I know with payroll generally both federal and state law are equally valid. No trumping. The employee gets to decide which set of law is most favorable to him/her, so the employer is always going with "worse case" when federal and state disagree. Minimum wage is a good example of this, but hardly the only one. ACA is another example. Some states implemented it and some states did not. Most states have a least one odd payroll rule. Under CCPA, federal law on child support orders trumps state law, but with creditor garnishments federal law just sets upper and lower limits and within that range, the states are all over the place.
I have happy to learn that all "taxpayers are sovereign" loons are not payroll specific. I wonder if they used photo shopped federal forms also.
Case #1: A decision by the Supreme Court of Illinois, which means, among other things, that it only applies in the State of Illinois. The issue in the case was whether the City of Chicago had the power to require a bus company to obtain a license to operate in the city. The court ruled that the city did not have that power because that power resided in the Illinois Commerce Commission. The case had nothing to do with a state's power to require drivers of motor vehicles to obtain driver's licenses. The quote you cherry picked from the case says nothing about that issue.
Case #2: A decision by the Supreme Court of Virginia, which means, among other things, that it only applies in the State of Virginia. The plaintiff sought an injunction compelling the chief of police of Lynchburg, VA to stop "interfering with his operation of his private passenger automobile on the streets of Lynchburg, and that the chief of police be compelled to restore to him his permit to operate a private automobile on said streets." The police apparently were taking this action pursuant to a local ordinance that required a local "permit" to drive in the city. The ordinance also gave the chief of police the power to revoke the permit if he became of the opinion that the permit holder was unfit to drive in the city. The court made the statement you quoted but then said the following: "The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it. The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions." In other words, the case says exactly the opposite of what you claim.
Case #3: This case involved two applications for passports, which were denied because the applicants were allegedly communists. The Supreme Court, not surprisingly, held that this was bullshit. What this has to do with the power of states to require driver's licenses is beyond me.
Case #4: A decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia. Another passport denial case that has nothing at all to do with driver's licenses.
I challenge you to cite any case from any U.S. jurisdiction that holds that a state cannot require a driver of a motor vehicle to hold a valid driver's license. I'll be waiting.
By the way, here's a little bit about the author of the crap you're quoting:
"Following his retirement from the Phoenix Police Department in 1986, [Gerald "Jack"] McLamb became active on the Patriot circuit, speaking at various events (often wearing his police uniform) and running a shortwave radio show where he often railed against the “New World Order” – a feared totalitarian “one world government.” He produced a periodical called Aid & Abet Police Newsletter and, most famously, a 75-page document titled Operation Vampire Killer 2000: American Police Action Plan for Stopping World Government Rule, written in 1992 (Conspiracy-monger Alex Jones is selling the updated version in his Infowars store). McLamb also ran a group called Police Against the New World Order and made the unlikely claim that he had an 6,300 members.
McLamb was perhaps best known for his claim that the government placed unobtrusive colored dots on people’s mailboxes so that troops serving the New World Order after martial law is declared would know what to do with the people living at each address. A blue dot meant that you were destined for a FEMA-operated concentration camp; pink indicated you were to be used for slave labor; red meant you were to be shot in the head immediately.
McLamb also was involved in the development of a right-wing housing community called “Almost Heaven,” located near Kamiah, Idaho, in 1994. The community was supposed to “make a stand” against the New World Order. McLamb’s partners in that failed venture included Bo Gritz, a decorated Vietnam veteran and follower of the racist and anti-Semitic Christian Identity religion, and Jerry Gillespie, a former Arizona state senator who opposed the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday and who coordinated the Arizona campaign for Gritz’s failed 1992 presidential bid.
In 1996, McLamb addressed a rally, saying that government officials were smuggling drugs into the United States in order to incite racial hatred. In 1999, he claimed that Vice President Al Gore was planning to reduce world population by 90 percent through some kind of Y2K plot. But when Y2K came and went without much of anything happening beyond the usual New Year’s celebrations, McLamb began to peddle his ideas on the tax protest circuit, though he didn’t leave his other ideas behind."
Are you absolutely sure you want to be aligning yourself with a nutjob like this?
Tell me Jhceres, why do you even come to forums like these when you know that no one is going to agree with you? What is your purpose?
If you do a search of the first 32 words (Google max) of that crap you get About 3,130,000 results.
The posts are made on the basis that if you say it enough it is true.
My experience has been that the people who buy into this stuff don't read the cases, much less really analyze them, but rather accept it as true because (1) the posts have some citations to law so it looks to those unfamiliar with the law that has some credibility and (2) they desperately want to believe it is true because it fits their world view. So they ignore all the evidence to contrary and cling to what they WANT to believe rather than doing the work to independently verify how accurate what they read actually is.
And this thread is a duplicate of the one found at: https://www.expertlaw.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=240756
In that other thread I explained what the case law actually says on the matter.