Is Driving a Privilege or a Right

[Taxing Matters]

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.

You are trying to use definitions that don't apply to the licensing requirement. TC § 55-50-301(a)(1) states:

(1) No person, except those expressly exempted in this section, shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway in this state unless the person has a valid driver license under this chapter for the type or class of vehicle being driven;

Thus, what matters is the definition of motor vehicle. The definition that applies for the purposes of driver's licenses is found in TC § 55-50-102(37), which states:

(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;

Moreover, vehicle is defined in subsection (56) as follows:

(56) “Vehicle” means every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a public highway, excepting devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks;

Those are the only definitions that matter when determining whether you need a license for whatever it is you are driving. And they are very broad definitions. Most significantly, nothing in either the the definition of vehicle or motor vehicle limits them to commercial vehicles. Regular passenger cars and trucks are covered by those definitions. Indeed, even using an off road vehicle on the highways requires a license, even though such machines are not commercial vehicles. The Tennessee Attorney general in a written opinion explains:

1. Any person driving “any motor vehicle” on a highway in Tennessee must have a valid driver's license. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-50-301(a)(1). A reading of our statutes reveals that an off-highway vehicle qualifies as a motor vehicle. State law requires every person driving “any motor vehicle upon a highway in this state” to have a valid driver's license for the type or class of vehicle being driven. Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-50-301(a)(1). “Motor vehicle” is defined as a “vehicle, low speed vehicle or medium speed vehicle as defined in this section ....” Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-50-102(34). “Vehicle” is defined as “every device, in, upon, or by which any person ... is or may be transported ... upon a public highway, excepting devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks ....” Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-50-102(53). A Class D license is required for the operation of any vehicle weighing less than twenty-six thousand one pounds. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-50-102(19)(D). Because “motor vehicle” and “vehicle” are broadly defined in the statute, an off-highway vehicle such as a four-wheeler is a “motor vehicle” under Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-50-301(a)(1). For this reason, any person operating an off-highway vehicle upon a highway in Tennessee is required to have a valid driver's license.

Tenn. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 09-164 (Oct. 14, 2009). So you aren't going to win on an argument that driver's licenses are only required when driving commercially. The Tennessee statutes are not so restricted. As the Attorney General states, the definitions in the statute are quite broad.

The federal government regulates Transportation in part 49 of US CFR.

But the federal government does not dictate to the states the definitions they must use for their drivers licenses or dictate to the state what drivers they can and cannot license. The one thing the federal government dictates is what the states must do if they want their licenses to be REAL ID compliant. REAL ID licenses are the only ones that the federal government will accept as identification at airport screening and for entrance to federal facilities. States are not required to issue REAL ID licenses but if they want to issue them then they have to take certain steps to verify the identity of the applicant and the license must have certain security features on it. The REAL ID rules do not, however, tell the states whom they can and cannot require to have licenses.

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;

I've seen bad web sites make that exact same flawed argument. What you are missing is that 18 U.S.C. § 31 starts out by stating: "In this chapter, the following definitions apply:" (bolding added). The statute is telling you specifically that the definition only applies for purposes of enforcing the federal crimes set out in Chapter 2 of Part I of Title 18. The definitions do not apply for any other purpose and thus do not override the definitions the states use in their motor vehicle licensing and registration laws. Don't fall into the trap that those bad web sites do of assuming that just because they see a definition of something in federal law that it must automatically apply to the states, too. That's simply lazy analysis. There are many things the feds define for purposes of federal law only that have no effect on the states. You must read and analyze the federal and state law involved carefully to see what interaction, if any, there are between the two. In this case, the federal law involved has no impact on state law.

[Edward333]

Even in TCA License section, it only mentions professional licenses.

Please check Black's definitions of privilege tax and "passenger". And the requirements that the state comply with licenses being issued was in affect long before real ID.

If a privilege tax is on business or occupation, then a privilege is the same as provided in TN constitution and Philips v. Tax collectors I mentioned. So if "driving " is a privilege, it's commercial.

[Taxing Matters]

Even in TCA License section, it only mentions professional licenses.

The TC provisions for driver's licenses do not restrict the requirement to commercial licenses, as I pointed out before. The fact that many of the licenses that the state issues are for businesses and professions does not mean the state is only restricted to issuing licenses for businesses and professions. Consider, for example, that the state also issues hunting and fishing licenses, and those licenses also are not restricted to just commercial activity.

And the requirements that the state comply with licenses being issued was in affect long before real ID.

The problem you have is that you have failed to cite any federal law that dictates to the states whom they can and cannot license. Nothing in federal law restricts the states to licensing just commercial drivers. It is up to the states to decide which drivers must be licensed. I've already given you Tennessee's requirements. You are barking up the wrong tree with this federal angle. Nothing in federal law overrides the state licensing statutes.

If a privilege tax is on business or occupation, then a privilege is the same as provided in TN constitution and Philips v. Tax collectors I mentioned. So if "driving " is a privilege, it's commercial.

You are once again incorrectly assuming that all privileges are commercial. They are not. There are many types of privileges in the law, most of which have nothing to do with commercial activity.

[Edward333]

The very definition of privilege is defined in Jack Cole. It's why there isn't a State income tax.
Jack Cole Co.v.MacFarland

Supreme Court of Tennessee, at Nashville, December Term, 1959Jun 6, 1960

337 S.W.2d 453 (Tenn. 1960)

It cannot be denied that the Legislature can name any privilege a taxable privilege and tax it by means other than an income tax, but the Legislature cannot name something to be a taxable privilege unless it is first a privilege.

"A privilege is whatever business, pursuit, occupation, or vocation, affecting the public, the Legislature chooses to declare and tax as such." Corn et al. v. Fort, 170 Tenn. 377, 385, 95 S.W.2d 620, 623, 106 A.L.R. 647.
(End Paste)
And in the TN constitution it's listed as: merchants, peddlers and privileges.

Using the association canon, it's commercial.

The TN constitution also states that the people have the right to fish, but may be regulated...etc.
A license and fee can't be required for a right. See Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham and various others.
The reason they require a license is for commercially selling the fish.

Just wondering, do you live in TN or work for any TN government Corp. ?

[flyingron]

What part of "when used in this chapter" do you not understand? That definition only applies to the stuff that immediately follows it. You throw around the CFR and the USC like they are the same thing and they have some universal applicability, and such is not the case.

You also seem to have completely missed the tenth amendment. The states do not need the Federal government to specifically enable provided it isn't something the Constitution reserves to itself.

The sovereign citizen stuff is bovine excrement and has been shown time and again to be a complete fallacy. Specifically, you'll find that NO COURT you appear in is going to tolerate you spouting that drek. You're going to have to learn REAL law rather than invented fallacies.

[Edward333]

The definition of "vehicle" uses the word "transported" which is part of transportation. "Commerce" is defined in TCA as : trade, traffic, or transportation. So vehicle would mean commercial.
The meaning of words in statues are to be giving the meaning at the time it was written. Per Meaning canon.
At the time, transportation was understood as commercial. Check older Black's Law dictionary.
So there's 2 separate ways to define transported.
See:
TN Code § 55-4-111 (2019)

(a)

(1) In order to facilitate efficient and uniform enforcement of chapters 1-6 of this title, motor vehicles, excepting such motor vehicles as are constructed for the purpose of transporting tangible personal property or other property, and passenger motor vehicles operating for hire, are classified, and the respective registration taxes imposed are fixed as follows:

"such motor vehicles as are constructed for the purpose of transporting tangible personal property or other property" The use of "transportation" make this mean commercial or an automobile which is constructed as mentioned is excluded. That's the very reason we use an automobile.

[free9man]

Guys, he's not going to listen. He doesn't want to listen. Let the judge throw him in jail for a few days for contempt when he starts spouting this garbage and doesn't shut up when told to.

[Edward333]

Guys, he's not going to listen. He doesn't want to listen. Let the judge throw him in jail for a few days for contempt when he starts spouting this garbage and doesn't shut up when told to.

The trial will be before a jury. I believe I can obtain reasonable doubt. The purpose of these post are to test my arguments and find the flaws therein.
My other options is to file a lawsuit for due process violations, accept a plea bargain which I doubt will be offered or spent time in jail.
I have studied this issue and have over 200 case laws, 50 or more TCA, US 49 CFR codes, Dept of Safety rules and regulations, various books on automobile history, various volumes of additional court rulings, volumes 1-9 of Black's Law, 1 or 2 Bolivar law, additional law dictionaries, multiple Harvard law papers and such, Scalia's book on Reading and understanding text, and even newspaper articles from the Library of Congress. All rulings, that will be used, I have verified. I've checked the treatment of most.
I may lose the jury trial, but it'll be appealed. All materials will be included so it can be used in an appeal. I may demand declaratory judgment on certain TCAs. I will demand proof of jurisdiction, and that it shows jurisdiction for non-commercial use of an automobile. I will demand corpus delecti and show they lack willful intent. Or at least I'll try. I have already learned a few rulings here that I intend to check. I may learn more. I have mostly been using info from memory, but I have it more refined on my computer. Not so much on this phone. As stated in an earlier post, one of my main defense will be to show that the officer doesn't know some TCAs, definition of certain words, and various rulings. Most questions he will answer in my favor due to his lack. I have some very useful questions. He will be shown to lack enough legal knowledge to testify. But again, this post is for educational purposes and the test of a small portion of my defense. So please don't think that I'm a sovereign that thinks I know it all. As stated earlier, citizens are sovereign but still most obey laws. Yick Wo v. Hopkins.

Edit: "must" obey laws.

[free9man]

The trial will be before a jury. I believe I can obtain reasonable doubt. The purpose of these post are to test my arguments and find the flaws therein.
My other options is to file a lawsuit for due process violations, accept a plea bargain which I doubt will be offered or spent time in jail.
I have studied this issue and have over 200 case laws, 50 or more TCA, US 49 CFR codes, Dept of Safety rules and regulations, various books on automobile history, various volumes of additional court rulings, volumes 1-9 of Black's Law, 1 or 2 Bolivar law, additional law dictionaries, multiple Harvard law papers and such, Scalia's book on Reading and understanding text, and even newspaper articles from the Library of Congress. All rulings, that will be used, I have verified. I've checked the treatment of most.
I may lose the jury trial, but it'll be appealed. All materials will be included so it can be used in an appeal. I may demand declaratory judgment on certain TCAs. I will demand proof of jurisdiction, and that it shows jurisdiction for non-commercial use of an automobile. I will demand corpus delecti and show they lack willful intent. Or at least I'll try. I have already learned a few rulings here that I intend to check. I may learn more. I have mostly been using info from memory, but I have it more refined on my computer. Not so much on this phone. As stated in an earlier post, one of my main defense will be to show that the officer doesn't know some TCAs, definition of certain words, and various rulings. Most questions he will answer in my favor due to his lack. I have some very useful questions. He will be shown to lack enough legal knowledge to testify. But again, this post is for educational purposes and the test of a small portion of my defense. So please don't think that I'm a sovereign that thinks I know it all. As stated earlier, citizens are sovereign but still most obey laws. Yick Wo v. Hopkins.

Edit: "must" obey laws.

You have been told your defense is garbage yet you continue to tilt at the windmill. You are not listening and are not going to listen. Also officers are not required to know all that stuff so that is a dead end that the judge will shut down very quickly.

Your posts are verbal diarrhea of legal terms in the hope of finding some scrap of hope. The legal equivalent of throwing spaghetti at the wall to see if it sticks. Most people accept reality when the spaghetti hits the floor but you can't, or won't.

[Taxing Matters]

I have studied this issue and have over 200 case laws, 50 or more TCA, US 49 CFR codes, Dept of Safety rules and regulations, various books on automobile history, various volumes of additional court rulings, volumes 1-9 of Black's Law, 1 or 2 Bolivar law, additional law dictionaries, multiple Harvard law papers and such, Scalia's book on Reading and understanding text, and even newspaper articles from the Library of Congress. All rulings, that will be used, I have verified. I've checked the treatment of most.

I'm sorry, but despite your studies, you clearly have missed the statutes, regulations, and cases that are directly on point to the issues you say you want to raise, while trying to materials that are not on point and much of which is old and outdated. I have provided you a number of the materials that are on point and that clearly show you aren't on the right track. You do not understand how to do a good job of researching this and you've not done a proper job analyzing what you do have. That's a set-up for disaster when you get to court.

I may lose the jury trial, but it'll be appealed.

And if the arguments you advance on appeal are the ones the cases I've already give you have clearly rejected not only will you lose the appeal you might get sanctioned for a frivolous appeal.

I will demand corpus delecti and show they lack willful intent. Or at least I'll try.

This statement tells me you don't really know what corpus delecti is.

As stated in an earlier post, one of my main defense will be to show that the officer doesn't know some TCAs, definition of certain words, and various rulings.

Here is your problem. The cop doesn't have to know any of those things. He's not a lawyer. All he had to do was do his job properly. And that doesn't require him to be some legal expert. Once you start asking those questions the prosecutor will object based on either lack of relevance and/or that your cross examination is exceeding the scope of the prosecutor's direct exam, which the court will sustain and you'll be shut down from pursuing it.

Most questions he will answer in my favor due to his lack. I have some very useful questions. He will be shown to lack enough legal knowledge to testify.

See, this is what you don't understand. The cop is not on the stand as an expert witness on the law. He is there to testify as a fact witness — to testify about what he observed you do, what happened during the stop, what statements you made, etc. Because he made the stop he is a competent witness to testify about what happened during the stop. The prosecutor will lay the foundation for his testimony and once that is done you cannot get him off the stand on your cross examination on a claim that he lacks legal knowledge to testify. The prosecutor will not be asking him about his legal knowledge, only what happened during the stop. That means your cross examination will also be limited to questioning about what happened at the stop. He does not need legal knowledge to testify about what what happened during the stop. The extent of his knowledge of the law is not relevant to the case. So if this is your main defense it is a nonstarter.