Lawyers in here: My Son's research concerning a driver's license

[mustang guy]

 

Here you go Travis

http://wearechange.org/u-s-supreme-court-says-no-license-necessary-to-drive-automobile-on-public-highwaysstreets/

I skimmed through it, and noticed that out of all of those citations none deal with whether a state can require someone to get a driver's license.

That is your son's specific question as I recall. If driving is a right how can they prevent me from driving.

First step is determine whether driving is a fundamental right.

Freedom of travel is a fundamental right, lot os cases on that.

What the specious argument that is advanced by some groups is that the only way to accomplish this is by driving, and therefore driving is a fundamental right.

If you look at the 9th Circuit case I linked, it is clear that Sup Ct. has held that as long as you have some mode of travel, whether, air, bus, or by FOOT, your right to travel is not infringed.

What is common with the fringes is they lay out the logic of a premise of an argument, quote language from cases that don't have anything to do with the specific issue, and they ignore the cases right on point where the issue is addressed.

When you point out to them that the Court rejected the argument, their logic turns circular. They will say that Court says travel is fundamental right, you say, but same court says driving isn't, they respond with something out of left field like, if you haven't signed agreement with state, or "without prejudice" they have no power over you. You then hop down that bunny trail about where they come up with that.

The video of mountain man was about him not paying for a fishing license. Then claiming he is a free man with right to forage for food.

Sorry, no, the fish belong to the state, whether you are hungry or not. It is no different if he went on someone's property and took their chicken for food and he was jailed for theft.

He switched argument to that is not my name, that the prosecutor is operating as an esquire under English law and on violation of the Constitution of whatever year. Judges tells him to sit down and shut up, he will get his chance, he refuses and gets led off in handcuffs.

In mountain man's mind he believes he has won. More importantly, those who are like minded as him also think he won and think he has advanced legitimate legal arguments that are a precedent.

Here is a quote from one of the citations in your linked site:

Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets Indiana Springs case isn't a U.S. Supreme Court case. They copy and paste from like minded people who agree with their legal view, and they don't check it.

Here is a clue, if SCOTUS had ruled in a case that driving is a fundamental right it would be at the top of their page with a direct quote.

 

Excellent!

 

I would never pass the bar. 

[wvu80]

And I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night!

 

LOL!  That's right Earl, I figure in your case, you learn quite a bit about the law by studying discussions on this forum, then watching the Youtube vids I post! 

+++

 

To me, by far the most impressive thing about this thread is we have a 14 year-old boy questioning a fundamental behavior nobody ever questions (driving).  Then he quotes or alludes to US Supreme Court decisions, then has his father NOT spoon feed him answers, but guides him to find his own answers.

 

Nice job of parenting, Mr. USN Retired. 

Edited April 27, 2016 by wvu80

[oldtimer]

Sorry, no, the fish belong to the state,

 

That's what England said to the Irish while they starved them to death, and in the meantime shipping meat and other food from Ireland to England.

 

Edit---quote is Travis not mustang guy.

Edited April 27, 2016 by oldtimer

[Wolfbane]

 

Sorry, no, the fish belong to the state,

 

That's what England said to the Irish while they starved them to death, and in the meantime shipping meat and other food from Ireland to England.

 

Edit---quote is Travis not mustang guy.

 

 

You do realize what happened to the North's Irish Brigade at the battle of Fredricksburg? Enlisted by both the North and the South; they were cut to pieces by a Southern Irish Regiment at the sunken lane. The world was a hard place for most without means in the middle of the 19th Century and the Irish who imigrated to the USA often ended up jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Wolfbane

[oldtimer]

Better an American pan than an English fire.  You also realize they had to immigrate since conditions in their homeland were disastrous, thanks to the English.

[oldtimer]

These are the are same English we are talking about who burned the White House to the ground.

[Travis In Austin]

I love sovereign citizens!

Look it it in your "book of codes!" This is by far my favorite Youtube vid of this type, shows this crazy chick trying to tell a CHP officer what he can and cannot do as her boyfriend was arrested for no drivers license and some other possible narcatics infractions. This cop is so cool, and there are so many great lines in this video.

HAHAHA This made my morning. "Were free people of the land, we have all the rights but dont have to follow any of the laws!"

The best part was the fact that the cop wasnt some Unconstitutional DHS goon at a "border" checkpoint or anything, he was a deputy of a Sheriff who was democratically elected by the people of the county to enforce laws passed by democratically elected local officials which is pretty much exactly how the founding fathers set up our Republic. I am a pretty die hard Constitutionalist and this deputy acted with nothing but patience and restraint. The girl should have just got out of the car and asked, "Officer, am I being detained?" If the answer is "No" then just walk away.

What if officer said: "Yes you are being detained."

Then you make them explain under what suspicion of crime you are being detained for so unless you are actively helping with an investigation your only conversation should be:

"Officer, Im I free to go?"

"No"

"Officer, am I being detained"

"Yes"

"Officer, please state your reasonable suspicion of a crime for which I am being detained"

Then depending on the answer you cite that you can only be detained under reasonable suspicion and if that cant be provided you should be free to go or if there is suspicion then keep you mouth shut and dont say a word without a lawyer by your side. Just say, "I wish to remain silent until I have legal representation." The most important thing is to use the exact words and be extremely polite as the Cruiser is recording everything and the last thing you want is to look like an A**hat while sitting in a courtroom.

(I actually attended a seminar on this in College)

I would agree with all of that. Most people think they can talk their way out of something.

So he says "I can respect that, and that is certainly your right. However, I am not asking you any questions. I just want you to step out of the vehicle and I want to see your ID."

Terry v. Ohio is the place to start and then Arizona v Johnson.

[Travis In Austin]

And I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night!

LOL! That's right Earl, I figure in your case, you learn quite a bit about the law by studying discussions on this forum, then watching the Youtube vids I post!

+++

To me, by far the most impressive thing about this thread is we have a 14 year-old boy questioning a fundamental behavior nobody ever questions (driving). Then he quotes or alludes to US Supreme Court decisions, then has his father NOT spoon feed him answers, but guides him to find his own answers.

Nice job of parenting, Mr. USN Retired.

Here, here.

Ditto

[Travis In Austin]

Sorry, no, the fish belong to the state,

That's what England said to the Irish while they starved them to death, and in the meantime shipping meat and other food from Ireland to England.

Edit---quote is Travis not mustang guy.

The Royal Forest started with the William the Bastard/Conqueror and the Norman Kings. The King owns all of the Royal animals within the forest and he had the exclusive right to hunt them, or allow others to hunt them. It also gave him dominion over the vegetation (vert).

This was carried over in various forms up to the Magna Carta which has several provisions relating to the King's rights of the forests. That evolved up to the present day in the Forestry Commission.

I think the Penal Law was an entirely different thing and went well beyond declaring what was allowed to be hunted. I guess you are speaking about a much later time of the fammin? I think the Penal Law was clearly what set Ireland for such a disaster.

[Wolfbane]

These are the are same English we are talking about who burned the White House to the ground.

 

The Yanks should have stayed clear of what was then called Upper Canada. Burning York and butchering people has consequences.  

 

Had Napoleon not tied down the bulk of British regular forces in Spain and elsewhere in Europe until 1814 there might not have been anything left of the White House to paint white.

 

Had British General Isaac Brock not been killed in the midst of winning the battle of Queenston Heights in 1812, anything Napoleon was doing to tie down British Regulars would not have mattered.

[DizRotus]

I see a lock coming, and it's not the loch that hides monsters.

[Travis In Austin]

These are the are same English we are talking about who burned the White House to the ground.

The Yanks should have stayed clear of what was then called Upper Canada. Burning York and butchering people has consequences.

Had Napoleon not tied down the bulk of British regular forces in Spain and elsewhere in Europe until 1814 there might not have been anything left of the White House to paint white.

Had British General Isaac Brock not been killed in the midst of winning the battle of Queenston Heights in 1812, anything Napoleon was doing to tie down British Regulars would not have mattered.

Seems to be a lot of "hads" when it comes to the British.

Had ol' King George accepted the olive branch we might all be drinking tea today.

My recollection, based on what they teach us down here, of the reason the US declared war was the British impressment of US Sailors, by the thousands. They were always arrogant when it came to their Navy.

One good iutcome was that subsequent conflicts between the British and the US were resolved by diplomacy and negotiation starting with the Rush-Bagot treaty.

Edited April 28, 2016 by dwilawyer

[CECAA850]

I see a lock coming, and it's not the loch that hides monsters.

 

 

Seems good to me.  No personal attacks, no current politics.  More like a history debate.

[Mighty Favog]

 

I see a lock coming, and it's not the loch that hides monsters.

 

 

Seems good to me.  No personal attacks, no current politics.  More like a history debate.

 

 

I'm all right with it...

[Wolfbane]

 

 

These are the are same English we are talking about who burned the White House to the ground.

The Yanks should have stayed clear of what was then called Upper Canada. Burning York and butchering people has consequences.

Had Napoleon not tied down the bulk of British regular forces in Spain and elsewhere in Europe until 1814 there might not have been anything left of the White House to paint white.

Had British General Isaac Brock not been killed in the midst of winning the battle of Queenston Heights in 1812, anything Napoleon was doing to tie down British Regulars would not have mattered.

Seems to be a lot of "hads" when it comes to the British.

Had ol' King George accepted the olive branch we might all be drinking tea today.

My recollection, based on what they teach us down here, of the reason the US declared war was the British impressment of US Sailors, by the thousands. They were always arrogant when it came to their Navy.

One good iutcome was that subsequent conflicts between the British and the US were resolved by diplomacy and negotiation starting with the Rush-Bagot treaty.

 

 

Yes, the Brit's were impressing American's (Shanghaiing them) into forced naval service. Probably because they spoke the language. That was the spark for that war. George III was mad as a hatter. That wasn't the reason they burned the White House.

 

As to had, we are talking about 200 year old history. All empires end, sooner or later, with decadence and the rate of technological changes speeding up in our world no empire will ever again last as long as that of Rome or the British empire.