Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: SPECIAL POLICE OFFICER BULLETIN
alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Thu 01/16/14 06:35 PM
there is no RIGHT to drive a vehicle,,, do people really think that makes sense? regulation is equivalent to laws and requirements,, this idea that the word 'regulate' cannot possibly refer to driving requirements,, its somehow irrelevant we have the 'right' when we meet regulations not really, you can drive all you want without anything as long as your on a private road... on a public road, you must meet the the regulations - license, insurance, tags are good, stopping at stop signs, not going to fast.... That is wrong.... you must obey the laws of the road, but you are not required as a person to have a license unless you operate professionally Read the law and the cases stated i read on public roadways, you have to follow the regulations, one of which is having a license... Nope! Untrue!

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Thu 01/16/14 06:37 PM
if that was the case, then blind people could drive... Yes they could, but then they would violate another's rights when that didn't act prudently and had an accident. Then you have actual law, not the color of law.

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Thu 01/16/14 06:39 PM
if that was the case, then blind people could drive... No, because they could not follow the regulations of road signs and endanger public safety....as stated in the OP Operating an unregistered vehicle without a license does not endanger public safety. A child, a blind person, a drunk, these things do violate public safety a right is a right, including blind people and children... Not children, that is without their parents permission as their parent are the responsible party. A concept foreign to today's world, a responsible party.

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Thu 01/16/14 06:41 PM
if that was the case, then blind people could drive... No, because they could not follow the regulations of road signs and endanger public safety....as stated in the OP Operating an unregistered vehicle without a license does not endanger public safety. A child, a blind person, a drunk, these things do violate public safety and how would they be prevented then? without testing or licensing? Nothing and why should it, they are responsible for their own actions.

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Thu 01/16/14 06:44 PM
thats like saying it's your right to drive, but only if you follow our laws... that negates the right, doesn't it? If you "DRIVE", you must follow the statues. It is part of the contract of getting to "DRIVE". And also as an individual, sometimes you "DRIVE" and sometimes you travel. However, you cannot "DRIVE" unless you have a license.

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Thu 01/16/14 06:50 PM
"Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the RIGHT TO TRAVEL... The RIGHT of the citizen TO TRAVEL... RIGHT TO TRAVEL is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived .... Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, THE RIGHT TO REMOVE FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Iiberty..... You are offering opinion you hate so badly.... show the law that challenges the court decisions stated in the OP this was not opinion, I merely re posted the citations of the OP,, I don't need to show any law that challenges what is already there, the courts decisions already refer repeatedly to a 'right to travel',,,,lol not a 'right to drive' So we must state fact in our rebuttals but you don't have to? Show the law! there is no LAW there is no LAW That gives a right to drive though there are plenty of laws regarding who can operate a motor vehicle,,, that's my point,,,lol the cases provided in this thread refer to the 'right to travel' not a 'right to drive' Wrong again, every state and even Title 18 are full of "LAWS" on the right to "DRIVE" and yes there are many "LAWS" about operating or driving a "motor vehicle" so you have no point that is valid. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the right to travel. Again, a total lack of understanding of definitions leads to the wrong conclusions and a total lack of understanding of the subject being discussed. Your arguments are total contradictions of themselves.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Thu 01/16/14 06:55 PM
"Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the RIGHT TO TRAVEL... The RIGHT of the citizen TO TRAVEL... RIGHT TO TRAVEL is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived .... Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, THE RIGHT TO REMOVE FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Iiberty..... Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. "THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution." "Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Try trying to abridge my right, it will be the most painful 5 to 10 years of your life as we dance through the court system. nice, so is that a rebuttal to whether we have a 'right to travel'? as opposed to a stated constitutional 'right to drive'? regarding natural rights, the commonly held standard is the Bill of RIghts, which also mentions nowhere a 'right to drive'

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Thu 01/16/14 06:58 PM
thats like saying it's your right to drive, but only if you follow our laws... that negates the right, doesn't it? no more than saying you have a right to 'free speech', but you can be sued for libel or slander rights have responsibilities attached,,, Wrong again, rights only have one responsibility, not to tread on anothers rights. And telling me how to handle my rights is treading upon them. Allows me to pursue Trespass and Trespass upon the Case, a most heinous crime which remedy allows prayer for punishable by death.

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Thu 01/16/14 07:00 PM
"Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the RIGHT TO TRAVEL... The RIGHT of the citizen TO TRAVEL... RIGHT TO TRAVEL is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived .... Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, THE RIGHT TO REMOVE FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Iiberty..... You are offering opinion you hate so badly.... show the law that challenges the court decisions stated in the OP this was not opinion, I merely re posted the citations of the OP,, I don't need to show any law that challenges what is already there, the courts decisions already refer repeatedly to a 'right to travel',,,,lol not a 'right to drive' So we must state fact in our rebuttals but you don't have to? Show the law! there is no LAW there is no LAW That gives a right to drive though there are plenty of laws regarding who can operate a motor vehicle,,, that's my point,,,lol the cases provided in this thread refer to the 'right to travel' not a 'right to drive' Laws have NOTHING to do with Rights! Rights are not given by Laws! Rights are inherent in People! Read your Bill Of Rights! Au contraire, Rights are laws and most of these laws are based on the Magna Carta and the Bible.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Thu 01/16/14 07:01 PM Edited by msharmony on Thu 01/16/14 07:06 PM
"Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the RIGHT TO TRAVEL... The RIGHT of the citizen TO TRAVEL... RIGHT TO TRAVEL is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived .... Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, THE RIGHT TO REMOVE FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Iiberty..... You are offering opinion you hate so badly.... show the law that challenges the court decisions stated in the OP this was not opinion, I merely re posted the citations of the OP,, I don't need to show any law that challenges what is already there, the courts decisions already refer repeatedly to a 'right to travel',,,,lol not a 'right to drive' So we must state fact in our rebuttals but you don't have to? Show the law! there is no LAW there is no LAW That gives a right to drive though there are plenty of laws regarding who can operate a motor vehicle,,, that's my point,,,lol the cases provided in this thread refer to the 'right to travel' not a 'right to drive' Wrong again, every state and even Title 18 are full of "LAWS" on the right to "DRIVE" and yes there are many "LAWS" about operating or driving a "motor vehicle" so you have no point that is valid. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the right to travel. Again, a total lack of understanding of definitions leads to the wrong conclusions and a total lack of understanding of the subject being discussed. Your arguments are total contradictions of themselves. because there are laws ABOUT an activity doesnt mean there is a law giving a RIGHT to that activity,, so the point is not invalid at all there are minimum wage laws, but minimum wage is not a RIGHT, it changes,, rights do NOT an obsession with arguing for the sake of arguing leads to constant distractions,,, oh good grief, for the sake of avoiding more nitpicking and back and forth, in the context of THIS discussion, I am and have been debating 'natural rights',, as opposed to 'legal rights' one never changes, the other does,,, I just realized the 'ammo' provided to those who just revel in arguing and belittling by not being more specific as to the original CONTEXT of my statements,,,

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Thu 01/16/14 07:03 PM
thats like saying it's your right to drive, but only if you follow our laws... that negates the right, doesn't it? No, there are laws regulating use of the highways and roads for public safety....speed, lights, right of ways, etc. Those are not rights you are born with because they are shared with others, and subject to regulation, but the freedom to travel by whatever means is, whether licensed or not. sorry, i don't see it that way... one of the regulations is to have a valid DL on public roads... if it changed, then surprise, surprise, news to me, and the state of Texas owes me a lot of money for tickets i got while driving without a valid DL... Well you would be right and you would be wrong. There is no need for the license unless you have a registered vehicle. You must have a license to operate the state's property. So they probably owe you nothing.

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Thu 01/16/14 07:05 PM
thats like saying it's your right to drive, but only if you follow our laws... that negates the right, doesn't it? No, there are laws regulating use of the highways and roads for public safety....speed, lights, right of ways, etc. Those are not rights you are born with because they are shared with others, and subject to regulation, but the freedom to travel by whatever means is, whether licensed or not. But if you are traveling and have no license, none of that applies to you. So long as you do not cause injury, you may do whatever you want.

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Thu 01/16/14 07:08 PM
Common Law versus The Uniform Commercial Code. Pretty simple in theory really. Do no harm. Absolutely as promised by the Constitution and most state constitutions but rarely understood or practiced by anyone. A subject devoutly avoided by attorneys, officers of the court.

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Thu 01/16/14 07:11 PM
Laws have NOTHING to do with Rights! Rights are not given by Laws! Rights are inherent in People! Read your Bill Of Rights! how can there be an 'inherent' right to drive when cars don't occur naturally?.... the creator didn't give us cars, so how could God have given us the 'right' to drive a car,,, smh now, 'traveling' is something people have done long before cars that can be said to be 'inherent' as a right Total bull, no basis in reality for any of the statements in reply to laws and rights. The first quote is correct in every aspect except for rights are laws.

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Thu 01/16/14 07:13 PM Edited by alnewman on Thu 01/16/14 07:14 PM
How unbelievable so pursuit of happiness should be interpreted as 'whatever pleases us is our right? At last a true statement within limits.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Thu 01/16/14 07:18 PM
Laws have NOTHING to do with Rights! Rights are not given by Laws! Rights are inherent in People! Read your Bill Of Rights! how can there be an 'inherent' right to drive when cars don't occur naturally?.... the creator didn't give us cars, so how could God have given us the 'right' to drive a car,,, smh now, 'traveling' is something people have done long before cars that can be said to be 'inherent' as a right Total bull, no basis in reality for any of the statements in reply to laws and rights. The first quote is correct in every aspect except for rights are laws. the first quote states rights are inherent in people for it to be inherent in people it would have to be inherent in the FIRST PEOPLE therefore, driving a car is not INHERENT IN PEOPLE,, although traveling (moving from place to place) is

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Thu 01/16/14 07:18 PM
How unbelievable so pursuit of happiness should be interpreted as 'whatever pleases us is our right? At last a true statement within limits. and isnt it those 'limits' that people dont agree on? who gets to decide those?

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Thu 01/16/14 07:26 PM
...there is nothing 'NATURAL' about driving a car ,, There was nothing natural about riding a horse either, but man had to natural ability to learn (well most anyway). And then may used his ability to invent the automobile. And then men traveled in their automobiles. Then in 1909, the great state of New York discovered that could subvert that right and charge a fee for a license. And the people, like sheeple started allowing the subversion. But that does not negate a right, they are inalienable. Shuttlesworth v Birmingham 394 US 147

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Thu 01/16/14 07:29 PM
, Pretty much says it all about you understanding. Rights are ok so long as it is the termination of others rights.

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Thu 01/16/14 07:32 PM
yes, ones right to 'drive a car' ends with anothers 'right to pursue life' by not being KILLED due to the drivers incompetence or incapability its no infringement for others to 'travel',, but it is an infringement for the impaired or incapacitated or unknowledgable (of street directions and driving rules) to be DRIVING VEHICLES,,, You are clueless! How does operating a vehicle without a license or registration make a person a bad driver or risk to others? Perhaps we should all drive tanks! I didn't say anything about disobeying the rules of the road. Those are offenses you can be stopped and charged for. We are talking about owning and operating, not breaking the law. its a risk to others if there is no verification that one knows how to drive,,,, its an issue of public safety, the 'right' for those of us in the public to continue to pursue life and happiness by feeling safe on the roads,, to require (Test) that people actually know HOW TO DRIVE Before driving,,, By the same token, using your anology, one should not be allowed to post on forums unless someone else deems them capable of thought?