Page 2 of 22 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 213
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    16,391

    Default Re: Is Driving a Privilege or a Right

    Quote Quoting adjusterjack
    View Post
    You are clinging to an irrational belief that had been debunked repeatedly.



    Now the truth comes out. You CAN get your license back. You just don't want to buy insurance. Is that another belief? That it's illegal for the state to require you to have insurance?
    He has another thread. The getting his license back part may not be accurate based on the info there.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    106

    Default Re: Is Driving a Privilege or a Right

    My other thread only concerns the 5 traffic misdemeanors I was falsely arrested for. Suspended, expired tag, improper tag, no insurance and when I asked why I was being arrested, they charged resisting arrest. My appointed lawyer watched my tape and agreed that I definitely didn't resist.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,150

    Default Re: Is Driving a Privilege or a Right

    Quote Quoting Edward333
    View Post
    If you check the original definition of driver you'll see that a driver is someone paid to transport.
    Whatever the "original definition" is that you are referring to does not matter. Old outmoded definitions of terms do not help you. Tennessee Code § 55-50-102(19) is the definition of driver that applies for the purposes of the state licensing law. It states: "(19) “Driver” means every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon a highway or who is exercising control over or steering a vehicle being towed by a motor vehicle". Since it does not restrict the definition to just those driving commercially your argument fails.

    The Tennnessee defines "motor vehicle" is from subsection (37)

    (37) “Motor vehicle” means a vehicle, low speed vehicle or medium speed vehicle as defined in this section, machine, tractor, trailer or semitrailer propelled or drawn by mechanical power used on highways or any other vehicle required to be registered under the laws of this state, but does not include any vehicle, machine, tractor, trailer or semitrailer operated exclusively on a rail;

    You stated that it simply refers to something "transported or drawn." But you need to look at the entire definition. You will note for starters that the word "transported" is not even in the statute. It does, however, include vehicles which are "propelled or drawn by mechanical power" and your typical car, pickup truck, van, etc fits that definition perfectly as they are propelled by the engines that are in them and thus propelled by mechanical power. You won't win making arguments focusing on just two words, one of which is not even in the statute.

    You have to use current definitions in determining what the law provides, not definitions that have long been discarded, and you have to look at ALL the words of the definition and not just cherry pick to try to make a strained argument that you are not included.

    As for the definitions of "motor vehicle" in federal law, those definitions apply only for purposes of the related federal law. You did not specify which federal state or regulation definition you are trying to use for your argument but regardless of which one it is the definition will only apply for the purposes of the particular federal law that it is a part of. Federal law does not does not provide definitions for state driver's license laws or vehicle registration laws. State law does, so the definitions from the Tennessee Code that I quoted above are what apply for those purposes.

    As to your argument that "a privilege is the commercial use, not private use" that also fails. While commercial activities may indeed be privileges, the legal definition of the term does not limit the term privilege to just that. A privilege is simply There are many privileges in the law, not just the privilege to conduct a commercial activity. Black's Law Dictionary 10th Ed. defines privilege as "A special right, exemption, or immunity granted to a person or class of persons; an exception to a duty." (Bolding added.) Note that it does not specify that privileges are only granted for commercial activities. Indeed, there are hundreds (at least) of kinds of privileges. There are, for example, certain privileges in the law that in specific circumstances will all you to refuse to testify in a court matter. And that privilege certainly has nothing to do with commercial activity. One of the privileges we have is the privilege to drive a vehicle, and that privilege is granted by the state under the terms provided in the relevant statutes. You don't have a right to drive a vehicle outside the scope of the privilege provided.

    Quote Quoting Edward333
    View Post
    If you would also see Title 65 or is it 67 for commercial vehicles the code gives the Dept authority to license commercial vehicles, but in Title 55, the code only gives authority to make rules and regulation concerning the licensing of vehicles. Which are not law, and only applicable to the licensing power under commercial section.
    Sorry, but no. TC § 55-50-202 is a statute conferring the to the Department the power "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." Regulations do have the effect of law, but don't trump any conflicting statutory requirements. But in any event, arguing over the regulatory power of the Department does not help you when the requirement for a driver's license and for registration of vehicles is set in the state statutes itself. The Department simply provides the regulations to carry out those requirements, for example by providing for the details of the application form needed to obtain the license.

    You are making the well worn arguments seen on many websites regarding driver's licenses and vehicle registrations that the courts have consistently rejected in the past. I don't doubt you have various PDFs of the laws you have obtained from your research from looking at websites making those arguments. But if you had really done your own research you would have found the cases that I cited that directly answer the question you asked about driving being a privilege and would have known that your cases which are not specific to driving would be useless since there are cases directly on point that answer the question. Follow the path of all those others who made arguments from those sorts of websites if you wish, but you'll find that if you argue those points in court you will lose, just as all those before you that made the same arguments did.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    106

    Default Re: Is Driving a Privilege or a Right

    I have studied this intensely. And I appreciate your replies. I realize that a lot of the online post are unreliable, but I've taken the time to verify my info. I have currently been using my phone to communicate here, and my main information is contained in my computer. It's organized, and with it I can present my facts better. I hadn't planned on presenting it here. I didn't realize there was a 10th edition of Black's, I only have 1-9th. I'm also using deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's book on reading and understanding law which contains the main canons used. I would love to discuss this further with you, perhaps over email if you're willing. A couple of my replies here haven't been posted and I believe they are relevant.
    Here is an opinion post at an official Attorney General website which also confirm my case. Please see: https://www.atg.wa.gov/ago-opinions/...p-motorist-see
    In which is contained :
    As stated in 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, § 202, p. 987:

    "Personal liberty, or the right to the enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guaranty in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the federal Constitution, and which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable rights; as sacred as the right of private property; or as occupying a preferred position as contrasted with property rights; and is regarded as inalienable."

    This concept is further amplified in 11 Am.Jur., Constitutional Law, § 329, p. 1135 wherein it is said:

    "Personal liberty largely consists of the right of locomotion -to go where and when one pleases - only so far restrained as the rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."

    See also,Teche Lines, Inc. v. Danforth, 195 Miss. 226, 12 So. (2d) 784 (1943).

    InBarbour v. Walker, 126 Okla. 227, 259 Pac. 552, 56 A.L.R. 1049, 1053, the distinction between the right of a citizen to use the public highways for private, rather than commercial purposes is recognized:

    "In Ex parte Dickey (Dickey v. Davis) 76 W.Va. 576, L.R.A. 1915 F, 840, P.U.R. 1915 E, 93, 85 S.E. 781, we find this apt expression of the court: 'The right of a citizen to travel upon the highway and transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously [[Orig. Op. Page 11]] from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain, in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of a citizen, a common right, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual and extraordinary. As to the former, the extent of legislative power is that of regulation; but, as to the latter, its power is broader, the right may be wholly denied, or it may be permitted to some and denied to others, because of its extraordinary nature. This distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities: . . ."

    (As to the power of the legislature to prohibit or condition special or extraordinary uses of the highway, i.e., commercial use, as it sees fit, see: Stephenson v. Binford, 287 U.S. 251, 77 L.Ed. 288, 53 S.Ct. 181, 87 A.L.R. 721, 727; Robertson v. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash. 133, 135, 39 P. (2d) 596 (1934); Pacific Inland Tariff Bureau v. Schaaf, 1 Wn. (2d) 210, 216, 95 P. (2d) 781 (1939))

    Under its power toregulate private use of our highways, our legislature has required that motor vehicle operators be licensed. RCW 46.20.190. Undoubtedly, the primary purpose of this requirement is to insure, in so far as possible, that all motor vehicle operators will be competent and qualified, thereby reducing the potential hazard, or risk of harm, to which other users of the highway might otherwise be subject. But once having complied with this regulatory provision by obtaining the requisite operator's license, a motorist enjoys the privilege of traveling freely upon the public highways without unauthorized detention or restraint.
    (End paste)

    The last paragraph does say that they require operators of motor vehicles to be licensed, but I have proof that "operators " is also a commercial term.

    The previous paragraphs clearly states that it's a constitutional right that can't be permitted or prohibited at will.

    Can you discuss this further in email when I can present my detailed info contained on my computer? Thank you.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    23

    Default Re: Is Driving a Privilege or a Right

    Quote Quoting Edward333
    View Post
    The last paragraph does say that they require operators of motor vehicles to be licensed, but I have proof that "operators " is also a commercial term.
    Operator can have an infinite number of definitions. The only thing that matters is what the SPECIFIC definition of the term is under the section of law you were cited for. Each state has different definitions so there are a ton to pick and choose from. Here is the definition from my state:

    "Driver or operator" means every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar.

    And that is just one section of law. Other sections have different definitions. So just because some random book or law at some random time in history had a different definition doesn't matter. It comes down to what the definition is for the specific section you were cited for.


    Quote Quoting Edward333
    View Post
    The previous paragraphs clearly states that it's a constitutional right that can't be permitted or prohibited at will.
    Did you even read the case that it was referring to? Its convenient that the quote you referenced stooped at that specific spot. Lets see what is says after that.

    Under its power toregulate private use of our highways, our legislature has required that motor vehicle operators be licensed. RCW 46.20.190. Undoubtedly, the primary purpose of this requirement is to insure, in so far as possible, that all motor vehicle operators will be competent and qualified, thereby reducing the potential hazard, or risk of harm, to which other users of the highway might otherwise be subject. But once having complied with this regulatory provision by obtaining the requisite operator's license, a motorist enjoys the privilege of traveling freely upon the public highways without unauthorized detention or restraint.

    We cannot overlook the merit in, and forcefulness of, the argument that a broad delegation of authority is essential to the enforcement of the licensing requirement (seePeople v. Utsman, 166 N.Y.S. (2d) 358 (1957)). However, a right as precious as the freedom of an individual who has not violated any law to travel wherever he pleases without interruption should not be denied by implication where an equally consistent construction not impairing such right is possible.

    Accordingly, it is our conclusion that peace officers have no statutory authority under RCW 46.20.020 and 46.56.190 to stop motorists solely for the purpose of examining their drivers' licenses, except in such cases as they are otherwise entitled by law.

    [[Orig. Op. Page 12]]

    Since an officer is without authority to stop one car for this purpose, it follows that wholesale checking, whether by means of a "road block," wherein all cars are stopped, or "spot checking," wherein only certain cars are temporarily stopped and the remainder are permitted to proceed, is likewise unlawful.

    Consistent with the established policy of this office, we have assumed that the pertinent statutes are constitutional. Accordingly, we have not inquired into possible constitutional objections. Our function has been simply to construe these statutes as written.

    We trust the foregoing will be of assistance to you.


    This case has nothing to do with driver's license, and if they are required. It has to do with police stopping vehicles for the sole purpose of checking the driver for their license. They never stated that you do not need a license, or that the constitution states that you don't need one. They stated that it is a constitutional right to travel on the roadway and be free from being stopped without probable cause.

    I suggest you actually read these cases you are quoting. Taking a few sentences or a paragraph or two is not enough to understand exactly what the court is ruling on.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    106

    Default Re: Is Driving a Privilege or a Right

    I did read it and know it's about stops and if the police can request to see a license. And I also what is contained within. I have read Barbour v. Walker and the rest mentioned. I have also read Berberian v. Lussier, and plenty of others that says the use of an automobile for private purposes is a right. And there's plenty of rulings that a right can't be converted and a license required. My original question here is about TCA 55-4-101 , Jack Cole CO. v. McFarland, and the Phillips tax collector case which says what a privilege is defined as in the state constitution. It specificly says it's commercial and Jack Cole says anything not a privilege can't be taxed as such. The use of the word privilege as used in TN constitution is commercial, especially since, per canon, it's associated with merchants and peddlers.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    7,945

    Default Re: Is Driving a Privilege or a Right

    What you need to understand is that these, and similar/identical, arguments have been used over and over in courts across the nation. They fail. Why would you think that you, a layperson, has stumbled across some secret get out of jail free card in the law that hundreds or thousands of trained legal experts before you haven't?
    I am the Mouse Man

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    106

    Default Re: Is Driving a Privilege or a Right

    What I do realize is that the cases which have been lost, has been in higher courts after appeal from circuit court. Some mention only right to travel, while mine includes specific rulings in the right to use an automobile. Some tried freedom of religion and they lost. But what you don't see are the cases which have been won in circuit court. Only the idiots lose in circuit and then lose on appeal. Mine will be won in circuit before a jury. All I need is reasonable doubt, and once I show the officer doesn't know the case laws..TCAs, ECFRs, dept rules and regs, I'll defeat it easily. So only, only the losers make it to State Supreme courts. And the winning in circuit court isn't mentioned. I also realize that I don't know all of the law, but that I was offered membership into MENSA at 16 or 17 based on scoring 99%tile nationwide. I verify what I read.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    23

    Default Re: Is Driving a Privilege or a Right

    Quote Quoting Edward333
    View Post
    I have read Barbour v. Walker and the rest mentioned. I have also read Berberian v. Lussier, and plenty of others that says the use of an automobile for private purposes is a right.
    You obviously don't understand what is being discussed in these cases. Not to mention the fact that some of these are cases from 60+ years ago, with more recent cases clarifying these issues. Yes, you have freedom of travel and automobiles can move on roadways. You can feel free to board a bus, have a friend drive you, hire a taxi or an uber, or even drive a vehicle on private property in some cases. The fact is there is very clear and more current case law expressly giving the states the authority to require people who operate, drive, or whatever other term you want to fancy, a vehicle must have a valid driver's license.

    Quote Quoting Edward333
    View Post
    But what you don't see are the cases which have been won in circuit court. Only the idiots lose in circuit and then lose on appeal.
    If anyone actually won a case based on any of this nonsense then it would be plastered everywhere. They would write books and give speeches and be making a TON of money off of it. Not to mention defense attorneys everywhere would be taking notes and using these tactics all over. Unless your implying there is some vast conspiracy to keep all of this hush hush so the government doesn't lose it's grasp on the population.



    Quote Quoting Edward333
    View Post
    Mine will be won in circuit before a jury. All I need is reasonable doubt, and once I show the officer doesn't know the case laws..TCAs, ECFRs, dept rules and regs, I'll defeat it easily.
    Awesome. Why are you here arguing with us then? The case is closed. You got it in the bag. Please be sure to post your court documents showing your win so we can all learn from your research on this topic. (which oddly enough looks like every other person's who make these same arguments through copy and pasting websites.)


    Quote Quoting Edward333
    View Post
    I also realize that I don't know all of the law, but that I was offered membership into MENSA at 16 or 17 based on scoring 99%tile nationwide. I verify what I read.
    That doesn't mean you can just google a bunch of cases and all of a sudden be an expert in a field overnight. Especially using arguments that have been tried over and over and over again and fail to produce any results other than a very upset judge. (That's a bad thing to have at your trial by the way.)

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    106

    Default Re: Is Driving a Privilege or a Right

    Thank you all for your comments. My original question only concerned the definition of privilege as used in the TN constitution. Besides taxing property, the TN constitution only grants the authority to tax merchants, peddlers and privileges. By using the canon of association as stated in deceased US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's book on reading and understanding law, privileges are commercial. By Philips v. Tax collectors, which was 7 years after the TN constitution was written, privileges are business or occupation in which a profit is derived from the general public. And by Jack Cole v. McFarland, which hasn't been overruled, ( It's why they isn't a state income tax) anything not included in the definition of a privilege can't be taxed as such. It doesn't get any plainer.

    For anyone interested, I suggest the book : Reading Law_ The Interpretation of Legal Texts by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. I believe it can be found at : https://www.pdfdrive.com/reading-law...175891143.html

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 2 of 22 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Driving Should Be a Right, Not a Privilege
    By zerokill2006 in forum Banter
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-13-2020, 04:15 PM
  2. Unlicensed Driving: Case Law Holding That Driving is a Right, Not a Privilege
    By jjtravelfree in forum Driver's Licenses
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-21-2013, 09:40 PM
  3. Restricted Licenses: Driving Out-Of-State on a North Carolina Limited Driving Privilege
    By trixiebest in forum Driver's Licenses
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-26-2011, 09:59 AM
  4. Drunk and Impaired Driving: DWI Limited Driving Privilege Transfer
    By hellobikboy in forum Drunk and Impaired Driving Charges
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 03-05-2009, 09:22 PM
  5. How to Get an NC Limited Driving Privilege
    By gokussgohan2 in forum Driver's Licenses
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-25-2008, 09:11 AM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources