Is Driving a Privilege or a Right

[Edward333]

Edit first law* =act.

[PayrolGuy]

But then my case would be ex post facto. I can't be punished for a law performed before the law was passed.

You don't even understand common rhetoric. It is no surprise that you don't understand the law when it is put right in front of you.

[Edward333]

You don't even understand common rhetoric. It is no surprise that you don't understand the law when it is put right in front of you.

?? If a law hasn't been passed yet against something, then any law passed only applies to any act done after it was passed.

[free9man]

?? If a law hasn't been passed yet against something, then any law passed only applies to any act done after it was passed.

Sex offenders would beg to differ.

[PayrolGuy]

?? If a law hasn't been passed yet against something, then any law passed only applies to any act done after it was passed.

Again no understanding of rhetoric. I was saying that if there had been such a loophole you weren't the one that would have found it. These laws have been in place for decades and if it existed someone much smarter than yourself or at least someone who was born earlier would have done what you want to do and the law would have been enacted before you were born.

Hence the loophole doesn't exist. This is further proved by the fact that you can even convince those here that it doesn't exist and I can tell are but a few things I would like better than to have to deal with the DMV once a year.

[Edward333]

No, that's not what it says. It says a private right of action cannot be implied or conferred without legislative authority. So again, do you know what a private right of action is?

I believe I have the gist of it, but it becomes unclear when courts and licensing boards or administrative agencies are mentioned. I do know that authority has to be granted by TN constitution or statue. I believe Waters v. Farr even says that.

[free9man]

I believe I have the gist of it, but it becomes unclear when courts and licensing boards or administrative agencies are mentioned. I do know that authority has to be granted by TN constitution or statue. I believe Waters v. Farr even says that.

No, you don't. If you don't understand what a private right of action is, you do not understand what you posted.

[Edward333]

Again no understanding of rhetoric. I was saying that if there had been such a loophole you weren't the one that would have found it. These laws have been in place for decades and if it existed someone much smarter than yourself or at least someone who was born earlier would have done what you want to do and the law would have been enacted before you were born.

Hence the loophole doesn't exist. This is further proved by the fact that you can even convince those here that it doesn't exist and I can tell are but a few things I would like better than to have to deal with the DMV once a year.

The people that have found the loophole has probably gotten it tossed before trial. Thus no record in any higher court. But I do have some good Habeus corpus cases where it was tossed because it was proven that only commercial vehicles need tags. That the statute didn't apply to private vehicles.

[free9man]

But I do have some good Habeus corpus cases where it was tossed because it was proven that only commercial vehicles need tags. That the statute didn't apply to private vehicles.

Oh, this should be interesting. Post 'em. I'm betting they are either old and have long since been replaced by new case law, from another state so not at all applicable to you or you don't understand what really happened

[Edward333]

Oh, this should be interesting. Post 'em. I'm betting they are either old and have long since been replaced by new case law, from another state so not at all applicable to you or you don't understand what really happened

Some are older, some newer. I'm going to take a break, then get on my computer instead if this phone. Computer is more organized.
And the main reason I'm posting here and not other sites, is because I am trying to learn. I'm indigent with limited access to some legal content. My computer is only a dual core.
I don't believe the cases I've mentioned have been overruled, and that the definition of privilege is business or occupation. Waters v. Farr is the newest. And if that definition is essential per the 1877 case and others, then registration can only be commercial. That will be my main defense along with if authority is given.
Back with some cases in a few hours.