Your Right to Drive
in [Drive]
|
From: proffsl on 7 Mar 2007 14:41 k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote: > "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > Our public streets were built on our property with > > our money for the purpose of enhancing our Right > > of Liberty, and we each have the Right to use our > > public highways for personal travel in the ordinary > > way. > > > > "The streets belong to the public and are primarily > > for the use of the public in the ordinary way." -- > > Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140 (1924) > > -http://laws.findlaw.com/us/264/140.html#144 > > And all this is true. However, you need to recognize > the ordinary way we use streets and highways is with > licensed drivers and registered vehicles. So, yes, the > dicta is an accurate statement but your conclusion is > incorrect. K_flynn is saying we have the Right to use our public highways for personal travel in the ordinary way, so long as we obey laws that presume our Right to use our public highways for personal travel in the ordinary way is instead only a privilege.
From: k_flynn on 7 Mar 2007 14:48 proffsl wrote: > k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote: > > "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > Our public streets were built on our property with > > > our money for the purpose of enhancing our Right > > > of Liberty, and we each have the Right to use our > > > public highways for personal travel in the ordinary > > > way. > > > > > > "The streets belong to the public and are primarily > > > for the use of the public in the ordinary way." -- > > > Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140 (1924) > > > -http://laws.findlaw.com/us/264/140.html#144 > > > > And all this is true. However, you need to recognize > > the ordinary way we use streets and highways is with > > licensed drivers and registered vehicles. So, yes, the > > dicta is an accurate statement but your conclusion is > > incorrect. > > K_flynn is saying we have the Right to use our public highways for > personal travel in the ordinary way, so long as we obey laws that > presume our Right to use our public highways for personal travel in > the ordinary way is instead only a privilege. Not at all. Read again, this time for comprehension and without tokin' on the bong first. "The ordinary way" to use our roads is with a system of licensing and registration as we PROVED to you last year in this thread. Therefore, saying we have the right to use the public highways in the ordinary way carries with it all the accoutrements of that ordinary way -- get a license. Oh, and as we've already proved too, it is not a "privilege" granted by the state either. It's a due process to which all people are entitled. I really hope this finally clears up the three years of inordinate confusion you've been living with over this issue. No need to thank me.
From: proffsl on 7 Mar 2007 19:07 k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote: > proffsl wrote: > > k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote: > > > "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Our public streets were built on our property with > > > > our money for the purpose of enhancing our Right > > > > of Liberty, and we each have the Right to use our > > > > public highways for personal travel in the ordinary > > > > way. > > > > > > > > "The streets belong to the public and are primarily > > > > for the use of the public in the ordinary way." -- > > > > Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140 (1924) > > > > -http://laws.findlaw.com/us/264/140.html#144 > > > > > > And all this is true. However, you need to recognize > > > the ordinary way we use streets and highways is with > > > licensed drivers and registered vehicles. So, yes, the > > > dicta is an accurate statement but your conclusion is > > > incorrect. > > > > K_flynn is saying we have the Right to use our public > > highways for personal travel in the ordinary way, so long > > as we obey laws that presume our Right to use our public > > highways for personal travel in the ordinary way is instead > > only a privilege. > > Not at all. > > "The ordinary way" to use our roads is with a system of > licensing and registration as we PROVED to you last year > in this thread. Therefore, saying we have the right to use the > public highways in the ordinary way carries with it all the > accoutrements of that ordinary way -- get a license. If what k_flynn claims here were true, then 120 years ago citizens would have been required to "get a license" in order to exercise their Right to use the public highways for personal travel in the ordinary way. But, of course, no such requirement existed at that time. Somewhere along the way, through deception on the part of our states and through a lack of dilligance on the part of the American citizens, our states have presumed to convert this Right into a privilege. > It's a due process to which all people are entitled. Due process includes one's Right to be adequately notified of charges or proceeding involving them, and the opportunity to be heard at those proceedings.
From: k_flynn on 7 Mar 2007 20:17 On Mar 7, 5:07 pm, "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote: > > proffsl wrote: > > > k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote: > > > > "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > Our public streets were built on our property with > > > > > our money for the purpose of enhancing our Right > > > > > of Liberty, and we each have the Right to use our > > > > > public highways for personal travel in the ordinary > > > > > way. > > > > > > "The streets belong to the public and are primarily > > > > > for the use of the public in the ordinary way." -- > > > > > Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140 (1924) > > > > > -http://laws.findlaw.com/us/264/140.html#144 > > > > > And all this is true. However, you need to recognize > > > > the ordinary way we use streets and highways is with > > > > licensed drivers and registered vehicles. So, yes, the > > > > dicta is an accurate statement but your conclusion is > > > > incorrect. > > > > K_flynn is saying we have the Right to use our public > > > highways for personal travel in the ordinary way, so long > > > as we obey laws that presume our Right to use our public > > > highways for personal travel in the ordinary way is instead > > > only a privilege. > > > Not at all. > > > "The ordinary way" to use our roads is with a system of > > licensing and registration as we PROVED to you last year > > in this thread. Therefore, saying we have the right to use the > > public highways in the ordinary way carries with it all the > > accoutrements of that ordinary way -- get a license. > > If what k_flynn claims here were true, then 120 years ago citizens > would have been required to "get a license" in order to exercise their > Right to use the public highways for personal travel in the ordinary > way. That is not implicit at all, and certainly not explicit. We've been over this before. The issue of safety and general welfare simply didn't rise to a sufficient level of concern that a choice had to be made about going to a licensing system back in those days. This has all been explained to you, but perhaps you forgot. > But, of course, no such requirement existed at that time. Naturally. Public safety didn't demand it. If such uses had increased exponentially, and presented a safety hazard sufficient to warrant action, perhaps it would have come into play. But it didn't. That doesn't prove anything about today's needs or decisions. > Somewhere along the way, through deception on the part of our states > and through a lack of dilligance on the part of the American citizens, > our states have presumed to convert this Right into a privilege. Entirely wrong. There's no "deception" on the part of any states or anyone. Again, this all has been explained thoroughly to you but again you are "forgetting." All of this has taken place out in the open, in legislative chambers and in courtrooms and out in the public square. It's been thoroughly debated and litigated. There is no deception at all. Everyone knows it, everyone's participated in it. We all know why it is, most accept it and some don't but a few of those prefer to whine on usenet about imagined conspiracies rather than simply organizing and campaigning for change to what currently is. > > It's a due process to which all people are entitled. > > Due process includes one's Right to be adequately notified of charges > or proceeding involving them, and the opportunity to be heard at those > proceedings. You are backwards on this. What you describe there is due process in a criminal or civil court proceeding, but mistakenly conclude that due process only applies to a court proceeding. The term "due process" has much broader application to all government functions. You get due process at DMV (slow, but due!); you get due process in a zoning hearing or a planning board meeting. And you get due process when you apply for a driver's license. It's not a "charges" situation. It *is* a due process; and it's for that reason that you are so so wrong about it being a "privilege" the way you construe it, at the whim of the state. It is not, most decidedly and obviously. It's a process and it's completely up to the qualified applicant as to whether he obtains a license or not.
From: Larry on 7 Mar 2007 22:12
In article <1173263899.716888.217430(a)t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, "proffsl" <proffsl(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > Larry <x...(a)y.com> wrote: > > k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote: > > > > > > Did you actually mean "should be licensed *not* at all?" > > > In that case, then everyone can drive, even blind people! > > > Have fun with that one. > > > > Why not? Proffsl thinks blind people should be able to drive! > > > > Remember when he even said cats and dogs can drive, > > as long as they don't infringe on his rights? > > I never said any such a thing. Yes you did. It's out there for all to see, thanks to Google. > This issue really brings out the LIAR > in these two liars. I suppose it would since they are supporting the > LIE that driving is a privilege. It's not a lie. It's the law. But considering your spelling skills, you probably think they're the same word! > They have to LIE to defend a LIE. I > have never said toddlers, cats or dogs can drive, much less drive > safely. > > Originally, I asked: these two liars: If someone is driving an > automobile safely, what objection can they have? Which we answered - multiple times. One objection would be that although the person is driving safely in current conditions, it is no assurance that he possesses the skill necessary to drive safely should a dangerous condition emerge. > It was a perfectly > valid question, which these two liars wished to avoid answering at all > costs. As an avoidance mechanism, these two liars began asking me if > minors, or even toddlers, should be allowed to drive. To demonstrate > that my original question was perfectly valid, I replaced the > "someone" in it with your suggestion of a "toddler" and even went on > to replace the "someone" in it with "a cat" and "a dog". > > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.law-enforcement.traffic/msg/894047c3e15aa73 > 4 > "If a toddler is driving an automobile safely, what substantive > objection can you have?" > "If a dog is driving an automobile safely, what substantive objection > can you have?" > "If a cat is driving an automobile safely, what substantive objection > can you have?" So you admit it! > I would have thought that should have demonstrated that my original > question was perfectly valid and elicit an answer from these two > liars. But, no, that wasn't to be. These two liars were too busy > fabricating lies to actually answer questions. > > And in fact, for these two liars to take my questions above and claim > I was saying that toddlers, cats and dogs should be allowed to drive > only serves to indicate that it is these two liars who think that > toddlers, cats and dogs can drive safely. We've never said such a thing. And you know it. |