Republicans are stupid thieves.

[IntLibber]

No need to overturn the law politically. The case law favors taking it to the courts.

Yeah, I wrote up a fantastic brief several years ago that, according to the local judge who wasn't willing to set a precedent, said I'd win if I appealed it. Didn't have the money to push it at the time, unfortunately, but it does make a rock solid argument, and blows out of the water faulty caselaw here in NH that cops use to justify their false claims requiring everyone have a drivers license.

[Diogenes]

My argument (one of my arguments) is that the right to travel is an inherent human right, like that of speech, or the right to peaceably assemble.

Tell me how you feel about a tax on the right to speak?

Were it just a penny per century, the tax would be too high!

1) The tax isn't on your right to travel. It's on your right to operate a motor vehicle.

You can freely walk anywhere you are permitted to go without any kind of interference from the government.

If you want to operate a vehicle (otherwise known as a 6 ton people-killer), you have to get a license, and pay the associated taxes and fees. Tough luck.

I have no complaint about the notion of proving proficiency. (What a license legitimately does.)

My complaint (as if you haven't had the opportunity to read all of my arguments up till now.) is that of "Prior Restraint".

i.e. assuming culpability before the fact of a crime.

If you cannot understand what this means, then we shouldn't bother arguing with each other.

2) While you are permitted to travel where you want, that right is limited to public property, and is further constrained by the national interest. For example, do you think that right permits you to freely walk around on nuclear test ranges? How about the Lawrence Livermore national laboratory? NASA? How about the White House?

Or any other property owned by someone else. Do you really need to enumerate the obvious?

In short your colorful albeit flawed logic is really just a cover for tax avoidance regardless of consequences to the public good...as usual for conservatives.

You assert it is flawed, yet you do not show where it is flawed. If in fact my logic is flawed, My flawed logic is shared by several Judges in deciding court cases.

CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

CASE #2: "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 which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

The Discussion, is in fact, Over, and unless you can come up with a real argument, there really is no point in beating this dead horse any more.

Pay the fee or get your party into power again to overturn the law.

Actually, it is my party in Power now, and they are the one's pushing this law which any sensible person ought to disagree with. That is why I named the title of this thread "Republicans are stupid thieves." On this particular subject, My party is most definitely in the wrong, and so are you if you agree with them.

[Diogenes]

No need to overturn the law politically. The case law favors taking it to the courts.

Yeah, I wrote up a fantastic brief several years ago that, according to the local judge who wasn't willing to set a precedent, said I'd win if I appealed it. Didn't have the money to push it at the time, unfortunately, but it does make a rock solid argument, and blows out of the water faulty caselaw here in NH that cops use to justify their false claims requiring everyone have a drivers license.

Was your brief concerning Licenses to drive?

I have long taken umbrage at the repeated assertion by Public officials that "Driving is a privilege, Not a right."
Furthermore, the idea that they can tell me to wear a seat belt, and punish me for disobeying is another wrong headed Idea of which the State needs to be disabused. I've been thinking about starting another thread concerning the Seat Belt issue.

A few years ago, an IDIOT in the State legislature proposed requiring seat belts on Motorcycles. Seriously.

[vankirkc]

2) While you are permitted to travel where you want, that right is limited to public property, and is further constrained by the national interest. For example, do you think that right permits you to freely walk around on nuclear test ranges? How about the Lawrence Livermore national laboratory? NASA? How about the White House?

Or any other property owned by someone else. Do you really need to enumerate the obvious?

Apparently I do, since you still don't seem to get it. What's the difference between a piece of property with a highway on it that's owned by the State, and a piece of property with a building on it that's owned by the State, in terms of your 'travel right'? A public property is a public property, and in fact, you cannot freely travel through any public property..which I'm sure is supported by substantial case law. So I don't see any reason to expect your argument to hold up in court, if it's ever taken that far.

Pay the fee or get your party into power again to overturn the law.

Actually, it is my party in Power now, and they are the one's pushing this law which any sensible person ought to disagree with. That is why I named the title of this thread "Republicans are stupid thieves." On this particular subject, My party is most definitely in the wrong, and so are you if you agree with them.

Well that's too bad for you then. I guess it is the will of the people. Democracy is a bitch, ain't it?

[MSimon]

I guess it is the will of the people. Democracy is a bitch, ain't it?

Evidently you are unaware of this fact but we do not live in a Democracy.

There are a few things where the rights of the individual out weigh the vote of the millions. Travel being one.

Rights are not subject to votes. I guess they don't teach that in school any more. Pity.

[Josh Cryer]

Free marketers voting against insurance?

[KitemanSA]

Evidently you are unaware of this fact but we do not live in a Democracy.

This is true. We stopped being one in the 1880s when jury nullification was basically circumvented. Before that we had been a representative republic form of democracy. Now we are a representative republic form of bureacracy.

[MSimon]

Free marketers voting against insurance? :shock:

What is free market about government forcing you to buy something?

[MSimon]

*

http://fija.org/

*

http://fija.org/about/fijas-purpose/

The FIJA mission is to educate Americans regarding their full powers as jurors, including their ability to rely on personal conscience, to judge the merit of the law and its application, and to nullify bad law, when necessary for justice, by finding for the defendant.

The Fully Informed Jury Association(FIJA)is a nonpartisan public policy research and education organization located in Helena, Montana. FIJA focuses on issues involving the role of the jury in our justice system and the preservation of the full function of the jury as the final arbiter in our courts of law. The FIJA mission is to inform all Americans about their rights, powers and responsibilities when serving as trial jurors. FIJA works to restore the political function of the jury as the final check and balance on our American system of government.

To assist supporters who press for a “fully informed jury,” FIJA has drafted the following model bill language suitable for passage into law or for amending a state constitution:

“An accused or aggrieved party’s right to trial by jury, in all instances where the government or any of its agencies is an opposing party, includes the right to inform the jurors of their power to judge the law as well as the evidence, and to vote on the verdict according to conscience.

This right shall not be infringed by any statute, juror oath, court order, or procedure or practice of the court, including the use of any method of jury selection which could preclude or limit the empanelment of jurors willing to exercise this power.

Nor shall this right be infringed by preventing any party to the trial, once the jurors have been informed of their powers, from presenting arguments to the jury which may pertain to issues of law and conscience, including (1) the merit, intent, constitutionality or applicability of the law in the instant case; (2) the motives, moral perspective, or circumstances of the accused or aggrieved party; (3) the degree and direction of guilt or actual harm done, or (4) the sanctions which may be applied to the losing party.

Failure to allow the accused or aggrieved party or counsel for that party to so inform the jury shall be grounds for mistrial and another trial by jury.

[MSimon]

The Fed can print money without "stealing" and fund Congress for any shopping spree within reason, nobody knows what the actual debt percentage of GNP can go.

For a one time buy that might work. For a steady drain not so much.

[Diogenes]

2) While you are permitted to travel where you want, that right is limited to public property, and is further constrained by the national interest. For example, do you think that right permits you to freely walk around on nuclear test ranges? How about the Lawrence Livermore national laboratory? NASA? How about the White House?

Or any other property owned by someone else. Do you really need to enumerate the obvious?

Apparently I do, since you still don't seem to get it. What's the difference between a piece of property with a highway on it that's owned by the State, and a piece of property with a building on it that's owned by the State, in terms of your 'travel right'?

Well, if you really need it explained to you, it works like this. You TRAVEL on a highway. Not on a building, or any other property designated for a purpose other than TRAVELING. Obviously if a property isn't suitable for TRAVELING, it doesn't require a right to TRAVEL on it.

A public property is a public property, and in fact, you cannot freely travel through any public property..which I'm sure is supported by substantial case law.

See there. You CAN understand when you think about it long enough.

So I don't see any reason to expect your argument to hold up in court, if it's ever taken that far.

What? You mean other than the fact that it has already been decided in the court? Did you happen to miss these quotations I posted the last time?

CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

CASE #2: "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 which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

Pay the fee or get your party into power again to overturn the law.

Actually, it is my party in Power now, and they are the one's pushing this law which any sensible person ought to disagree with. That is why I named the title of this thread "Republicans are stupid thieves." On this particular subject, My party is most definitely in the wrong, and so are you if you agree with them.

Well that's too bad for you then. I guess it is the will of the people. Democracy is a bitch, ain't it?

It's too bad for you too, but you appear to be blissfully unaware of that fact. (among other things) Yes, Democracy is a bitch, and that's why the founders of this Nation were completely against it. They founded this country as a "Republic". A form of government which I am beginning to think you are unfamiliar with.

[hanelyp]

The Fed can print money without "stealing" and fund Congress for any shopping spree within reason, nobody knows what the actual debt percentage of GNP can go.

For a one time buy that might work. For a steady drain not so much.

Any time the Fed prints more money to pay bills, it dilutes the value of the money the rest of us hold. And dilutes the value of debt.

[IntLibber]

No need to overturn the law politically. The case law favors taking it to the courts.

Yeah, I wrote up a fantastic brief several years ago that, according to the local judge who wasn't willing to set a precedent, said I'd win if I appealed it. Didn't have the money to push it at the time, unfortunately, but it does make a rock solid argument, and blows out of the water faulty caselaw here in NH that cops use to justify their false claims requiring everyone have a drivers license.

Was your brief concerning Licenses to drive?

I have long taken umbrage at the repeated assertion by Public officials that "Driving is a privilege, Not a right."
Furthermore, the idea that they can tell me to wear a seat belt, and punish me for disobeying is another wrong headed Idea of which the State needs to be disabused. I've been thinking about starting another thread concerning the Seat Belt issue.

A few years ago, an IDIOT in the State legislature proposed requiring seat belts on Motorcycles. Seriously.

Yes, it is in re licenses to drive. First thing is to assert that you are not a driver, or an operator, in that you are not engaged in commercial activity and dispute the state's attempts to interfere in and regulate your private activity in travelling in your personal conveyance up on the public rights of way, that the state does not have a constitutional right to regulate such private activity nor do you need permission from the state to exercise your common law right to travel on the public ways in the common conveyance of the day.

Generally the prosecution, once the judge explains to them what you said, will go away and try to trot out a precedent from the 1920's in which, for instance the case here in NH they used, involved the employee (servant, the precedent describes him as) of a car dealership was teaching a customer who was going to buy a car how to use it, when the car lurched out into the street and hit someone or something, whereupon not the customer, but the EMPLOYEE was held liable for not having a license to drive or to instruct in the use of an automobile. The cops try to stretch this sort of case to cover everyone, when clearly it deals with the issue of the employee being engaged in commerce as a servant of his master, the car dealer, who is a merchant engaging in trade. This sort of activity, being commerce, clearly falls under state authority to license and regulate, but this does not cover the private use of a conveyance by a private person for private reasons.