Is Driving a Privilege or a Right

[cbg]

Edward, when is your court date?

Just so that we have some idea of when we can expect an end to this interminable nonsense?

[Edward333]

Edward, when is your court date?

Just so that we have some idea of when we can expect an end to this interminable nonsense?

Again, another non-reply.
As stated in my last post, I'll end this thread if anyone can show me a TCA code that grants the authority to license non-commercial use of an automobile.
No court rulings that says driving is a privilege, because by TN constitution, Phillips v. Tax collectors, Jack Cole v. McFarland and others, privilege is commercial thus making all "driving " commercial.

There must be some licensing authority for non-commercial use.

Let me help you by providing you with the TCA definition : (2) “Licensing authority” means any state regulatory board, commission, council, or committee in the executive branch of state government established by statute or rule that issues any license, certificate, registration, certification, permit, or other similar document for the purpose of entry into, or regulation of, any occupational or professional group. “Licensing authority” does not include any state regulatory board, commission, council, or committee that regulates a person under title 63 or title 68, chapter 11 or 140.

Oops, that's for occupational or professional. So doesn't that mean all Licensing Authorities are for commercial purposes?

I'm confused, can ANYONE show me where non-commercial use is licensed?

Perhaps I need to go through my other 75% of research. I've only posted a small amount here.

Once again, an abstract useless citation. Read this Syllabus from a just decided case, on what the word/phrase meant then, as opposed to what it should mean now, and what it does mean now.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremec...-1618_SYLLABUS

That case was decided because of political pressure. Have you read Kavanaugh's dissent? Pay attention to: . This Court has often emphasized the importance of sticking to the ordinary meaning of a phrase, rather than the meaning of words in the phrase. In FCC v. AT&T Inc., 562 U. S. 397 (2011), for example, the Court explained:

 “AT&T’s argument treats the term ‘personal privacy’ as simply the sum of its two words: the privacy of a person. . . . But two words together may assume a more particular meaning than those words in isolation. We understand a golden cup to be a cup made of or resembling gold. A golden boy, on the other hand, is one who is charming, lucky, and talented. A golden opportunity is one not to be missed. ‘Personal’ in the phrase ‘personal privacy’ conveys more than just ‘of a person.’ It suggests a type of privacy evocative of human concerns—not the sort usually associated with an entity like, say, AT&T.” Id., at 406.

Exactly right and exactly on point in this case.

 Justice Scalia explained the extraordinary importance of hewing to the ordinary meaning of a phrase: “Adhering to the fair meaning of the text (the textualist’s touchstone) does not limit one to the hyperliteral meaning of each word in the text. In the words of Learned Hand: ‘a sterile literalism . . . loses sight of the forest for the trees.’ The full body of a text contains implications that can alter the literal meaning of individual words.” A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law 356 (2012) (footnote omitted). Put another way, “the meaning of a sentence may be more than that of the separate words, as a melody is more than the notes.” Helvering v. Gregory, 69 F. 2d 809, 810–811 (CA2 1934) (L. Hand, J.). Judges must take care to follow ordinary meaning “when two words combine to produce a meaning that is not the mechanical composition of the two words separately.” Eskridge, Interpreting Law, at 62. Dictionaries are not “always useful for determining the ordinary meaning of word clusters (like ‘driving a vehicle’) or phrases and clauses or entire sentences.” Id., at 44. And we must recognize that a phrase can cover a “dramatically smaller category than either component term.” Id., at 62.

End Paste.
I believe "driving a vehicle" only refers to commercial use. That why Ex parte Dickey and others says the use of an automobile is a right, the same as riding a horse or horse and buggy. And the other cases says "driving a motor vehicle is a privilege" .

I've posted various ruling which states a privilege is business or occupation, so if driving is a privilege, it's means commercially.

Read up on cases about the right to use property also. And then find the laws that an automobile used for personal reasons is consumer goods.

Lawyers, judges and police probably post on here, so imagine the money they'd lose if I'm right.

I'll stop posting now, unless someone has a legit argument.

[PayrolGuy]

Title 55 only gives authority to make rules and regulations concerning the licensing of vehicles. (Which should refer to the authority for commercial in Title 65.)

There is at least one of your problems. Only in your sovereign citizen world does Tittle 55 refer only to Title 65.

Title 55 stands completely on its' own and doesn't require Title 65 to even exist.

[Edward333]

There is at least one of your problems. Only in your sovereign citizen world does Tittle 55 refer only to Title 65.

Title 55 stands completely on its' own and doesn't require Title 65 to even exist.

As I previously posted :
TN Code § 65-15-106 (2019)

(a) The department of safety is vested with the power and authority, and it is its duty, to license, supervise and regulate every motor carrier in the state and promulgate rules and regulations pertaining thereto.

Now see Title 55.
TN Code § 55-50-202 (2019)

(a) The commissioner is authorized to establish administrative rules and regulations concerning the licensing of persons to operate motor vehicles, in this state, for the purpose of ensuring the safety and welfare of the traveling public.

A rule or regulation is not the authority to license.

[PayrolGuy]

As I previously posted :
TN Code § 65-15-106 (2019)

(a) The department of safety is vested with the power and authority, and it is its duty, to license, supervise and regulate every motor carrier in the state and promulgate rules and regulations pertaining thereto.

Now see Title 55.
TN Code § 55-50-202 (2019)

(a) The commissioner is authorized to establish administrative rules and regulations concerning the licensing of persons to operate motor vehicles, in this state, for the purpose of ensuring the safety and welfare of the traveling public.

A rule or regulation is not the authority to license.

Sure it is written right there in front of you.

[Edward333]

Now consider the Related Material Canon. And the canon about statutes passed during the same time.
Title 55 only gives authority to make rules and regulations concerning the licensing authority granted in Title 65.

Sure it is written right there in front of you.

Have you even seen the definition of a rule or regulation? LMAO

I've read the Department's rules and regulations.

[PayrolGuy]

Now consider the Related Material Canon. And the canon about statutes passed during the same time.
Title 55 only gives authority to make rules and regulations concerning the licensing authority granted in Title 65.


Have you even seen the definition of a rule or regulation? LMAO

Wrong.

[Edward333]

Wrong.

Regulations. Such are issued by various governmental departments to carry out the intent of the law. Agen cies issue regulations to guide the activity of those regulated by the agency and of their own employees and to ensure uniform application of the law. Regu lations are not the work of the legislature and do not have the effect of law in theory

Pasted from Black's.

Only the laws that they have been given the authority to regulate can be regulated.

The only authority to license is commercial.

[Taxing Matters]

The only authority to license is commercial.

The state statute requires that all drivers be licensed, not just commercial drivers. I cited that statute earlier. Much as you want to ignore that or make it go away, the court will enforce the requirement that the legislature put in the statute. Your only hope of avoiding that is to persuade the court that the statute violates either the federal or state constitutions, which you won't be able to do since those challenges have already been considered and rejected. You've lost yourself in a morass of legal material and commentary that is not directly on point and are ignoring the things that are directly on point — the same mistake that sites that push the same arguments you've been providing here make.

[Edward333]

The state statute requires that all drivers be licensed, not just commercial drivers. I cited that statute earlier. Much as you want to ignore that or make it go away, the court will enforce the requirement that the legislature put in the statute. Your only hope of avoiding that is to persuade the court that the statute violates either the federal or state constitutions, which you won't be able to do since those challenges have already been considered and rejected. You've lost yourself in a morass of legal material and commentary that is not directly on point and are ignoring the things that are directly on point — the same mistake that sites that push the same arguments you've been providing here make.

The statutes actually says "motor vehicles". And per statute motor vehicles are vehicles, which persons or or property can be "transported". Commerce is trade, traffic or transportation. So vehicle is commercial. Even if the court won't accept the truth, all I need is reasonable doubt from the jury. There's also the willful intent. I know that a license is only needed for commercial use, thus no intent to violate the law.