The State Shouldn't Be Able to Require Driver's Licenses

This discussion seems kooky to me.

The ability to travel freely within the states is a fundamental right. Driving is a privilege. Pure and simple.

Obtaining a license & maintaining insurance = a matter of public policy & public safety.

Quote:

---

Quoting EA1070a

---

This discussion seems kooky to me.

The ability to travel freely within the states is a fundamental right. Driving is a privilege. Pure and simple.

Obtaining a license & maintaining insurance = a matter of public policy & public safety.

---

Discussions of this type normally originate with those for whom kooky is state of being so it is only natural for the discussion to be kooky.

You get how it works, I get how it works and everyone else in this thread except OP gets how it works. OP and others like him/her doesn't and won't, either through willful ignorance, stubbornness or sheer stupidity.

Yes, i believe the certs were changed this year to being every 3 years with a grandfather clause. Continued education from comptia.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting free9man

---

Discussions of this type normally originate with those for whom kooky is state of being so it is only natural for the discussion to be kooky.

You get how it works, I get how it works and everyone else in this thread except OP gets how it works. OP and others like him/her doesn't and won't, either through willful ignorance, stubbornness or sheer stupidity.

---

See now, this is what im talking about, slandering. There are different points of view, im arguing that it hinders our rights as people. not the morality of it as you cannot push your/my morals onto anyone. its not my/your right to do so. I'm solely speaking about its impedance on our rights as what we used to be, free people, before everything was turned into corporations.

I'm still looking for the "evidence" you all seek to prove it holds in court. But from what i have been reading, it doesnt seem like something that would make it to the supreme court. Moreso something that would be dismissed at the lowest.

People used to think the world was flat. I bet those who said it was round were told they were "kooky" too.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting EA1070a

---

This discussion seems kooky to me.

The ability to travel freely within the states is a fundamental right. Driving is a privilege. Pure and simple.

Obtaining a license & maintaining insurance = a matter of public policy & public safety.

---

Again, yes, driving is a priv. Because driving means while employed or conducting commerce. look it up

Quote:

---

Quoting darinschmidt

---

Again, yes, driving is a priv. Because driving means while employed or conducting commerce. look it up

---

That's not how it is defined in MY state ... nor, I imagine, in other states.

In CA a "driver" is a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle (VC 305). And, with very few exceptions, a person may not drive a motor vehicle upon a highway, unless the person then holds a valid driver's license issued under the Vehicle Code (VC 12500(a)). And, a "vehicle" is a device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks (VC 670).

So, a driver in control of a motorized vehicle is required to possess a state-issued driver's license if he moves the motor driven vehicle upon a highway or street (a way or place of whatever nature, publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel, VC 360).

Unless you would argue that every lawyer in CA (a state that possesses about a third of the nation's attorneys) has missed this right to travel defense, you'd be sunk making that argument here.

so then what good is a legal dictionary such as blacks law dictionary?

Quote:

---

Quoting darinschmidt

---

so then what good is a legal dictionary such as blacks law dictionary?

---

As a general reference, it's fine. But, some terms have very specific meanings in the laws of a particular state.

Quote:

---

Quoting darinschmidt

---

so then what good is a legal dictionary such as blacks law dictionary?

---

What good is a Merck Manual?

In the hands of someone who understands the nuances of the law, legal precedent, the origins of common law and someone who has a thorough understanding of how to read case law? It's as useful as any dictionary I suppose. First year law students typically waste money on it and never really touch it again.

Quote:

---

Quoting darinschmidt

---

no surprise here that Mr Knowitall just seems to troll around everywhere criticizing people. http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137965

---

I have limited patience for fools, and even less for people who are willfully ignorant. You don't seem capable of processing the law even when it's spoon-fed to you, so you would seem to fall in the former category (which is why I took the time to spoon-feed you rather than dismissing you outright). As it stands, you're proving the statement, "Best to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool...."

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

I have limited patience for fools, and even less for people who are willfully ignorant. You don't seem capable of processing the law even when it's spoon-fed to you, so you would seem to fall in the former category (which is why I took the time to spoon-feed you rather than dismissing you outright). As it stands, you're proving the statement, "Best to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool...."

---

See now, this is what im talking about. just arrogant blabber on the web. Like a true Keyboard Warrior. Are you a lawyer, judge, or going to law school? No, then i guess you dont have anything to spoon feed me as it is your interpretation of what the law is. Which is why we have lawyers, legal dictionaries, and schools for people to attend. You feel that a license isnt impeding on your "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. Then fine, keep paying up and allow what i feel is a right to be taken away from you.

I feel that these citations will hold up in court. Do you have any proof that they dont from someone who has actually used this information when disputing a ticket?

I dont feel that a quote like that, no matter where it was from, can be taken out of context in any matter. Not like they would say something like that in a rape case, or the Zimmerman case..... It has to deal with the topic at hand and I'm positive it applies to everything.

As for the OHIO CONSTITUTION:
§ 1.01 Inalienable Rights (1851)

All men are, by nature, free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and safety.

Requiring a license to me hinders my ability to enjoy the properly i have a right to acquire. I'm not debating the morality of this issue, i feel people should have to obtain a certificate to prove they have the ability to operate an automobile, but its not my right to impose such restrictions on their right to own, enjoy, and acquire property.

Property according to Blacks Law Dictionary 9th edition:
property. (14c) 1. The right to possess, use, and enjoy a
determinate thing (either a tract ofland or a chattel);
the right of ownership <the institution of private
property is protected from undue governmental interference>.
- Also termed bundle of rights. [Cases:
Constitutional Law Property G~ 1.] 2. Any
external thing over which the rights of possession,
use, and enjoyment are exercised <the airport is city
property>. [Cases: Property <>1.]

So that alone tells me that a LICENSE violates ohio's state constitution as well because i have to ask for permission to use something i have the right to have and use anyways.

Blacks Law Dictionary 9th edition:
public, adj. (14c) 1. Relating or belonging to an entire
community, state, or nation. [Cases: Municipal Corporations
C::='721.] 2. Open or available for all to use,
share, or enjoy. 3. (Of a company) having shares that
are available on an open market. [Cases: Corporations
public, n. (16c) 1. The people of a nation or community
as a whole <a crime against the public>. 2. A place open
or visible to the public <in public>.

Blacks Law Dictionary 9th edition:
TRAVEL. To go from one place to another at
a distance ; to j ourney ; spoken of voluntary
change of place. White v. Beazley, 1 Barn. & Ald.
171 ; Hancock v. Rand, 94 N.Y. 1, 46 Am.Rep. 112 ;
State v. Smith, 157 Ind. 241, 61 N.E. 566, 87 Am.
St.Rep. 205.

Which states no restriction as to what is used to travel and they are using case law in these definitions, imagine that.


Therefor PUBLIC highways are accessibly by EVERYONE in the COMMUNITY. If it were a tole road, that's private, which we wouldn't have the "right" to use.

I think everyone needs to put aside their morals and read it for what it is. Get out a dictionary and learn what the words technically mean.

I dont know how reliable Carl Miller is, but he claims he doesnt have a license either and has been to court and wins every time.


Here is a guy that got away with it. the cop just let him go, didnt even write him a ticket. He is from florida as stated in the video by the officer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mosX5L-h93Y
Here is a video, specifically at 2:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqFgUZcVDfo
Here is a video of Charlie Sprinkle discussing his case https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS43EIQQ7ak
and another: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-F9O...3D9B74&index=9 amazing how he was let go out of court because they couldnt "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" to convict him.....

- - - Updated - - -

if you tell people something long enough, they start to believe it is true. Like weapons of mass destruction, which is why i had to go to Iraq for 18 months, which was never found.....

Usage in Hitler's psychological profile[edit]

The phrase was also used in a report prepared during the war by the United States Office of Strategic Services in describing Hitler's psychological profile:[5][6]
His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.[7]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie

Quote:

---

I feel that these citations will hold up in court. Do you have any proof that they dont from someone who has actually used this information when disputing a ticket?

---

You come on back and let us know how that works for you then. Of course, actual proof will be required if you are to be believed as as you suggest, anybody can say anything on the anonymous internet, even if it isn't true.

Quote:

---

If it were a tole road, that's private, which we wouldn't have the "right" to use.

---

actually, it's a TOLL road and toll roads are not private roadways. They are merely highways the state has decided to charge for each use. While the administration of some of the toll roads has been taken over by private entities (the Chicago Skyway and the Indiana 80/90 highway as a couple examples), the road itself remains in the ownership of the government entity that has always owned it. Even with those types of situations, most tollways remain owned and controlled by the state they are located within.

Quote:

---

I dont know how reliable Carl Miller is, but he claims he doesnt have a license either and has been to court and wins every time.

---

then go ahead and provide some citations of his winning court battles.

Quote:

---

Here is a guy that got away with it. the cop just let him go, didnt even write him a ticket.

---

and that is meaningless. A cop is not obligated to write a ticket but even if they don't, it does not support the argument no law was broken. Only a court can make that determination.

Quote:

---

Here is a video of Charlie Sprinkle discussing his case https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS43EIQQ7ak
and another: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-F9O...3D9B74&index=9 amazing how he was let go out of court because they couldnt "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" to convict him.....

---

and here is a Google search for UFO witnesses who claim they have first hand experience with aliens.


https://www.google.com/search?q=ufo+...hrome&ie=UTF-8


without proof, neither charlie's claims nor the ufo whacko's claims mean anything.

Quote:

---

if you tell people something long enough, they start to believe it is true. Like weapons of mass destruction, which is why i had to go to Iraq for 18 months, which was never found.....

---

who believed it to be true? There was never any proof to support the claims so the claims of such weapons are a lot like Charlie Sprinkle's claims; unfounded

btw; the claim of weapons of mass destruction were never the reason we went to Iraq. At best, it was an excuse to enter for the actual reason which was to depose Hussein.