Edward, get some sleep, you'll feel better to take on the Boys.
Edward, get some sleep, you'll feel better to take on the Boys.
No, that's a legal issue. The relevant facts aren't in dispute: whatever kind of car you were driving is already established. Whether that car meets the definition of a "motor vehicle" in the Tennessee code simply requires applying that state law definition to that car. That application of the law to a particular set of facts is a legal matter for the judge, not an issue for jury.
Actually, there are. I've pointed them out before.
Edward, you need to understand a very important concept: definitions found in federal statutes only apply for the purposes of federal law, not state law. States provide their own definitions for their laws. Federal law does not dictate to the states which persons they can and cannot license to drive. Your reliance on these federal definitions is misplaced.
Nothing in either federal or Tennessee law restricts the term motor vehicle to commercial activity as I have explained before.
And travel by car is a privilege too. Moreover, the law is clear that the states may indeed regulate use of property and travel. Your rights with respect to those things are not unlimited.
It's you who lacks experience. I've been lawyer for over 20 years. I'm well versed in researching and analyzing the law, and I see the mistakes you are making. I've also seen lots of people over the years try to argue the same kind of things you've been arguing in this thread, and all of them lost spectacularly. I don't see you faring any better. If no one has won on these kinds of arguments in all the years states have required licenses, what makes you think you'll do better?
I have a suggestion for you. If you still have the time under the Tennessee rules of procedure to file a motion to dismiss, do that and put in all these legal arguments you want to make. If you are right, the court will dismiss your case and you won't even have to show for trial. If you're wrong, the court will say that, in which case you can then scrap your current arguments and come up with a new plan that might fare better. Like seeing a lawyer to represent you on these charges, which is really what you should have done at the outset.
You can do that. I guarantee that nothing will come of that, though,as the state has not committed any federal crime in prosecuting you for the misdemeanor license charge.
Well, good luck to you. Let us know the outcome of the trial.
And motor vehicle is defined in Title 55
(c) “Motor vehicle” means every vehicle that is self-propelled, excluding motorized bicycles and every vehicle that is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires. “Motor vehicle” means any low speed vehicle, or medium speed vehicle as defined in this chapter. “Motor vehicle” means any mobile home or house trailer as defined in § 55-1-105 .
Taxing Matters, I mentioned the federal definition because you mentioned federal cases. If it's a federal case, then federal definitions should be used. At least it seems like it to me.
It's not a federal case. You're fighting the state of Tennessee over their charges.
Even in the case of federal prosecutions, often a defintion in one statute or regulation only applies to that that particular section of the massive federal body of law. For example, the definiton:
The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.
is prefaced by the words "In this chapter, the following definitions apply." This means that the above definition doesn't apply to all federal law and/or regulations, but only to Chapter 2 of Title 18.
I cited federal cases with regard to the U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL issues. Federal courts of appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court are the authority for what the federal constitution means.
But definitions in a federal statute only apply for the purposes of the federal law that contains that definition. Definitions in a federal statute do not apply to a state statute. The state is free to define the terms in its statutes any way it wishes. So when determining what "motor vehicle" in the Tennessee Code means the definitions you find in federal statute are worthless. You instead have to determine that based on how the Tennessee courts have interpreted that definition or, in the absence of a decision directly on point, you simply use the ordinary English meaning for the words. And the ordinary meaning for "transport" in the Tennessee Code would include a passenger car driven for pleasure since in ordinary English such a car does indeed transport persons and things. This is why I think you'll lose on that issue. You are trying to use definitions that don't apply to the Tennessee Motor Vehicle statutes to try to define the term the way that you want rather than looking at what the meaning of the statute is on its own. Federal statute definitions and definitions you find outside the Tennessee motor statutes (i.e. definitions you find outside Title 55 of the Tennessee Code) are irrelevant to determining the meanings of "vehicle" and "motor vehicle" in TC § 55-1-103. You need to look at Tennessee cases that specifically interpret the definitions in that section and to the extent there are no such cases then the ordinary meaning of the words in that section. That's it.
Trying to limit the definition by using terms defined for some other statute won't work. Those other statutes are designed to accomplish different things, and thus define terms to accomplish those goals. That means that the term "motor vehicle" has different meanings for each of the statutes that define it to suit the needs of that statute. There is not one single definition that applies for the purposes of every federal and state statute that uses the term.
Wouldn't a federal case use the federal definitions?
Taxing, by what I read in Scalia's book and elsewhere, the common definition is use, but it also says the common legal definitions. As a common lawyer would read it. And passenger is one who pays, making it commercial, by passenger cases and Black's.
53. Canon of Imputed Common-Law Meaning
A statute that uses a common-law term, without defining it, adopts its common-law meaning.
The age-old principle is that words undefined in a statute are to be interpreted and applied according to their common-law meanings. This principle has been
applied to such terms as assault,1 child,2 defraud,3 estate,4 forge,5 fraud,6 nextof-kin,7 and record of conviction.8 Even though federal law has no common-law
criminal offenses—all federal offenses having been created by statute—the federal courts still look to common-law meaning.9
52. Presumption Against Change in Common Law. A statute
will be construed to alter the common law only when that
disposition is clear.
53. Canon of Imputed Common-Law Meaning. A statute that
uses a common-law term, without defining it, adopts its
54. Prior-Construction Canon. If a statute uses words or phrases
that have already received authoritative construction by the
jurisdiction’s court of last resort, or even uniform
construction by inferior courts or a responsible
administrative agency, they are to be understood according
to that construction.
55. Presumption Against Implied Repeal. Repeals
Try using these canons with the following definitions.
vehicle (vee-a-bl), n. 1. An instrument of transportation or conveyance. 2. Any conveyance used in transporting
passengers or things by land, water, or air.
transportation, n. (l6c) 1. The movement of goods or persons from one place to another by a carrier. 2.
Criminal law. A type of punishment that sends the criminal out of the country to another place (usu. a
penal colony) for a specified period. Cf. DEPORTATION
convey, vb. (14c) To transfer or deliver (something, such as a right or property) to another, esp. by deed or other
writing; esp., to perform an act that is intended to create one or more property interests, regardless of whether
the act is actually effective to create those interests.
conveyance (bn-vay-ants), n. (iSc) 1. The voluntary transfer of a right or of property.
draw, vb. (13c) 1. To create and sign (a draft) <draw a check to purchase goods>. 2. To prepare or frame
(a legal document) <draw up a will>.
(d) “Truck tractor” means every motor vehicle designed and used primarily for drawing other vehicles and not so constructed as to carry a load other than a part of the weight of the vehicle and load so drawn.
(e) “Vehicle” and “freight motor vehicle” means every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, excepting devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.
Commercial Terms. Drawn is used with “Truck tractor”, which is of course commercial.
TCA also defines "Commerce" as Trade, traffic and transportation. So anything that is transported is a part of transportation. And is commercial.
Motor Vehicle is a word that has been used in Supreme Court rulings, as mentioned in the Iowa case, and used as commercial. So See: Prior-Construction Canon. If a statute uses words or phrases that have already received authoritative construction by the jurisdiction’s court of last resort, or even uniform construction by inferior courts or a responsible administrative agency, they are to be understood according to that construction.
All State motor vehicle laws are based off an original Motor Vehicle Act which defined motor vehicle as commercial.
Opps...forgot to mention....A Will is an instrument of conveyance. So a will..or a document is a vehicle.