ExpertLaw.com Forums

Driver's License Suspension and the Right to Travel

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst Previous 1 2 3 Next LastLast
  • 09-13-2016, 06:15 AM
    free9man
    Re: California VC 15210 (P)(8)
    Oh joy! Another one. Or maybe the same one coming back under a new name. Let the stupidity recommence!
  • 09-13-2016, 08:57 AM
    Taxing Matters
    Re: California VC 15210 (P)(8)
    Quote:

    Quoting MIKE ANDERSON
    View Post
    RE:It is true that the terms motor vehicle and automobile are not exactly the same. The former is broader than the latter, as one of your own citations indicates. And since states require licenses to operate motor vehicles, which includes automobiles, that distinction gets you nowhere in your argument.
    18 USC 31:
    (6)“Motor vehicle” means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power AND used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.

    AND AND AND AND. PLEASE NOTE THE WORD "AND" IN THE PREVIOUS DEFINITION. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT BROADER DEFINITION OR NOT BUT THIS SUMS IT UP. WE OPERATE CARS THAT ARE NOT MOTOR VEHICLES !!! YOU NEED A LICENSE FOR DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE WHICH WHICH BY DEFINITION IS "AND used for commercial purposes".

    Evidently you did not read this thread carefully before posting this. If you had, you would have seen that I already addressed this. The definition of motor vehicle in 18 U.S.C. § 31(6) only applies for the purposes of applying federal criminal law relating to commercial vehicle violations. The statute itself tells you the definition is limited because it starts off “In this chapter, the following definitions apply.” This statute has nothing at all to do with state licensing requirements nor does it override the state law definitions that apply to their licensing laws. This is one of the common mistakes that people advocating that licenses are not needed often make: they take snippets from statutes and cases out of context to support their argument. That’s poor legal research and argument, and will result in a losing in court. Citing a definition in a federal statute that has absolutely nothing to do with licensing laws only reveals how little you really know of the law in this area.
  • 09-13-2016, 10:16 AM
    jk
    Re: California VC 15210 (P)(8)
    Quote:

    Quoting MIKE ANDERSON
    View Post
    RE:It is true that the terms motor vehicle and automobile are not exactly the same. The former is broader than the latter, as one of your own citations indicates. And since states require licenses to operate motor vehicles, which includes automobiles, that distinction gets you nowhere in your argument.
    18 USC 31:
    (6)“Motor vehicle” means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power AND used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.

    AND AND AND AND. PLEASE NOTE THE WORD "AND" IN THE PREVIOUS DEFINITION. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT BROADER DEFINITION OR NOT BUT THIS SUMS IT UP. WE OPERATE CARS THAT ARE NOT MOTOR VEHICLES !!! YOU NEED A LICENSE FOR DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE WHICH WHICH BY DEFINITION IS "AND used for commercial purposes".

    Realize that you quote a federal law that has no bearing on state laws so when you find s state that uses s similar distinction, let me know.
  • 09-14-2016, 02:41 PM
    puppybreath
    Re: California VC 15210 (P)(8)
    Right to travel is based almost entirely on 'muscle power'. Any mode of travel that does not rely on 'muscle' is regulated by state or federal requirements. You can walk, bike, skate etc. and be covered by 'right to travel', but as soon as you move to any source of non-biological power, you become subject to the legal requirements of motor vehicle laws.
    You can not drive any motor vehicle without a license because there are laws regarding the operation of a motor vehicle. (doesn't matter that the law does not recognize the difference between a motor and an engine)
    You can walk from New York to SF without a legal requirement for permits/licenses etc, (strangely, I have done that to win a bet) but you can not drive the same route without observing the motor vehicle laws in each state along the way.
  • 10-06-2016, 12:07 AM
    dscrox
    Re: Driver's License Suspension and the Right to Travel
    this is probably completely frivolous but I like many found this subject and was like no way. Wow all the things I thought I knew about laws wasn't true. So after 8 straight hours of which I'm going on hour nine I read case laws from the supreme Court appellate courts and many different articles from people just like this guy. Dude chill out it is the way it is pay your due and shut up unless your going to actually do anything about this your a keyboard crusader that being said I did have a question BC one article I read went from the beginning of supreme Court rulings and appellate court ruling pertaining to the right to travel which was indeed created by the supreme Court the article can be found here http://scholarlycommons.law.northwes...&context=njlsp My only thing is since the Supreme court has never ruled on the right of intrastate travel at all they flat out avoided it and they seem to only rule in favor of the citizen when their rights are infringed for a nessecity of life and therefore unconstitutional; and only when that citizen is part of a group being discriminated against cases mentioned (poverty or low income), and for the necessity being welfare or medical. And if said party lives in a rural area with no available public transportation with the nearest town being 10-15 miles away and lived alone. I'm not going to add more details than that but in this case as mentioned in the article if said person owned a car (screw trying the whole motor vehicle/automobile argument). Assuming intrastate travel is a right (which the supreme Court would have to decide and set a precedent) couldnt that citizen claim that they have no way other than by operating a motor vehicle to reach a needed destination either by choice or bc of economic standing and make the argument they may have the physical ability to walk or ride a bicycle to said destination that it would be impossible to both provide for themselves in the form of gainful employment and to do the daily activities needed for life in this day and age (shopping, dr. Apts. Even leisure activities) without having the "right" to "drive" their property,said vehicle; by making all the regulations (license insurance registration inspection) making driving a privilege instead of a right and since they are required to by state law since there is no federal law or supreme Court rulings to set a precedent claim that there right to travel in the only available form they have them operating a motor vehicle is being infringed on. And if the answer is no which I'm sure u guys are going to poke a million holes in this (someone can drive them) which makes travel completely dependent on another individual. Why the hell are their so many laws that make it impossible to "travel" on a road or interstate in anything but a registered motor vehicle. ok I'm not crazy (im a little after all this time reading state laws and Court cases back to back to back lol)or trying to buck the courts and the laws. but the laws and regulations evolve with the times but when old laws and higher fees make it impossible for the majority of the citizens To live or pursue happiness or liberty then shouldn't these laws be reexamined or at least given a federal standard to follow in the form of in state travel by the supreme Court?
  • 10-06-2016, 02:40 AM
    Taxing Matters
    Re: Driver's License Suspension and the Right to Travel
    Quote:

    Quoting dscrox
    View Post
    Assuming intrastate travel is a right (which the supreme Court would have to decide and set a precedent) couldnt that citizen claim that they have no way other than by operating a motor vehicle to reach a needed destination either by choice or bc of economic standing and make the argument they may have the physical ability to walk or ride a bicycle to said destination that it would be impossible to both provide for themselves in the form of gainful employment and to do the daily activities needed for life in this day and age (shopping, dr. Apts. Even leisure activities)

    The courts have made it clear that while there is a right to travel (presumably both intrastate as well as interstate) the right to travel does not mean the person has a right to do that travel by whatever means he or she chooses without any restrictions or costs. The state has a compelling interest to ensure the safety of the roads as well as funding to pay for roads and the various other costs associated with them. Thus, laws requiring a driver to obtain a license to drive and to demonstrate the ability to drive safely to get that license are not an undue burden on the right to travel. Nor are the fees the state charges to help pay for that program an undue burden on the right to travel either. The reasoning is similar with registration laws for vehicles driven on the roads, along with the laws in some states that require inspection and emissions testing of vehicles, along with the fees charged to help pay for those programs. (Some states also impose a property tax on vehicles, too, and the state unquestionably have the power to impose property taxes.) If a person is unable to pay those (relatively modest) fees to get a license and registration, I wonder how they can afford to buy and maintain a car in the first place. In any event, if they cannot afford it, they need to find alternative transportation solutions to meet their needs, just as with most everything else in life.

    In a true medical emergency in at least some states a person might be successful with a necessity defense; that is, that committing a relatively minor offense of driving without a license and registration was justified in order to save someone from death or serious injury. Otherwise, though, poverty doesn’t excuse a person from meeting what the law requires of him/her if he or she wishes to drive a car on the roads. You may have a right to travel, but you don’t have a right to use the roads totally free of all costs. After all, it costs money to build and maintain roads and all the related things that go with it. It is not an unreasonable burden to ask the driver to shoulder some of that cost through the fees paid for driver’s licenses and registration.
  • 10-06-2016, 04:18 PM
    dscrox
    Re: Driver's License Suspension and the Right to Travel
    I agree with a lot of your points. but some of the reasoning you just used leave a lot of gray area and if every point that just made is currently the courts interpretation why are their so many rulings by the Supreme Court upholding that a certain group of people can't be denied access to a public service or property, ie an interstate walking, bicycling, horse drawn carriage, I can't think of any that an individual may access this save a personal motor vehicle, which if the costs and requirements to just operate let alone own and maintain it are to great for a large number of people ie anyone below the poverty line which is a staggering number. There are a couple cases of this decided by the Supreme court already back in the late 1800 and the early 1900s that state said public service cannot be restricted to a group based on poverty or race isn't that exactly what has happened with said regulations and licensing and all the other fees just to use this public roadway and neither of those affect the actual safety concerns of the general public. Also u sate the fact that these three fees are paid to maintain the roadways, but shouldn't these fees and (in my mind which is probably wrong and an opinion) penalties be levied mainly against those that cause the most damage to the roadways or companies that make a profit using the roadways example shipping companies, auto makers, and transportation companies not the average citizens paying almost 85℅ of the cost to maintain the roadways either through those licensing fees for the privilege to use them even if it's for personal use and not profit is made and also through the govt appropriation of taxes to public services or propety. Another point I'm maybe not understanding that in any life threatening situation's a citizen may break any minor law to secure safety? I thought about this a little bit more bc of the example that is about to happen in Florida tomorrow. Like the residents of New Orleans during Katrina they literally had no means of evacuating public transportation can only do so much bc there are so many laws regulating them and their is no mode of transport currently today in the US that allows for a citizen to decide to move themselves (save by personal vehicle to another location) in a feasible or expedited means since as you mentioned in a large city all those regulations are very expensive as well as the price for you to park that vehicle. and for a citizen in a rural area 10-15 miles from a city limit or metro area there is absolutely 0 modes save walking or bicycle, neither of which allow u to move any of your property these citizen are basically screwed. Unless their lucky enough to secure what public transport there is which can't possibly move everyon. So they have the absolute right to move and they have actually been told by law they must leave but they have means to. That's a scary precedent to set what is defined as a minor crime? Or a major one by this definition I've never seen it referenced in any case as it pertains to travel . (But I've never looked specially for that)But that opens the door to minor theft (the need to eat to live) or unlawful taking to secure a means of transportation in order to survive bc one is not there. Again I'm not just trying to be a naysayer or difficult I believe that both these are situations where the ways the courts looks at these laws are at the least unfair and borderline discriminatory all the way to infringing on those inalienable rights mentioned in the Constitution, and in the second case a that in certain situations whole codes of the law for citizens can be legally ignored with no penalty. That seems kinda vague and questionable for a judicial body to take this stance. Last thing state should be able to make and enforce these regulations that benefit society and the well being of the people absolutely, but at the very least they should have if not defined guidelines to follow on a federal level but some way to fix these regulations when they reach the point the majority of people are denied or excluded from using a public service or propety the courts quote a rich woman may ride in a limo but a poor man can't because of his economic state his rights have not been violated bc he can walk makes no sense when in this day and age for the majority of people owning and operating some kind of personal motor vehicle as long as it doesn't endanger other is paramount to their basic human rights. Can that person since he can't afford said vehicle bc of poverty still walk on the interstate the rich woman is driving on? No he can not because again the laws they way they are written do not make it able for the poor to better themselves it actually hinders this. The poor man doesn't have the may be able to physically walk but now he can't bc of public safety he is completely restrict from using that public roadway which has been ruled is for the express purpose of the citizens. If I'm completely off base here please explain case laws court decisions or links to them are great and if it just boils down to that's the way it is and there is no way in our society to change it for the betterment of society why are so many citizens in the society at all. Bc that sounds exactly like corruption. Thanks guys
  • 10-06-2016, 04:51 PM
    free9man
    Re: Driver's License Suspension and the Right to Travel
    White space and paragraphs for the love of dog. No one wants to read a wall of text.
  • 10-06-2016, 05:36 PM
    Mr. Knowitall
    Re: Driver's License Suspension and the Right to Travel
    Would you want to read it if it incorporated white space?
  • 10-06-2016, 05:55 PM
    dscrox
    Re: Driver's License Suspension and the Right to Travel
    Quote:

    Quoting free9man
    View Post
    White space and paragraphs for the love of dog. No one wants to read a wall of text.


    Sorry I just wrote as I thought through it. My bad. I apologize for my poor punctuation and sentence structure. I'll fix it in the future
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst Previous 1 2 3 Next LastLast
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:48 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2023 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2004 - 2018 ExpertLaw.com, All Rights Reserved