Here’s to hoping that he doesn’t lose his license. How would he get to the lavatory?
Again: these decisions are not about driving but about the freedom to travel. Of course, you won’t get that , so perhaps some levity will elucidate the point:
I wish I could like this more than once. So concise, so correct.
I did find a picture, though,
Maybe you should actually read them
“The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege "
It is in fact because of the part that you embolden that illustrates that the decision is about travel: the means are immaterial. You have the right to use the road to convey yourself and your things, be it by method A or B (or an implied C, D, E, F…). What it does not say is that you have a right to drive a car.
And while we’re at it, why didn’t you cite the Illinois ruling? Because it’s CLEARLY about travel. Not about the right to operate a motor vehicle.
Is that Tommy Lee Jones?
Indeedy. Sean Young’s in it, too.
Wow, that is a HUGE stretch…
It certainly does say I have a right to drive a car. The right to travel is not respective to conveyance. I have the right to use the road and the conveyance I choose is a car. ergo I have the right to drive a car Q.E.D.
You seem to be one of those people who think your rights are limited to what is enumerated in the Constitution and its amendments but the truth is that your inalienable rights as a human being are natural and cannot be granted or removed without due process of law. Since no laws exist granting me the right to own and drive a car, then that right is specifically granted me as per the 10th amendment.
Miller V Reed
9th Circuit
1999
(emphasis mine)
Well there you go: privileges are granted; rights exist a priori.
Precedent =/= Truth.
You argued predecent, and called it truth, and got your case handed to you.
Either way, the laws of the road, like the Windshield Laws, apply once you are behind the wheel.
Agreed
First, that was a circuit court of appeals and not a supreme court. Secondly, the case was about the legality of driving without a drivers license which he refused to renew due to the state requirement of having your SSN attached. The person in question tried to make a hybrid rights claim and failed due to the claim not meeting the standards for such a claim. The decision was that the state could require licensure to drive on the highways.
As I’ve previously demonstrated, regulation does not turn a right in to a privilege. Simply because a circuit court judge drank the coolaid, does not make his decision correct. Higher courts and better vetted prior decisions disagree with this ruling.
I still want to see a supreame court opinion or ruling saying driving is a privileged.
In any case, the driving on the road bit is all a distraction from the initial discussion on whether it’s OK to pass laws about HUD devices. I see this as the same kind of fear based lawmaking that gave us the patriot act.
Lol, ok now I see where you’re coming from. I thought I was debating someone rational.
C’mon, call me a Statist and let’s get this over with.
If refusing to follow the line of thought presented by the 9th in that case whereby the rights of the citizen when not harming or in any way effecting the rights of others is secondary to the bureaucratic machinations of the state is irrational, them count me in as irrational.
I don’t know if you read the 9ths decisions very often, but that court is a bunch of loons and their rulings are quite often overturned or vacated by higher courts.
Haha c’mon man, really? Okay, show one, in a higher court & don’t link to a Freeman on the land site or somesuch rubbish that only has an excerpt out of context, misspells plaintiffs names to dissuade searches & redefines words in the excerpt by inserting somethin in parenthesis without saying they are the ones doing it.
Just link/copy to the judgement bro, or use findlaw, your last link was five kinds bogus.
C’mon, higher court, vetted, you said it as a fact, so pony up Freeman.
Just ignore how it must chaff to have to reference courts you don’t recognize about laws you think don’t apply to you. Not sure how you guys do that. Law ain affect muh none, dem law said so
Thompson v. Smith, Supreme Court of Virginia, 155 Va. 367; 154 S.E. 579
I’d give you a direct link but as you can see, they only have opinions going back to 1995 posted http://www.courts.state.va.us/scndex.htm
Findlaw only goes back to 1990
Sorry, I missed the ‘or copy’ part. Here you go
“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under the existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at will.”
[Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367,154 SE 579 (1930)]
I’m trying to understand your point and what you are driving at. So far, it looks like your position is:
-
We can and should pass laws restricting people if we think something
is bad without evidence, past events, or study. -
Even though we know that radios, children, and soda pop are
distractions and have been the underlying cause of accidents in the
past, we are ok with those accidents, just not the accidents we
imagine can happen if people are allowed to drive with Google glass - even when none have ever occurred -
People do not have the right to drive their cars on the streets. Such
right must be granted by the state.
Did I miss anything?
Ha, & say, if I ever wanted to venture out of Virginia, if I happened to venture in?
You do know, that is why if you search for that, it has been plastered everywhere as “US Supreme Court says no license required to drive etc etc” as the first obvious misrepresentation. Yes it is a State Supreme Court in the United States, no, it is not the US Supreme Court. No it is not a higher court. Do you freeman types only abide by state laws? Excepting the state laws you don’t recognize? Do you tell people elsewhere when you visit that their laws don’t apply, because you a from Virginia?
I ask because really, your movement has nothing but muddled bits of ranting explaining itself.
I see your latest post, you regurgitate, I haven’t said any of that.
Ok FunkyDaddy,
I posted a state ruling since vehicle registration, licensure, and road rules are all state laws and not federal. State courts are where you are going to find your laws regarding use of the road, so I posted a state ruling. I used that as an example because it is generally accepted and precedent setting and an important ruling. But none of that matters.
This is a discussion on Google Glass but you are hung up on your prejudice and narcissistic ranting.
I am not a Freeman or member of ANY movement. I never claimed to be. I only posted that link as a quick link for Dr_Awkward in response to his saying driving is a privilege - which was prefaced by my saying there is a school of thought that disagrees. However, you didn’t notice that did you? You saw a link and thought “Ah Ha! Crap link! I got him.” and proceeded to label me a Freeman and suggest I am part of some movement. If you were just half as smart as you think you are you would read for comprehension and not for debate points.
Can you explain your position? Or, are you just stuck in the mode of disagreeing with me for kicks. I honestly tried to understand your point of view and distilled it in to a coherent few sentences. I re-read your posts and found nothing of substance other than some attempts to refute what others have posted. So, I was forced to cobble together some idea of what your position might be.
So, if those are your positions, though you haven’t clearly posted any, yet you have posted abusive responses, using argumentative tactics, and having no actual argument, what does that leave me with? A discussion with a small bully who has no articulable personal point of view?