Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8 9 10
Results 91 to 99 of 99
  1. #91
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Ceres ca
    Posts
    20

    Default Re: You Don't Need a Drivers License to Travel on Public Roadway

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    That proves my point: the folks you are listening to use cases that have nothing to do with driver's licensing, rip out a statement from the case that they think is helpful, and then misapply it to say that the case means a state cannot require a driver's license. At the same time, they completely ignore the cases that do directly address driver licensing. In California, there are cases where the power of the state to require driver licensing has been directly addressed and they all say the state has that power.

    A recent appeals court decision affirms that: “In summary, we conclude that California's statutes requiring (1) the registration of automobiles and trucks and (2) driver's licenses for persons who are in actual physical control of a car or truck moving on California's streets and highways do not unreasonably burden the right to travel and, therefore, do not violate the state or federal Constitution.” Halajian v. D & B Towing, 209 Cal. App. 4th 1, 13–14, 146 Cal. Rptr. 3d 646, 654–55 (2012).

    So there you have it: the appeals court specifically stated that the requirement to have a driver's license does NOT infringe on the right to travel. As that case is after the one you cited and is the more specific case on the issue, it makes the case you cited worthless.

    So why did you provide me a case that has nothing to do with driver's licensing for the idea that a driver's license would infringe on the right to travel and didn't bother to address the more recent case that is directly on point and that expressly holds that driver's licensing laws do not violate the constitutional right to travel? My guess is that you have not researched the law on this yourself and are just parroting what those web sites you've been reading have been feeding you. Those sites have awful legal analysis, and the discussion above concerning the case you cited perfectly illustrates why they are bad. The "SPECIAL POLICE OFFICER BULLETIN" upon which you are relying is simply bad all the way around. The author of it isn't a lawyer and he clearly has no business trying to offer a legal analysis to anyone. Either he is incompetent in legal research or he is attempting to deliberately mislead people, or perhaps a bit of both.
    The case california 1979 reads "the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference is a fundamental constitutional right"
    Cant wait to see how you twist this one to fit your agenda

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,377

    Default Re: You Don't Need a Drivers License to Travel on Public Roadway

    Quote Quoting jhceres
    View Post
    The case california 1979 reads "the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference is a fundamental constitutional right"
    Cant wait to see how you twist this one to fit your agenda
    That quote does NOT exist in the decision. Not at all.

    I take it you have not actually READ the decision.
    **********
    Retired Cal Cop Sergeant & Teacher

    Seek justice,
    Love mercy,
    Walk humbly with your God

    -- Courageous, by Casting Crowns ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkM-gDcmJeM

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    19,203

    Default Re: You Don't Need a Drivers License to Travel on Public Roadway

    Let me explain the case you cited. White was convicted of prostitution. As part of her probation conditions she was told to stay out of a few block area at night which is heavily frequented by prostitutes and their customers.
    That decision upheld that condition. In fact, the court held the oppositive of what you are asserting: Like all constitutional rights the right of free movement is not absolute and may be reasonably restricted in the public interest.


    It's a pretty good case to argue that the state is allowed to impose restrictions on travel when based on good cause with regard to the public interest.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    224

    Default Re: You Don't Need a Drivers License to Travel on Public Roadway

    Quote Quoting jhceres
    View Post
    A 1979 california case, Re white, 97 cal.app.3d.141,158 cal.Rptr.562,566-67 1979
    If you believe that case relevant to prove your point, then you must believe David Rice Atchison was President of the United States for one day because his footstone says so!

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    7,411

    Default Re: You Don't Need a Drivers License to Travel on Public Roadway

    Quote Quoting jhceres
    View Post
    The case california 1979 reads "the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference is a fundamental constitutional right"
    Cant wait to see how you twist this one to fit your agenda
    LOL, you clearly did not even read that case. That statement appears nowhere in that case. That case does not deal with driving at all. I can only assume you got that statement from one of sites you've been reading, which further proves how bad they are. Misstating what the case said is inexcusable.

    And even if the statement about the case was correct, the case still does not deal with driver's licenses. Having a right to drive "without police interference" tells you nothing about a right to drive without a license. The case I provided directly deals with the issue of driver's licenses, and thus in the case that applies. Moreover, as the case I cited is the later case from the California courts of appeals, it would overrule the earlier case even if it had been on point. Alls the way around, your citation to that 1979 case and failure to acknowledge the case that is actually on point and more recent tells me you truly have no clue what the law is on this, and that's because you are relying on sites that mischaracterize and mislead about what the law is.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Ceres ca
    Posts
    20

    Default Re: You Don't Need a Drivers License to Travel on Public Roadway

    You just cant accept the fact that your wrong

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    19,203

    Default Re: You Don't Need a Drivers License to Travel on Public Roadway

    Because he isn't, you are (and it's you're not your).

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    7,411

    Default Re: You Don't Need a Drivers License to Travel on Public Roadway

    Quote Quoting jhceres
    View Post
    You just cant accept the fact that your wrong
    You are the one that has that problem, not me. You've not rebutted the problems I mentioned with that case you cited or any of the other law I've laid out that proves you wrong. I get it, Ive seen folks like you before, people who so desperately want how they think things ought to be is actually how things are that they'll believe anyone who tells them that it is that way and ignore all the evidence to the contrary. I have no feelings about the requirement for a license one way or the other. Getting one is not a big deal and doesn't cost much after all. But if I thought the law supported that I didn't need to have one, I'd pursue that. The problem is that I've done the research and know that in fact driver's licenses are required. You clearly haven't done the research; the fact that you hadn't actually read that case you cited is proof you haven't done it. You are just relying on the bogus claims of people that you ought to know have no expertise in the law to begin with. It's not logical, but when you want to believe something so badly, you convince yourself that those guys are right.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    15,620

    Default Re: You Don't Need a Drivers License to Travel on Public Roadway

    Quote Quoting jhceres
    View Post
    You just cant accept the fact that your wrong
    your=some that belongs to you
    you're=a contraction of you are

    You are the one making a fool of yourself here. You are quoting case law that doesn't say what you say it does. You are quoting cases that you haven't read and don't have anything to do with what you are espousing. Read the cases in full and you will see that what you are being told here is 100% correct.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8 9 10

Similar Threads

  1. Driver's License Issues: Do I Need a Second Drivers License
    By Ashmore in forum Driver's Licenses
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-21-2015, 02:56 PM
  2. Driver's License Issues: Will I Be Able to Get My Drivers License After Getting an MIP
    By BMONEY in forum Driver's Licenses
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-24-2012, 05:13 AM
  3. Traffic Lane Violations: Wheels Off Roadway Ticket, Effect on Restricted License
    By Pascal in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-23-2011, 09:05 AM
  4. Suspension and Revocation: Drivers License Suspended in Michigan for Unpaid Drivers Responsibility Fees
    By onrof in forum Driver's Licenses
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-19-2011, 08:12 AM
  5. Unlawful Presence and Overstay: Getting A Drivers License
    By Jamar in forum Immigration Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-16-2007, 06:31 AM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources