Is Driving a Privilege or a Right

[Edward333]

Add the following to my original post :
Waters v.Farr
Supreme Court of Tennessee Jul 24, 2009
291 S.W.3d 873 (Tenn. 2009)
. Because, however, the tax cannot be classified as either a tax on merchants, a tax on peddlers or a tax on privileges, as authorized by our state constitution, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Now consider : 31. Associated-Words Canon
Associated words bear on one another’s meaning (noscitur a sociis).
The Latin phrase noscitur a sociis means “it is known by its associates”—a classical version, applied to textual explanation, of the observed phenomenon
that birds of a feather flock together. The associated-words canon could refer to the basic principle that words are given meaning by their context (see § 2)—and
some authorities use this canon at that broad level of generality.1 But we mean something more specific. When several nouns or verbs or adjectives or adverbs
—any words—are associated in a context suggesting that the words have something in common, they should be assigned a permissible meaning that
makes them similar. The canon especially holds that “words grouped in a list should be given related meanings.”2

and :
32. Ejusdem Generis Canon Where general words follow an enumeration of two or more things, they apply only to persons or things of the same general
kind or class specifically mentioned (ejusdem generis).

Now according to TN Constitution, Jack Cole V. McFarland , the Phillips v. Tax collector, and Waters v. Farr along with the canons listed from Antonin Scalia's book, it clearly shows that a privilege is business or occupation where a profit is deprived from the public (thus commercial) and that anything not included in THIS definition of a privilege, cannot be taxed as such.

There is no such clause in the Tennesee Constitution and the case law points back to the North Carolina law (Tennessee was carved out of the west end of NC).
The $50 amount you are quoting comes from a 1921 case where they set a yardstick for what would be an severe fine. It was not and is not in the Constitution, nor is $50 some magic limit today. The absolute entitlement applies to things charged by indictment (i.e. felonies).

You better learn to read. ANY CRIMINAL CASE
Section 6. That the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate, and no religious or political test shall ever be required as a qualification for jurors.
Section 7. That the people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from unreasonable searches and seizures; and that general warrants, whereby an officer may be commanded to search suspected places, without evidence of the fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, whose offences are not particularly described and supported by evidence, are dangerous to liberty and ought not be granted.
Section 8. That no man shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed or deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land.
Section 9. That in all criminal prosecutions, the accused hath the right to be heard by himself and his counsel; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof, to meet the witnesses face to face, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and in prosecutions by indictment or presentment, a speedy public trial, by an impartial jury of the county in which the crime shall have been committed, and shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself.

Also See: Section 14. No fine shall be laid on any citizen of this state that shall exceed fifty dollars, unless it shall be assessed by a jury of his peers, who shall assess the fine at the time they find the fact, if they think the fine should be more than fifty dollars.

[pg1067]

There is no such clause in the Tennesee Constitution and the case law points back to the North Carolina law (Tennessee was carved out of the west end of NC).
The $50 amount you are quoting comes from a 1921 case where they set a yardstick for what would be an severe fine. It was not and is not in the Constitution, nor is $50 some magic limit today. The absolute entitlement applies to things charged by indictment (i.e. felonies).

While I haven't read through most of this thread and am quite confident that I wouldn't agree with most of the stuff the OP is saying, section 14 of Article VI of the Tennessee Constitution states as follows: "No fine shall be laid on any citizen of this state that shall exceed fifty dollars, unless it shall be assessed by a jury of his peers, who shall assess the fine at the time they find the fact, if they think the fine should be more than fifty dollars."

[Edward333]

While I haven't read through most of this thread and am quite confident that I wouldn't agree with most of the stuff the OP is saying, section 14 of Article VI of the Tennessee Constitution states as follows: "No fine shall be laid on any citizen of this state that shall exceed fifty dollars, unless it shall be assessed by a jury of his peers, who shall assess the fine at the time they find the fact, if they think the fine should be more than fifty dollars."

Thank you. Took me a minute to reply to him.

Edward333,

We've over the years had many folks like yourself in here prepping or preaching this sovereign citizen nonsense. And every time one of us asks them to let us know how it all works out. To my knowledge, not one of them have ever returned with a success story.

So this is yours. Let us know how this all works out for you in court.

I'm not trying to beat the case as a sovereign but see the following :

From Scalia's book: 44. Artificial-Person Canon
The word person includes corporations and other entities, but not the sovereign.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)

When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed
Page 118 U. S. 370
to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but, in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. It is, indeed, quite true that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision, and in many cases of mere administration, the responsibility is purely political, no appeal lying except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the pressure of opinion or by means of the suffrage. But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the commonwealth "may be a government of laws, and not of men." For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life at the mere will of another seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.

SO TECHNICALLY : Person as used in the TCAs does not include the sovereign, which we are. But once again, I'm not going that route.

[Jim Kozlovich]

You people have way too much free time so I'm going to through another seinero into this discussion. If as OP contends that driving is a right, does that mean that flying is also a right? LOL Have fun!

[Edward333]

You people have way too much free time so I'm going to through another seinero into this discussion. If as OP contends that driving is a right, does that mean that flying is also a right? LOL Have fun!

Is a license required for a hang glider, glider, ultralight or a para-sail? The law use to be that a person could fly within so many feet (I think it was in the 50-500ft range) and a license wasn't required. Excluding, restricted air space.

[RJR]

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:

I told myself I would not reply to any more threads like this, as no amount of legal reasoning will convince the poster they are wrong. Maybe mine will.

The AG opinion you cite is from Washington state. Your topic argument concerns TN's laws. So it is legally without merit, period. Yes, it cites a TN case as reference, but that case is also without merit.

This Washington AG opinion, which I am sure did not have the force of law, is from 1949. Even if it possessed the force of law, it has no force in TN.

Next, if you are really familiar on how to do proper legal research to support your position, you would know the U.S Supreme Court ruled the same in 1979. That ruling basically mirrored this WA AG opinion.

Lastly, the decision actually contravenes your research about licensing, registration, etc.

[Edward333]

The AG opinion you cite is from Washington state. Your topic argument concerns TN's laws. So it is legally without merit, period. Yes, it cites a TN case as reference, but that case is also without merit.

This Washington AG opinion, which I am sure did not have the force of law, is from 1949. Even if it possessed the force of law, it has no force in TN.

Next, if you are really familiar on how to do proper legal research to support your position, you would know the U.S Supreme Court ruled the same in 1979. That ruling basically mirrored this WA AG opinion.

Lastly, the decision actually contravenes your research about licensing, registration, etc.

That opinion also quotes Am. Jur. Constitutional Law 329 , p 1135 and various other. Ex Parte Dickey. ..etc.

What is the name of the 1979 ruling?

It doesn't contravene my analysis it you refer to where it states that they require their drivers to be licensed. Driver is by canon a person operating for profit.

[RJR]

That opinion also quotes Am. Jur. Constitutional Law 329 , p 1135 and various other. Ex Parte Dickey. ..etc.

What is the name of the 1979 ruling?

It doesn't contravene my analysis it you refer to where it states that they require their drivers to be licensed. Driver is by canon a person operating for profit.

Prouse's ruling was no law enforcement officer may seize (stop) a motor vehicle for the "sole purpose" of determing if the driver has a license. Mirroring your WA AG opinion.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/440/648, 1979, page 14:

We agree that the States have a vital interest in ensuring that only those qualified to do so are permitted to operate motor vehicles, that these vehicles are fit for safe operation, and hence that licensing, registration, and vehicle inspection requirements are being observed.

[Edward333]

Prouse's ruling was no law enforcement officer may seize (stop) a motor vehicle for the "sole purpose" of determing if the driver has a license. Mirroring your WA AG opinion.

Quoting from [url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/440/648[/url], 1979, page 14:

That's only about the first section of the AG opinion. I refer to towards the end that talks about liberty.

And the term motor vehicle is commercial also.

[RJR]

And what does the quote from Prouse mean I posted from page 14?