Page 3 of 22 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 213
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    16,391

    Default Re: Is Driving a Privilege or a Right

    Quote Quoting Edward333
    View Post
    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.
    No, your case will not be won in circuit court, your case will be lost in circuit court. I already told you that you are going to lose the right to travel argument because there are many means of travel that do not include driving a car.

    Nothing you cited in post number 14 has anything to do with driving a car.

    All you are going to do here is irritate the judge, which is going to make him/her inclined to throw the book at you.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    106

    Default Re: Is Driving a Privilege or a Right

    Various rulings mention the right to use an automobile for private purposes. I won't be arguing the right to travel, the cop, prosecutor and even the judge will agree on that right. Try reading Barbour v. Walker. Or Schecter v. Killingsworth. Or Am. Jur. Constitutional Law 329 p 1135. Each specificly state the right to use an automobile, same as a buggy or horse. Also read Scalia's book. He say a plane in 100 years from now, no matter how it's propelled is still a plane. That's canon. So a carriage would also apply, no matter the propulsion.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,150

    Default Re: Is Driving a Privilege or a Right

    Quote Quoting Edward333
    View Post
    Various rulings mention the right to use an automobile for private purposes. I won't be arguing the right to travel, the cop, prosecutor and even the judge will agree on that right. Try reading Barbour v. Walker. Or Schecter v. Killingsworth. Or Am. Jur. Constitutional Law 329 p 1135. Each specificly state the right to use an automobile, same as a buggy or horse. Also read Scalia's book. He say a plane in 100 years from now, no matter how it's propelled is still a plane. That's canon. So a carriage would also apply, no matter the propulsion.
    You have a right to travel. But the right to travel does not include, as you put it, a "right to use an automobile" without state regulation. Several federal courts of appeal have already directly addressed that issue. I'll start with the Ninth Circuit ruling as it is the one that forms the basis for the decisions of the others:

    We have previously held that burdens on a single mode of transportation do not implicate the right to interstate travel. See Monarch Travel Servs., Inc. v. Associated Cultural Clubs, Inc., 466 F.2d 552, 554 (9th Cir.1972) (“A rich man can choose to drive a limousine; a poor man may have to walk. The poor man's lack of choice in his mode of travel may be unfortunate, but it is not unconstitutional.”); City of Houston v. FAA, 679 F.2d 1184, 1198 (5th Cir.1982) (“At most, [the air carrier plaintiffs'] argument reduces to the feeble claim that passengers have a constitutional right to the most convenient form of travel. That notion, as any experienced traveler can attest, finds no support whatsoever in [the Supreme Court's right of interstate travel jurisprudence] or in the airlines' own schedules.”). The Supreme Court of Rhode Island in Berberian v. Petit, 118 R.I. 448, 374 A.2d 791 (1977), put it this way:

    The plaintiff's argument that the right to operate a motor vehicle is fundamental because of its relation to the fundamental right of interstate travel is utterly frivolous. The plaintiff is not being prevented from traveling interstate by public transportation, by common carrier, or in a motor vehicle driven by someone with a license to drive it. What is at issue here is not his right to travel interstate, but his right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways, and we have no hesitation in holding that this is not a fundamental right.374 A.2d at 794 (citations and footnotes omitted).

    Miller does not have a fundamental “right to drive.”

    Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202, 1205–06 (9th Cir. 1999). Other circuits have reached the same conclusion:

    But Dean has not articulated reasons to support his unexplained argument that state licensure and registration requirements violate the right to travel, see Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9). This is not surprising because such an argument is meritless. Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202, 1205-06 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that there is no “fundamental right to drive” and affirming dismissal of complaint based on state's refusal to renew citizen's driver's license); Hallstrom v. City of Garden City, 991 F.2d 1473, 1477 (9th Cir.1993) (finding no constitutional violation where valid Idaho law required driver's license, and plaintiff was detained for not having one). Without vehicle licenses, Dean is denied only “a single mode of transportation-in a car driven by himself,” see Miller, 176 F.3d at 1204, and this does not impermissibly burden his right to travel.

    Matthew v. Honish, 233 F. App'x 563, 564 (7th Cir. 2007). And finally, a decision from the Sixth Circuit, which is the circuit that covers Tennessee:

    Moreover, the Duncans' challenge to the statute does not present a “hybrid situation” as their claim of a violation of their right to travel is frivolous. See Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202, 1208 (9th Cir.1999). While a fundamental right to travel exists, there is no fundamental right to drive a motor vehicle. See id. at 1205-06. A burden on a single mode of transportation simply does not implicate the right to interstate travel. See id. at 1205. Thus, the Duncans' right to freely exercise their religion and their right to travel have not been impermissibly infringed.

    Duncan v. Cone, No. 00-5705, 2000 WL 1828089, at *2 (6th Cir. Dec. 7, 2000). Since the Sixth Circuit covers Tennessee its decisions are binding on the Tennessee courts as to issues of federal Constitutional law the Tennessee state courts will apply that same rule when considering your argument. As a result you won't win using the argument that you have "right to use an automobile" as you put it. The cases above clearly state otherwise. Indeed, you will note that the courts, including the Sixth Circuit state that your argument is so clearly wrong that it is frivolous. That opens the door for the possibility of sanctions against you should you raise that argument in court.


    Quote Quoting Edward333
    View Post
    Mine will be won in circuit before a jury.
    Not based on these arguments it won't. The judge determines issues of law. The jury determines the facts. The judge will instruct the jury on the law and will not permit you to make frivolous arguments of law to the jury.

    Quote Quoting Edward333
    View Post
    So only, only the losers make it to State Supreme courts. And the winning in circuit court isn't mentioned.
    It would do you no good to win at trial only to lose at appeal. If your argument cannot hold up in appeals then it wasn't good at trial court. The trial courts must apply the decisions of appellate courts. So the appellate decisions are indeed very relevant to your case.

    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.
    Having a high IQ does not equate to having common sense or understanding complex areas, like law or medicine, that you've not learned well. You have not learned the law and how to do proper legal research very well, I'm afraid. And I hate to say it, but despite your claimed intelligence you are continuing to make the same mistake I pointed out at the start: you are arguing from old cases that do not directly address the point you are raising and yet somehow missing all the cases that are directly on point and newer cases that supercede the cases you use. One way you'd make that mistake is that you rely mostly on web sites that contain flawed arguments based on at best shoddy research and at worst are deliberately trying to mislead people. Those sites make those same mistakes, which is why I said earlier I suspect you are heavily relying on such sites.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    106

    Default Re: Is Driving a Privilege or a Right

    Taxing, I've had 4 hours sleep in the past 2 1/2 days. None last night. My court date isn't until Sept 14th, so I still have time to learn more. There are definitely rulings which you have posted that I will check, and a few other things may have helped me learn some other stuff, but I still believe it's a right and can prove it with other info on my computer (not this phone). Believe me, I have studied. I even have newspaper articles from early 1900s, that talks about US Supreme ruling that a person has the right to walk upon the highway the same as someone using an automobile. (Library of Congress). At last count, I had 14 different ways that I should be able to defeat them. But, I'm still smart enough to come here for additional info. After I get some sleep, I'll use my computer to condense some info that I hope you may find interesting. I do appreciate the info which you have provided. Thanks.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,150

    Default Re: Is Driving a Privilege or a Right

    Quote Quoting Edward333
    View Post
    I even have newspaper articles from early 1900s, that talks about US Supreme ruling that a person has the right to walk upon the highway the same as someone using an automobile.

    Again, that's relying on a case that is not directly on point to the issue you have and that is quite old. Autos in the early 1900s were still a newfangled device and it took states awhile to figure out how to treat them and the courts awhile to figure out how those rules work. While some old cases are still good law, many are not. The law has evolved a lot in the last 100+ years as our country itself has changed a lot, moving from a primarily agrarian, rural society to a primarily urban industrial/post industrial one.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    106

    Default Re: Is Driving a Privilege or a Right

    Still haven't slept.
    This is from one of the articles I mentioned, thought you might find it interesting. (Added after paste: Sorry it didn't copy & paste correct, hope it's readable.)
    ByErnestL.Davis,in"CaseandComment."IssofrcquenUytr uewithrespecttoASlegalprinciples,thestatementofthe-genera-lrulesgoverningthereciprocaldutiesoftheautomobileo peratorandthepedes-trianismuchsimplprthantheapplicationofthoseprincip lestospecificcases.TheunusualuniformityIntheprinci pleslaiddownbythecourtsindicatesauniversalsatisfac tionthere-withwnichisstrongevidenceonbehalfofthecorrectnessa ndjusticeofthoseprinciples.Thisunanimityisduotothe factthatthecourts,inconstructingthisgreatadditiont othelaw,haveuniversallylaidfortheirfoun-dationtheImpartialprinciplethatapedestrianandanamo mjbllisthaveequalrightsinthaEtreeLTilsruloappliesn otonlytocrosswalks,butalsotoanypointinthestreetwhe renpedestrianmaywishtogo.Itapplieswithllkoforcewhe reheisdepositedbyapublicconveyanceatapointinthestr eetnotlocatedonthocross-walk-,andwherohocrossesdiagonallyfromonesideofthostreet tothoother.ThoMassachusettscourtnassaidInthisconne ction:"Thereisnolaworprincipleoflaworofreasonwhich confinesfootpassengerstoparticularcrossings.Suchar estrictionwouldboveryInconvenientandannoying.Thest reetshouldbokeptinsuchconditionthatfootpassengersm aybeabletocross,withareasonabledegreeofsafety,usin gpropercarothemselves,atanyandallplaces.Thonecessi tyofthismightboIllustratedveryfullybyreferencetoth ecommonandordinarycourseofbusiness.ApersonwhoIslef tbyanomnibusInthemiddleofthostreetshouldbeablotogo insafetytothesidewalk,atthenearestpoint,andnotbeco mpelledtomakohiswayamongthecarriagesinthemiddleoft hestreettillhecanreachaplaceparticularlysetapartan ddesignatedforthopurposeofcrossing."Thisruleofequa lrightsappliesalsoinbe-halfofblindpersons,lamepersonsandchildren.WhereSpe cialCareIsRequiredofAutomoblllsts.Allpartiesusinga highwaymustexerclsoreasonablecare;thepedestriantop reventin-jurytohimself,thooperatortopreventacci-dentorinjurytoothers.ThedutyoftheoperatorIsthosame asthatwhichthelawImposesonthedriverofateam,exceptt hatthogreaterspeedcallsforgreaterwatchful-ness.Greatercareisrequiredoftheoperatortstreetcros singsandinthemorecongesteddistrictsthanintholessob structedstreetsinetherpartsofthecity.Andwherethepe rilofapedestrianisdiscoveredbytheoperator,anewduty arisestoexerciseallreasonablecaretoavoidInjury.Whi lethedrirersofautomobilesenjoythFamerightsonthehig hwaysasarepossessedbypedestrians,thenatureofthedut yimposeduponthemIstobe.viewedanddeterminedascommen suratewiththeriskentailedthroughtheprobabledangers attendingtheparticularsituationThus,thedegreeofdil igencewhichmustbeexercisedinaparticularexigencyUtu chasIsnecessarytopreventInjuringothers;andInconsid eringwhetherthooperatorofanautomobilehasexercisedd uodiligence,thecharacterofthoinstrumentalitywhichh ewasoperating,andthedangerattachedtoitsopera-tionaswellasthecharacterofthohighwayand'theprobabi lityofinSictcdinjuries,arealltobetakeninaccount.In adiscussionofthereciprocalrightsofpedestriansandau tomoblllststheGeorgiacourtfays:"Thepedestrianandth eautomobilehaveequalrightsuponthehighway,buttheirc apacityforinflictingInjuryisvastlydispro-portione-d.Itfollows,also,fromthis,thatthedriverofanautomob ilecannotbesaidtobeusingthohighwaywithinhisrights, ortobeIntheexerciseofduocare,ifhetakesad-vantageoftheforce,weightandpowerofhl3machineasamea nsofcompellingpedestrianstoyieldtohismachinesuperi orrightsuponthepublichighway,designedforthouseofal lmembersofthepublicuponequalterms (End Paste)

    BTW, Have you read Scalia's book on reading and understanding text?

    Just another quick post.
    TN Code § 55-1-103 (2019)(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.
    (Both have the same meaning.. Ie.. Both are commercial) See definition of "commerce" which says: Any trade, traffic or transportation,... Intrastate or interstate.
    So, if something is transport, which a vehicle does, and transportation is commerce. All vehicles are commercial. Please read Scalia's book.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    23

    Default Re: Is Driving a Privilege or a Right

    Quote Quoting Edward333
    View Post
    This is from one of the articles I mentioned, thought you might find it interesting.
    It doesn't seem that interesting at all. And exactly what year is this from? It appears to refer to carriages, driver's of teams, and an omnibus? As these are "canon" terms for horse drawn vehicles I would say this is a very, very dated article.

    Beyond that the person is making the case that pedestrians and automobiles have the same rights in the street. That any person should be able to cross the street wherever and whenever they want. As pretty much every state that I am aware of has laws that govern this I would say that article is pretty useless.

    The article is quite hard to read so if I'm wrong please let me know.


    Quote Quoting Edward333
    View Post
    Just another quick post.
    TN Code § 55-1-103 (2019)(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.
    (Both have the same meaning.. Ie.. Both are commercial)
    What? Where in the definition does it say anything about commerce? There is not one mention of commerce, trade, being for hire, under contract, or any other term that could reasonable be construed to mean commerce. All it states is that if it can carry a person or property, is not a train, and is not powered by a human, then it is a vehicle. Besides that this appears to be the section for titling and registration of vehicles. I thought this thread was about driver's license? You need to check the proper definition for that section and see if it is the same.



    Quote Quoting Edward333
    View Post
    So, if something is transport, which a vehicle does, and transportation is commerce. All vehicles are commercial. Please read Scalia's book.
    Nope that is not how that works. You cant take two different definitions and combine them into some Frankenstein definition to suit your needs.


    Just a side note. I would strongly suggest you be careful to read the "and" and "or" on the laws. I received that advice a long time ago and it has come in handy. Those two words can have a very, very drastic effect on exactly how the text of the law reads. Those two words are also the ones that confuse people the most.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    16,391

    Default Re: Is Driving a Privilege or a Right

    Quote Quoting Edward333
    View Post
    Still haven't slept.
    This is from one of the articles I mentioned, thought you might find it interesting. (Added after paste: Sorry it didn't copy & paste correct, hope it's readable.)
    ByErnestL.Davis,in"CaseandComment."IssofrcquenUytr uewithrespecttoASlegalprinciples,thestatementofthe-genera-lrulesgoverningthereciprocaldutiesoftheautomobileo peratorandthepedes-trianismuchsimplprthantheapplicationofthoseprincip lestospecificcases.TheunusualuniformityIntheprinci pleslaiddownbythecourtsindicatesauniversalsatisfac tionthere-withwnichisstrongevidenceonbehalfofthecorrectnessa ndjusticeofthoseprinciples.Thisunanimityisduotothe factthatthecourts,inconstructingthisgreatadditiont othelaw,haveuniversallylaidfortheirfoun-dationtheImpartialprinciplethatapedestrianandanamo mjbllisthaveequalrightsinthaEtreeLTilsruloappliesn otonlytocrosswalks,butalsotoanypointinthestreetwhe renpedestrianmaywishtogo.Itapplieswithllkoforcewhe reheisdepositedbyapublicconveyanceatapointinthestr eetnotlocatedonthocross-walk-,andwherohocrossesdiagonallyfromonesideofthostreet tothoother.ThoMassachusettscourtnassaidInthisconne ction:"Thereisnolaworprincipleoflaworofreasonwhich confinesfootpassengerstoparticularcrossings.Suchar estrictionwouldboveryInconvenientandannoying.Thest reetshouldbokeptinsuchconditionthatfootpassengersm aybeabletocross,withareasonabledegreeofsafety,usin gpropercarothemselves,atanyandallplaces.Thonecessi tyofthismightboIllustratedveryfullybyreferencetoth ecommonandordinarycourseofbusiness.ApersonwhoIslef tbyanomnibusInthemiddleofthostreetshouldbeablotogo insafetytothesidewalk,atthenearestpoint,andnotbeco mpelledtomakohiswayamongthecarriagesinthemiddleoft hestreettillhecanreachaplaceparticularlysetapartan ddesignatedforthopurposeofcrossing."Thisruleofequa lrightsappliesalsoinbe-halfofblindpersons,lamepersonsandchildren.WhereSpe cialCareIsRequiredofAutomoblllsts.Allpartiesusinga highwaymustexerclsoreasonablecare;thepedestriantop reventin-jurytohimself,thooperatortopreventacci-dentorinjurytoothers.ThedutyoftheoperatorIsthosame asthatwhichthelawImposesonthedriverofateam,exceptt hatthogreaterspeedcallsforgreaterwatchful-ness.Greatercareisrequiredoftheoperatortstreetcros singsandinthemorecongesteddistrictsthanintholessob structedstreetsinetherpartsofthecity.Andwherethepe rilofapedestrianisdiscoveredbytheoperator,anewduty arisestoexerciseallreasonablecaretoavoidInjury.Whi lethedrirersofautomobilesenjoythFamerightsonthehig hwaysasarepossessedbypedestrians,thenatureofthedut yimposeduponthemIstobe.viewedanddeterminedascommen suratewiththeriskentailedthroughtheprobabledangers attendingtheparticularsituationThus,thedegreeofdil igencewhichmustbeexercisedinaparticularexigencyUtu chasIsnecessarytopreventInjuringothers;andInconsid eringwhetherthooperatorofanautomobilehasexercisedd uodiligence,thecharacterofthoinstrumentalitywhichh ewasoperating,andthedangerattachedtoitsopera-tionaswellasthecharacterofthohighwayand'theprobabi lityofinSictcdinjuries,arealltobetakeninaccount.In adiscussionofthereciprocalrightsofpedestriansandau tomoblllststheGeorgiacourtfays:"Thepedestrianandth eautomobilehaveequalrightsuponthehighway,buttheirc apacityforinflictingInjuryisvastlydispro-portione-d.Itfollows,also,fromthis,thatthedriverofanautomob ilecannotbesaidtobeusingthohighwaywithinhisrights, ortobeIntheexerciseofduocare,ifhetakesad-vantageoftheforce,weightandpowerofhl3machineasamea nsofcompellingpedestrianstoyieldtohismachinesuperi orrightsuponthepublichighway,designedforthouseofal lmembersofthepublicuponequalterms (End Paste)

    BTW, Have you read Scalia's book on reading and understanding text?

    Just another quick post.
    TN Code § 55-1-103 (2019)(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.
    (Both have the same meaning.. Ie.. Both are commercial) See definition of "commerce" which says: Any trade, traffic or transportation,... Intrastate or interstate.
    So, if something is transport, which a vehicle does, and transportation is commerce. All vehicles are commercial. Please read Scalia's book.
    Do you really expect anyone here to read THAT?

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    18,172

    Default Re: Is Driving a Privilege or a Right

    Quote Quoting Edward333
    View Post
    I'm still smart enough to come here for additional info.
    Just not smart enough to believe it.

    This dead horse has been kicked around by the lunatic fringe for years and debunked at every turn. Yet the loonies insist on believing in the "right to travel" and "sovereign citizen" nonsense despite all the evidence to the contrary.

    Good luck when you get to court.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    106

    Default Re: Is Driving a Privilege or a Right

    Citizens are sovereign. We delegate the authority to make laws to the government. But we still have to follow the laws that doesn't violate our rights. See Yick Wo v. Tompkins.

    I do do know of the "and or" canon. And the rest. That's what Scalia's book is about.

    This thread is about licenses, but only vehicles which are required to be registered require a license. If TCA defines "vehicle" as in which persons or property may be transported and another TCA defines "commerce" as trade, traffic or transportation, then the word transported in vehicle definition means commercial. The federal government regulates Transportation in part 49 of US CFR.

    All licenses issued must comply with federal rules. Check TCA code.
    Battery almost dead...more later,

    The TCA definition of motor vehicle is the same contained in 49 US CFR.
    But see
    Title18, UNITED STATES CODE Sec. 31
    PART I – CRIMES
    CHAPTER 2 - AIRCRAFT AND MOTOR VEHICLES
    Sec. 31. Definitions
    When used in this chapter 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;

    Now since the State uses the same definition as the federal code, and must comply with federal rules concerning licenses being issued, and by canon in Scalia's book which states that if a definition is defined by a higher authority, the higher authority rules.

    Think about it. The State must comply with federal rules concerning licenses being issued. The federal government only have authority over commerce. Federalism prevents the US from making States comply with anything that the US doesn't have authority to control.

    Now back to my original post question.
    By multiple editions of Black's, please see the following I copied form the 8th.

    privilege tax.A tax on the privilege of carrying on a business or occupation for which a license or franchise is required. [Cases: Licenses 1. C.J.S. Architects § 8; Licenses §§ 2–4.]

    That goes along with my original post about what a privilege is legally defined as. Thus a "privilege " tax on the registration and fees, could only apply to commercial vehicles.
    So even if the state can require a license for the type of vehicle registered, only commercial vehicles requires being registered.
    There is a lot of deception at play.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 3 of 22 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 ... 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