are not federal. is a federal agency, and the bogus licensing schemes are not federal.

Interstate highways were authorized by the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, and are federal not state. It is spurious to include interstate highways in your argument attempting to justify the false claim that driving is a privilege and not a right. Further, while the interstate highway system was created to strengthen national defense, and exist primarily to facilitate military transport, when referencing public roads, it should be clearly understood what public means.

Public Defined:

1. Of, concerning, or affecting the community or the people: the public good. 2. Maintained for or used by the people or community: a public park.

As has all ready been well established by the Declaration of two State Constitutions, and the Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America makes perfectly clear, it is the people who hold the inherent political power, and government exists to serve the people, not the other way around.

You're right, you do have a right - it's just no inalienable.... it's legal.

You are demonstrably wrong. I have all ready posted the California Vehicle Code that arrogantly claims that driving is a privilege and not a right, and that is plenty of evidence to refute your false claim that driving is a legal right. Privilege has a specific legal definition and it isn't right:

Legal Definition of Privilege

A particular benefit, advantage, or Immunity enjoyed by a person or class of people that is not shared with others. A power of exemption against or beyond the law. It is not a rightbut, rather, exempts one from the performance of a duty, obligation, or liability.

Why wouldn't it be legal? Do you also not know what 'legal' means?

It does not surprise me that you advocate the licensing and legality of molesting children.

Legal Defined:

1: of or relating to law
2 a : deriving authority from or founded on law : de jure b : having a formal status derived from law often without a basis in actual fact : titular c : established by law; especially : statutory
3 : conforming to or permitted by law or established rules
4 : recognized or made effective by a court of law as distinguished from a court of equity
5 : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of the profession of law or of one of its members
6 : created by the constructions of the law

There is, in American jurisprudence, judicial review:

Judicial review in the United States refers to the power of a court to review the constitutionality of a statute or treaty, or to review an administrative regulation for consistency with either a statute, a treaty, or the constitution itself.

This means any legislative act that is in direct contradiction to the Constitution that empowered the legislature is subject to judicial review and can be struck down as an offensive law. Sticking with the State of California, consider this:

SEC. 28. (a) The People of the State of California find and declare all of the following: (1) Criminal activity has a serious impact on the citizens of California. The rights of victims of crime and their families in criminal prosecutions are a subject of grave statewide concern.

(2) Victims of crime are entitled to have the criminal justice system view criminal acts as serious threats to the safety and welfare of the people of California. The enactment of comprehensive provisions and laws ensuring a bill of rights for victims of crime, including safeguards in the criminal justice system fully protecting those rights and ensuring that crime victims are treated with respect and dignity, is a matter of high public importance. California's victims of crime are largely dependent upon the proper functioning of government, upon the criminal justice system and upon the expeditious enforcement of the rights of victims of crime described herein, in order to protect the public safety and to secure justice when the public safety has been compromised by criminal activity.

(3) The rights of victims pervade the criminal justice system. These rights include personally held and enforceable rights described in paragraphs (1) through (17) of subdivision (b).

Declaration of Rights, Article I, Section 28, California State Constitution~ (In part.)

Of the enforceable rights mentioned in Clause 3, obtaining safety enumerated in Section 1 would be a right of all children, as well as adults. Currently child molestation is affected by a federal statute known as CAPTA, (The Federal Child Abuse Treatment Act), that provides minimum standards that states must incorporate in their statutory definitions of child abuse and neglect. The CAPTA definition of child sexual abuse includes:

The employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement, or coercion of any child to engage in, or assist any other person to engage in, any sexually explicit conduct or simulation of such conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of such conduct; or

The rape, and in cases of caretaker or interfamilial relationships, statutory rape, molestation, prostitution, or other form of sexual exploitation of children, or incest with children

~42 U.S.C.A. § 5106g(4)~

Section 300 of the Welfare and Institution Code of California, as well as the California Penal Code Section 11165.1 provides these definitions:

A child is considered dependent if he or she has been sexually abused; there is a substantial risk that the child will be sexually abused, as defined in § 11165.1 of the Penal Code, by his or her parent, guardian, or a household member; or the parent or guardian has failed to adequately protect the child from sexual abuse when the parent or guardian knew or reasonably should have known that the child was in danger of sexual abuse.

Sexual abuse means sexual assault or sexual exploitation as defined below:
* Sexual assault includes rape, incest, sodomy, lewd or lascivious acts upon a child, or child molestation. * Sexual exploitation refers to any of the following:
Depicting a minor engaged in obscene acts; preparing, selling, or distributing obscene matter that depicts minors; employing a minor to perform obscene acts
Knowingly permitting or encouraging a child to engage in, or assisting others to engage in, prostitution or a live performance involving obscene sexual conduct, or to either pose or model alone or with others for purposes of preparing a film, photograph, negative, slide, drawing, painting, or other pictorial depiction involving obscene sexual conduct
Depicting a child in, or knowingly developing, duplicating, printing, or exchanging any film, photograph, videotape, negative, or slide in which a child is engaged in an act of obscene sexual conduct

I am not at all sorry to inform you that your desire to be licensed to sexually molest children is a pipe dream and would never stand as legal in any court of law.

Oh, don't tell me: You've created your own definition.

Do you enjoy making a fool of yourself, or is it just some strange quirk of yours that you can't prevent?

It can't be an inalienable right. Unalienable, or natural rights can not be taken away by their very nature.

Precisely! They can, however be trampled upon, disparaged and denied, just as you are doing, and just as the several states have attempted to do. Natural rights must be jealously guarded, and zealously protected at all times.

Public Highways, for one,were created politically and legally, so therefore your right to drive on them is purely legal, and as such, it can be taken away.

Affirming the consequent is a logical fallacy. Just because public highways were legally built does not make driving on them a legal right. The federal government that built those highways, and the state and local governments that build public roads derived their power from the people. Thus, what is public belongs to the people. The right to build public roads is a legal right granted to government by the people. The right to drive on those roads and highways is unalienable.

It is obvious that it is a LEGAL right to drive the speed limit, while it is ILLEGAL to drive past the speed limit.

Driving the speed limit is not a right, it is an expectation. Driving is a right, driving recklessly is not.

It's also your LEGAL right to drive in the proper lane, yet it is ILLEGAL to drive into oncoming traffic.

Driving is a right. Driving recklessly is not. Driving in the proper lane of traffic is an inalienable right. Driving into incoming traffic is an abrogation and derogation of other peoples right to drive, and as such is not a right.

If driving was inalienable, then it would be absolutely inalienable and have no restrictions at all. Driving on public highways is full of legal restrictions.

Begging the question is just another fallacious argument. All rights face restrictions. The right to speech is restricted by slander laws, and the axiom; "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is another restriction. Any action that cause another, or others harm, outside of self defense, is not a right, thus restrictions on speech. The press is restricted by libel laws. The right to worship freely is restricted and human sacrifice would not be accepted as a right, thus a restriction on religious freedom. However, speech, press, and religious worship are unalienable rights. Driving is an unalienable right that faces restrictions as well, and driving recklessly is not a right.

.. Of course, your head is probably so clouded that you think the restrictions are just there because the tyrants are trying to subjugate your mind and freedom.

...Of course, your head is probably so clouded by your love of tyranny that you will just simply ignore all that I have posted and just keep arguing in favor of tyranny and subjugation, without any regard for the rights of the people.

Piss poor job. You are actually saying that inalienable rights can be taken away?

Here is what you quoted of me that you have declared a piss poor job:

If you mow down a family because of your pathetic drunk driving spree your inalienable right to drive can be taken away and you can be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and convicted and imprisoned for manslaughter, and reckless endangerment, and no licensing scheme is necessary to prosecute you for your heinous crimes.

Once you are convicted of your crime of manslaughter and reckless endangerment, your inalienable right to liberty is forfeit and you will be incarcerated. Convicted criminals have their rights taken away all the time. This is a part of the justice system that reasonable people have come together in order to form a more perfect union, and among other things, establish justice. A far cry from the anarchy you so desperately try to frame my arguments as, once you are convicted of abrogating and derogating the rights of others, your own rights become forfeit for a period of time.

Jesus man, isn't it obvious to you yet that you have no idea what you are talking about?

Were you looking in a mirror when you wrote that?

So, is that really why you don't want a driver's license? Because it didn't protect you?

Are you trying to deflect? Here is what you quoted of me:

t has nothing to do with INCOMPETENCE and every thing to do with personal accountability and when you are caught for your drunken escapades, after killing innocent women and children, having a drivers license will not protect you from the law, and you will be prosecuted for your heinous crimes.

Yet, you insist that it is I who have a problem with reading comprehension. It is clear what I stated, and that is that just because you have a license to drive this will not keep you immune from conviction of the crime of manslaughter and reckless endangerment because you took your car and drove so recklessly that you killed innocent women and children. Further, anyone who doesn't have a license to drive is still subject to the same laws that would convict you of manslaughter and reckless endangerment. The licensing scheme is not necessary in order to enforce just laws.

The inalienable rights that can be taken away, eh?

You gray hats are all the same. On the one hand you declare me an anarchist because I defend the rights of people, and on the other hand, you mock the efficacy of inalienable rights because government has been given the right to convict and imprison people who have abrogated and derogated the rights of others. Under a system of anarchy, there would be no justice system and if it were my friends or loved ones that were killed and/or harmed due to your callous disregard for their rights, and your reckless drunken driving, then my only recourse would be to seek revenge and mete out my own form of justice. Reasonable people understand the folly of such justice, and therefore they come together, in order to form a more perfect union, and establish a justice system that allows government to convict and imprison you once you are lawfully convicted of your crimes.

You haven't cited anything substantial, precisely because there IS NOTHING SUBSTANTIAL REGARDING YOUR FRIVOLOUS CLAIMS. You don't even know what 'inalienable' means for crying out loud.

Right. Citing the Declaration of Rights from both the California and Florida, as well as the earlier citation of Louisiana Constitutions is not SUBSTANTIAL according to your FRIVOLOUS CLAIMS. Citing the Supreme Court and several lower Court of Appeals is not SUBSTANTIAL according to your FRIVOLOUS CLAIMS, and according to your FRIVOLOUS CLAIMS, inalienable means that which cannot be taken away, but this is not how inalienable is defined:

Inalienable Defined:

That cannot be transferred to another or others:

Inalienable Defined:

: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred

Hey, just so I can cement for everyone how confused you are, why don't you give me a list of no less than 20 rights that you think are inalienable?

1.) Life; 2.) Liberty; 3.) Pursuit of Happiness; 4.) Property; 5.) The Right to Keep and Bear Arms; 6.) Religious Worship; 7.) Freedom of the Press; 8.) The Right to Peaceably Assemble; 9.) The Right to Petition the government for a Redress of Grievances; 10.) The Right to be Released from unlawful detention; 11.) The Right to Contract; 12.) The Right to Travel; 13.) Privacy; 14.) The Right to be Free of unreasonable searches and seizures; 15.) The right to deny any quartering of military personal on my property during times of peace, and during times of war, the right to rely upon what the law proscribes when faced with any quartering. 16.) The Right to Due Process of Law; 17.) The Right to Protection from Double Jeopardy; 18.) The Right to Just Compensation for any taking of property in the name of Public Domain; 19.) The Right to be Free from Self Incrimination; 20.) The Right to Confront my accuser in a Court of Law; 21.) The Right to Assistance of Counsel; 22.) The Right to an Impartial Jury; 23.) The Right to be Informed of any criminal charges brought against me; 24.) The Right to Compel Witnesses in My Favor; 25.) The Right to rely upon the Rules of Common Law in any Suits at Common Law; 25.) The Right to be Free from Excessive Bail. 26.) The Right to a Speedy Trial; 27.) The Right to be free from Cruel and Unusual Punishment. 28.) Obtaining Safety; 29.) The Right to Self Defense; and finally, 20.) The Right to Reserve any un-enumerated Rights as Rights.

Cement that sport.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by RestingInPieces

 

Interstate highways were authorized by the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, and are federal not state. It is spurious to include interstate highways in your argument attempting to justify the false claim that driving is a privilege and not a right. Further, while the interstate highway system was created to strengthen national defense, and exist primarily to facilitate military transport, when referencing public roads, it should be clearly understood what public means.

You are either grasping, insincere in your argument technique, or very ignorant. Of course, when I mention the STATE'S DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION I am *NOT* using it in the context of highways that they *DO NOT* administer.

No, in fact, I am mentioning it it precisely for the PUBLIC HIGHWAYS that they DO ADMINISTER. Namely, the U.S highways, which have been around BEFORE THE INTERSTATE SYSTEM since 1926.

I'm not talking about the 43,000 miles of interstate public highways.

No, I'm talking about the 96,000 miles of public, state and locally maintained, U.S numbered highways.

Public Defined:

1. Of, concerning, or affecting the community or the people: the public good. 2. Maintained for or used by the people or community: a public park.

Again, you are being very ignorant. You need to show the definition of PUBLIC as it is defined within the document you are referencing... not the definition you are getting from an online dictionary.

You are demonstrably wrong. I have all ready posted the California Vehicle Code that arrogantly claims that driving is a privilege and not a right, and that is plenty of evidence to refute your false claim that driving is a legal right. Privilege has a specific legal definition and it isn't right:

Legal Definition of Privilege

A particular benefit, advantage, or Immunity enjoyed by a person or class of people that is not shared with others. A power of exemption against or beyond the law. It is not a rightbut, rather, exempts one from the performance of a duty, obligation, or liability.

Wow, first you say it's an "INALIENABLE RIGHT", then you say it isn't a "RIGHT" and then you say it's a "PRIVILEGE".

DING DING DING!!! STEP RIGHT UP FOLKS! DO I HAVE A SHOW FOR YOU! WITNESS THE AMAZING, INCONCEIVABLE, UNFATHOMABLE... It's... .THE MAN WHO CAN'T MAKE UP HIS MIND!!!!!!

Do you even know what you are arguing for?????? Are you just picking from that whole gamut to make sure you've at least mentioned every conceivable interpretation to satisfy your sad little ego into thinking you are correct?

Like I said many, many times before in this thread: The definitions are in the documents they concern. You can look up a definition in 20 different online dictionaries and get 200 different definitions, cherry-pick the one that agrees with your idea of the "real" definition, and be happy and stupid all you want.

What you are doing, is looking up the definition for a nut of the metric type in a botany dictionary and trying to tell me that what I'm holding is edible. You're favorite past time is pissing on peoples' legs and tellin 'em it's raining, isn't it?

Hey, look at me, I can come up with a dictionary entry that agrees with ME!!!

privilege
n. a special benefit, exemption from a duty, or immunity from penalty, given to a particular person, a group or a class of people.

dictionary.law.com...

Better yet, why not, if you can't find the definition you are looking for in the legal document that you want it to appear in... why not look for the definition of that term in a similar legal document with similar context.....

... instead of free-dictionary.internet-lawyer.com ????

Hell, you could have at least went to an AUTHORITATIVE and WELL ESTABLISHED DICTIONARY, like MERRIAM WEBSTER.

privilege:
: a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor ; especially : such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office

Why wouldn't it be legal? Do you also not know what 'legal' means?



I am not at all sorry to inform you that your desire to be licensed to sexually molest children is a pipe dream and would never stand as legal in any court of law.

Wow.

Oh, don't tell me: You've created your own definition.

Do you enjoy making a fool of yourself, or is it just some strange quirk of yours that you can't prevent?


... and of course, with the post I am responding to, I can clearly see that you did make your own definition. You cherry picked the definition you wanted from all of the internet dictionaries available... or just the first one you found. Which is worse?

It can't be an inalienable right. Unalienable, or natural rights can not be taken away by their very nature.

Precisely! They can, however be trampled upon, disparaged and denied, just as you are doing, and just as the several states have attempted to do. Natural rights must be jealously guarded, and zealously protected at all times.

Too bad driving is not an inalienable right, huh? What is it exactly? You've already said it is:

1) Not a right
2) A privilege
3) not a privilege
4) an inalienable right
5) not inalienable
6) I bet later you'll tell me it's a right?

Affirming the consequent is a logical fallacy. Just because public highways were legally built does not make driving on them a legal right.

Except when it's true.

The federal government that built those highways, and the state and local governments that build public roads derived their power from the people. Thus, what is public belongs to the people. The right to build public roads is a legal right granted to government by the people. The right to drive on those roads and highways is unalienable.

No. You are completely wrong again. What a shocker!

en.wikipedia.org...

Driving the speed limit is not a right, it is an expectation. Driving is a right, driving recklessly is not.

HEY! What do you know! Tack on a "driving is a right" for you too.

1) Not a right
2) A privilege
3) not a privilege
4) an inalienable right
5) not inalienable
6) is a right

Driving is a right. Driving recklessly is not. Driving in the proper lane of traffic is an inalienable right. Driving into incoming traffic is an abrogation and derogation of other peoples right to drive, and as such is not a right.

Ok... are you just pulling my leg here? Seriously you don't think driving is all 6 of these definitions?

I'm convinced now that your whole purpose here is just to troll rational people. I've read some of your other posts and you always come across as having more than a few wires lose.

reply to post by RestingInPieces

You are either grasping, insincere in your argument technique, or very ignorant. Of course, when I mention the STATE'S DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION I am *NOT* using it in the context of highways that they *DO NOT* administer.

No sport, you are grasping, and your insincerity has been evident from the get go in this thread.

No, in fact, I am mentioning it it precisely for the PUBLIC HIGHWAYS that they DO ADMINISTER. Namely, the U.S highways, which have been around BEFORE THE INTERSTATE SYSTEM since 1926.

No, in fact, I am mentioning it it precisely for the PUBLIC HIGHWAYS that they DO ADMINISTER. Namely, the U.S highways, which have been around BEFORE THE INTERSTATE SYSTEM since 1926.

In fact, this is precisely what you wrote:

Was there a department of transportation and a public road/interstate system?

Do you even bother to pay attention to what you write?

I'm not talking about the 43,000 miles of interstate public highways.

And yet you wrote interstate system.

No, I'm talking about the 96,000 miles of public, state and locally maintained, U.S numbered highways.

The interstate system is federal, and that is a fact.

Again, you are being very ignorant. You need to show the definition of PUBLIC as it is defined within the document you are referencing... not the definition you are getting from an online dictionary.

If you mean by "document you are referencing" the California Vehicle Code, public is not defined by that code, and to the best of my knowledge there is no California Statute that defines public. Section 360 of the vehicle code defines "highway":

"Highway" is a way or place of whatever nature, publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel. Highway includes street.

But this definition of "highway" in no way contradicts the "online" dictionary definition of public I provided. So, what exactly is your point?

Wow, first you say it's an "INALIENABLE RIGHT", then you say it isn't a "RIGHT" and then you say it's a "PRIVILEGE".

Wow, your insanity is getting worse by the moment. You are making this insane remark to this exchange:

You're right, you do have a right - it's just no inalienable.... it's legal.

In my response to your erroneous claim that the right to drive is a legal right, I responded with:

You are demonstrably wrong. I have all ready posted the California Vehicle Code that arrogantly claims that driving is a privilege and not a right, and that is plenty of evidence to refute your false claim that driving is a legal right. Privilege has a specific legal definition and it isn't right:

Legal Definition of Privilege A particular benefit, advantage, or Immunity enjoyed by a person or class of people that is not shared with others. A power of exemption against or beyond the law. It is not a rightbut, rather, exempts one from the performance of a duty, obligation, or liability.

Now you are desperately attempting to make it appear as if I have backed off my assertion that driving is an inalienable right. I am most certainly doing no such thing. I am stating unequivocally that driving is an inalienable right, and that the California Vehicle Code is unconstitutional in its assertion that driving is a privilege and not a right, and used it in the context above to refute your spurious claim that driving is a legal right.

DING DING DING!!! STEP RIGHT UP FOLKS! DO I HAVE A SHOW FOR YOU! WITNESS THE AMAZING, INCONCEIVABLE, UNFATHOMABLE... It's... .THE MAN WHO CAN'T MAKE UP HIS MIND!!!!!!

Your silly "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" routine is fooling no one.

Do you even know what you are arguing for?????? Are you just picking from that whole gamut to make sure you've at least mentioned every conceivable interpretation to satisfy your sad little ego into thinking you are correct?

Were you looking in the mirror again as you wrote that?

Like I said many, many times before in this thread: The definitions are in the documents they concern. You can look up a definition in 20 different online dictionaries and get 200 different definitions, cherry-pick the one that agrees with your idea of the "real" definition, and be happy and stupid all you want.

200 different definitions? Who do you think your kidding? If your ridiculous claim had any kernel of truth to it you would have actually taken the time to look up at least half of the 20 online dictionaries you speak of to show this. Of course you didn't bother because you know you are lying, and apparently believe that all you have to do is keep lying while acting dismissive and that this will some how make you appear as erudite and correct.

What you are doing, is looking up the definition for a nut of the metric type in a botany dictionary and trying to tell me that what I'm holding is edible. You're favorite past time is pissing on peoples' legs and tellin 'em it's raining, isn't it?

You are insane, aren't you? You yourself admitted earlier that when a legal definition is not supplied by statute then we turn to the every day usage of the word. You're a real piece of work, sport.

Hey, look at me, I can come up with a dictionary entry that agrees with ME!!!

privilege n. a special benefit, exemption from a duty, or immunity from penalty, given to a particular person, a group or a class of people. dictionary.law.com...

But it doesn't agree with you, does it? No where in this definition you've supplied does it define privilege as being a legal right.

Better yet, why not, if you can't find the definition you are looking for in the legal document that you want it to appear in... why not look for the definition of that term in a similar legal document with similar context.....

... instead of free-dictionary.internet-lawyer.com ????

Hell, you could have at least went to an AUTHORITATIVE and WELL ESTABLISHED DICTIONARY, like MERRIAM WEBSTER.

This is the logical fallacy known as poisoning the wells, which is a variant of the ad hominen attack where you attack the source. Fallacious arguing is your forte, no?

Then you follow this fallacy by pretending to quote me, but instead write this:

nsert a bunch of stupid quotes about ILLEGAL and CRIMINAL acts here in an attempt to explain that they are illegal and criminal>

And then smugly reply to your own fiction with "wow". Wow indeed.

... and of course, with the post I am responding to, I can clearly see that you did make your own definition. You cherry picked the definition you wanted from all of the internet dictionaries available... or just the first one you found. Which is worse?

Cherry picked? You offered a different source that backed up my claim, even though you stupidly claim it supports your contention. It did not, and you continue to look foolish.

Too bad driving is not an inalienable right, huh? What is it exactly? You've already said it is: 1) Not a right 2) A privilege 3) not a privilege 4) an inalienable right 5) not inalienable 6) I bet later you'll tell me it's a right?

This is, of course, all a lie. Driving is a right, at no point have I backed away from this assertion, and I continue to assert that driving is an inalienable right. If you are trying to confuse people it would help if you weren't so confused. As long as you remain as confused as you are, all you will accomplish is to continue looking foolish.

Except when it's true.

This is in response to this:

Affirming the consequent is a logical fallacy. Just because public highways were legally built does not make driving on them a legal right.

You obviously do not know what "affirming the consequent means. It means; logic reversal. A correct statement of the form "if P then Q" gets turned into "Q therefore P". Mind your P's and Q's sport.

No. You are completely wrong again. What a shocker!

This is in response to this:

The federal government that built those highways, and the state and local governments that build public roads derived their power from the people. Thus, what is public belongs to the people. The right to build public roads is a legal right granted to government by the people. The right to drive on those roads and highways is unalienable.

First of all your assertion that I am wrong is just another logical fallacy known as argument by dismissal, where you just declare me wrong and leave it at that. However, by declaring me wrong on this point you are also declaring the Preamble to the Constitution for the United States to be wrong as well as the numerous state Constitutions that declare that government exists by grant of the people. What a shocker.

The Wikipedia article you linked does not in anyway offer up any assertion that contradicts what I have said that what is public belongs to the people and that the right to build public roads is a legal right granted to government by the people. What a shocker.

HEY! What do you know! Tack on a "driving is a right" for you too. 1) Not a right 2) A privilege 3) not a privilege 4) an inalienable right 5) not inalienable 6) is a right

This silly little needling, (yet another form of fallacious arguing), is in response to me distinguishing the right to drive form the crime of reckless driving. Typical of gray hats, in order to dismiss any black and white view you hopelessly try to paint everything as gray, but it is not gray. No person has the right to abrogate and/or derogate the rights of another person. Reckless driving is an abrogation of other peoples right to drive, as well as other rights. This is such a simple concept that it is fairly assumed at this point that you are indeed being insincere, and obviously believe that all you have to do is keep offending and at some point you will win by attrition. You lost this argument a long time ago, sport.

I'm convinced now that your whole purpose here is just to troll rational people. I've read some of your other posts and you always come across as having more than a few wires lose.

Looking in the mirror again, are you?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


It's not just me declaring you wrong. It's judges, lawyers, laws, and statutes - all based on the constitutions (among other non-legal documents and phrases) from which you are wrongly deriving your information from.

Your theory is full of holes, and the sad part is you can't even see it. You may want to re-evaluate your reasoning process, because I'm willing to bet this isn't the only pathological idea you have.

Good luck never winning your "cause".

I formally withdrawal from our discussion. Have a wonderful day alienating more people.

reply to post by RestingInPieces

It's not just me declaring you wrong. It's judges, lawyers, laws, and statutes - all based on the constitutions (among other non-legal documents and phrases) from which you are wrongly deriving your information from.

It is not judges declaring me wrong, and certainly not based on the Constitutions, and in fact where I have cited several instances of case law to support my argument you have cited none. The only thing you can rely upon are the codes of which I have argued are unconstitutional.

JP,

When did driving become a "right" as opposed to a "privilege" in the US?

I ask, as in light of a new study, my province is going to be preparing much tougher driving standards for licensing. And, up here there is no legal way around it, as driving is classed as a privilege not a right.

They teach us that it is the same south of the border.

I am going to offer a suggestion, not on legal theory and what-if's, but on reality. Judges are humans. Criminal Traffic Judges are moody humans. Before going to see this judge, go and sit in the courtroom for a few hours and watch how his demeanor changes from first case to say mid-way through the docket. Judge your place on the docket; most do aplphabetical order while others on offense severity; and evaluate. These judges deal with people that pull things like this daily as well as lie , insult and just plain act stupidly in court. You are not 100% ensured on a fair trial at that level EVER. Take the human factor into account when you do this or ignore it at your peril.

All I can say is good luck. I will gladly send you some bail money for the effort. You will almost certainly lose your case, as Law as bad as it is getting, doesn’t even seem to apply in our court system. You will be convicted regardless of the law.

The DMV or Dept. Of Motor Vehicles, is WAY out of control. They are judge, Jury and executioner. You never even see a day in court, and are fined for any number of idiotic offences.

I just purchased a new vehicle, and when I paid for the 2-year registration, I was only given tags for 1.5 years. I complained about this, and the “gentleman” behind the counter acted as if I was insane or something. “ I can’t change the month” you imbecile, was the reply. Just another way to fleece the American people.


And if you look into it you will find really crazy events. Like getting a DUI walking, riding a horse, bicycle, etc. A good friend of mine got a DUI while sitting peacefully on his front porch! I kid you not!


Again, good luck!
www.duiblog.com...

reply to post by peck420

When did driving become a "right" as opposed to a "privilege" in the US?

The more appropriate question is when did driving go from being a right, to becoming a privilege? As early as 1937 there was The Drivers Handbook, for Detroit Michigan titled The Right to Drive.

I have all ready supplied numerous citations of case law where the right to travel is well established. Rights cannot be declared privileges by statute when such a statute is authorized by Constitutions that expressly declare rights as being inalienable, and further make clear that the enumeration of certain rights may not be construed to deny or disparage rights not enumerated.