Jump to content
emptypockets

Private travel in a privately owned automobile vs. Driving? Is it true I do not need anything to travel in my personal automobile?

Recommended Posts

U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS

“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”

 

Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the 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 the 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 purpose of life and business.”

Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 “… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right” -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”

 

Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”

Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”

 

Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). “A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.”

 

Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. “The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”

 

Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. “The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.”

 

People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”

 

House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. “The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles.

 

Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666. “The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.”

 

Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 2 2 “A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159;

Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 “The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.”

-American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: “(6) Motor vehicle. – The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…” 10) The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. “A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.”

 

-International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’”

 

-City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232 “Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled” – Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20 ”

 

The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.”

 

Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). “…a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon…” State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;

Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 “The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.”

 

Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163 “the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all.” –

 

Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 “Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.”

 

People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. “No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances.”

 

Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. “Traffic infractions are not a crime.” People v. Battle “Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.”

 

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 3 “The word ‘operator’ shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation.”

 

Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 “Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen.”

Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “RIGHT — A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . .

“ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”

 

City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. “A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.” Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639. “The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.”

Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. “The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.”

Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972). “If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void.” –

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). “With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.”

Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O’Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887. “The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution.”

(Paul v. Virginia). “[T]he right to travel freely from State to State … is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.” (U.S. Supreme Court,

 

Shapiro v. Thompson). EDGERTON, Chief Judge: “Iron curtains have no place in a free world. …’Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the Constitution.’

 

Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186. “Our nation has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.” Id., at 197.

 

Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13—14. “The validity of restrictions on the freedom of movement of particular individuals, both substantively and procedurally, is precisely the sort of matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts.” Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187. “a person detained for an investigatory stop can be questioned but is “not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.”Justice White, Hiibel “Automobiles have the right to use the highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles.”

 

Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucy 15. “Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road.”

 

Swift v City of Topeka, 43 U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 4 Kansas 671, 674. The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is not a “statute.” A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle.

 

 Other right to use an automobile cases: –

EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 –

TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 – WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274 – CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44 – THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492 – U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966) –

GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971) – CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6 –

SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) – CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978) Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence. Some citations may be paraphrased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it is not true that you may drive on the roads of any state without a driver's license. The sites on the internet that promote that idea badly mischaracterizes the law. That slew of case law that you posted does not, unfortunately, stand for the proposition that whomever posted it says it does. What the authors of sites promoting this idea do is take quotes in cases that have have nothing to do with licensing at all or take the quotes out of context because the quotes sound good for the argument they wish to make. But should you try arguing those cases in court on a citation for driving without a license you will lose. When faced squarely with the issue of whether a license is required, the courts have universally said the answer is yes.

 

I will give you a few of the cases in which the constitutionality of state laws requiring driver’s licenses has been upheld.

 

Let’s start with the highest court in the land, the U.S. Supreme Court:
 

Quote

 

The universal practice is to register ownership of automobiles and to license their drivers. Any appropriate means adopted by the states to insure competence and care on the part of its licensees and to protect others using the highway is consonant with due process.


 

 

Reitz v. Mealey, 314 U.S. 33, 36, 62 S. Ct. 24, 26–27, 86 L. Ed. 21 (1941).

 

And as you put Oregon as your state, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (which is the federal appellate court that covers Oregon) explained why a driver’s license does not violate the right to travel:

 

Quote

 

We have previously held that burdens on a single mode of transportation do not implicate the right to interstate travel. See Monarch Travel Servs., Inc. v. Associated Cultural Clubs, Inc., 466 F.2d 552, 554 (9th Cir.1972) (“A rich man can choose to drive a limousine; a poor man may have to walk. The poor man's lack of choice in his mode of travel may be unfortunate, but it is not unconstitutional.”); City of Houston v. FAA, 679 F.2d 1184, 1198 (5th Cir.1982) (“At most, [the air carrier plaintiffs'] argument reduces to the feeble claim that passengers have a constitutional right to the most convenient form of travel. That notion, as any experienced traveler can attest, finds no support whatsoever in [the Supreme Court's right of interstate travel jurisprudence] or in the airlines' own schedules.”). The Supreme Court of Rhode Island in Berberian v. Petit, 118 R.I. 448, 374 A.2d 791 (1977), put it this way:

 

"The plaintiff's argument that the right to operate a motor vehicle is fundamental because of its relation to the fundamental right of interstate travel is utterly frivolous. The plaintiff is not being prevented from traveling interstate by public transportation, by common carrier, or in a motor vehicle driven by someone with a license to drive it. What is at issue here is not his right to travel interstate, but his right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways, and we have no hesitation in holding that this is not a fundamental right." 374 A.2d at 794 (citations and footnotes omitted).

 

Miller does not have a fundamental “right to drive.”

 

 

Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202, 1205–06 (9th Cir. 1999). Other circuits have reached the same conclusion:

 

Quote

But Dean has not articulated reasons to support his unexplained argument that state licensure and registration requirements violate the right to travel, see Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9). This is not surprising because such an argument is meritless. Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202, 1205-06 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that there is no “fundamental right to drive” and affirming dismissal of complaint based on state's refusal to renew citizen's driver's license); Hallstrom v. City of Garden City, 991 F.2d 1473, 1477 (9th Cir.1993) (finding no constitutional violation where valid Idaho law required driver's license, and plaintiff was detained for not having one). Without vehicle licenses, Dean is denied only “a single mode of transportation-in a car driven by himself,” see Miller, 176 F.3d at 1204, and this does not impermissibly burden his right to travel.

 

Matthew v. Honish, 233 F. App'x 563, 564 (7th Cir. 2007).

 

Quote

Moreover, the Duncans' challenge to the statute does not present a “hybrid situation” as their claim of a violation of their right to travel is frivolous. See Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202, 1208 (9th Cir.1999). While a fundamental right to travel exists, there is no fundamental right to drive a motor vehicle. See id. at 1205-06. A burden on a single mode of transportation simply does not implicate the right to interstate travel. See id. at 1205. Thus, the Duncans' right to freely exercise their religion and their right to travel have not been impermissibly infringed.

 

Duncan v. Cone, No. 00-5705, 2000 WL 1828089, at *2 (6th Cir. Dec. 7, 2000).

 

The above are cases in which the constitutionality of driver's license laws were specifically addressed, unlike the cases you cited. And as you can see, the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have found that driver's license laws do not violate the Constitution.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing about those cases is right. This is not something I get any joy in sharing on public forum, but it probably helps drive the point home. I used to believe exactly what those cases appear to prove. That there is some distinction in the law that exempts people requirements of using public roads if I am traveling, not engaging in Commerce. As a matter of fact I am philosophically in favor of lifting government impediments to freedom of movement, including driving a car. But what I want is not what is. I strongly encourage you to do what I only thought to do what I did not until I was in Pre-Law & studying for LSAT... That is to go look the cases up yourself. Just go down the list and read the full legal brief for each case. Without exception, you will find at least one of the following things is true: 

-The Quote they use is from the dissenting opinion and not the majority opinion 

-The quote comes from piecing together parts of sentences taken from completely different parts of the brief 

- The quote is technically correct, but comes from a case that has nothing to do with a right to travel

- The quote is technically correct but it has been taken from a sentence affirming in the negative (By which i mean a quote like "a right to travel freely and unencumbered..." comes from a statement that says "a right to travel freely and unencumbered is not overly-burdened by requiring a driver to demonstrate a level of safety and proficiency before using public roads") 

-The quote they use comes from a real case, but the quote they cite is completely fabricated and nothing even remotely similar to the quote they give appears anywhere in the brief 

-The Case they cite itself doesn't exist 

-The case cited is a municipal  violation heard in a district court which means even if the quote was both accurate and in proper context (it never is. but even if it was) the scope of that court's jurisdiction is limited in rem and in personam (to the area within that court's district and to the individual named in the lawsuit.)  

Also, as far as definitions go, you need to see if a given term in specifically defined in the applicable statute. Only if it is not would you generally want to use a legal dictionary definition. In cases where a legal dictionary is proper to use, ask yourself why they choose editions that predate the existence of mass produced, commercially available automobiles. Legal dictionaries don't put out new editions so you can keep on using obsolete editions. They put out new editions so the definition they provide matches the definition you are most likely going to be using in a court of law. 

You quoted a 1914  edition of Bouviers. Ford had only started producing the Model T a couple years before that.... And  as a matter of fact even John Bouvier says the point of new editions of legal dictionaries is to keep up with changes in law and precedent. This comes from the Preface of the first edition of Bouvier's Law Dictionary, publiched in 1839: "…most of the matter in the English law dictionaries will be found to have been written while the feudal law was in its full vigor, and not fitted to the present times, nor calculated for present use." that preface continues to be included in every new edition of Bouvier's.... The most recent edition having been published in 2018... So the only reason someone would give you a 1914 edition definition, I would have to believe, was chosen because it hit the sweet spot only a couple years after the first internal combustion engine powered motor vehicle was created, but before the government would have had time to establish the kinds of regulations that the person who chose it wanted to pretend don't actually exist 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone that believes this babble is what is known as a sovereign citizen idiot.

 

If you are so sure of your legal theory please feel free to go drive around without a licence until such time as you get pulled over. You may then fight your case all the way to the supreme court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never met a believer in the sovereign citizen nonsense that was willing to listen to anyone saying it wasn't a correct including people standing in front of judges being sentenced. There is no reason to believe that the OP of this thread is any different.

 

In fact, the OP didn't even ask a question.  They posted their BS and moved own leaving yet another pile of crap that sovereign citizen wannabees will find to further feed the issue.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2019 at 10:40 AM, adjusterjack said:

 

Exactly what "government impediments" do you want lifted?

 

 

Driver's licenses, mandatory vehicle registration, excise taxes on things like vehicle title and tab renewal and mandates on car insurance policies....I realize most people would disagree with lifting most or all of those restrictions. I understand that actually making those changes would be an entirely unrealistic goal. I recognize there is a good faith argument  to be made about the reasons those requirements exist. But I think there is a good faith argument to me made for getting rid of those impediments

I default to a presumption of maximum liberty and of personal responsibility. The person responsible for making sure I am a competent and safe driver before driving in traffic is me. Vehicle registry should be an opt-in situation. Same with car insurance. If my car is stolen and I have chose not to register it which leaves police unable to identify my stolen car that's my problem... And laws requiring mandatory car insurance  to pay restitution on a hypothetical car accident that has not occurred and may never occur is a textbook example of bills of attainder, which is deemed unconstitutional for the federal government to enact, according to Article 1 Section 9 Clause 3 of the Constitution. Bills of attainder are also unconstitutional for state legislatures to enact as well, according to Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1 of our Constitution.... If someone chooses not to be insured and causes a traffic accident damaging another car or harming someone else the government should be able to hold that person accountable and make sure the injured party collects restitution for all property damage costs and medical bills....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PayrollHRGuy said:

I've never met a believer in the sovereign citizen nonsense that was willing to listen to anyone saying it wasn't a correct including people standing in front of judges being sentenced. There is no reason to believe that the OP of this thread is any different.

 

In fact, the OP didn't even ask a question.  They posted their BS and moved own leaving yet another pile of crap that sovereign citizen wannabees will find to further feed the issue.

 

Look at the title of this topic. He asks "Is it true i don't need anything to travel  in my personal automobile?" 

You are right that I have never seen anyone confidently asserting this bullshit who had their mind changed with ample facts and evidence and logic that reveals their mistake. Anyone who attempts to reason with them is written off as some kind of shill, intentionally trying to deceive people. Or we are all Sheeple who are programmed to accept anything the government tell us.... I don't disagree with that. This guy seems to be unsure and asking questions about it's validity..He doesn't seem to have the emotional investment in accepting this stuff that is characteristic of sov citizens.... Maybe this guy is too far gone as well. But he might not be and if the people he appears to be asking for a second opinion from (us) don't give him the information that answers his questions and debunks his misinformation and all we do is ridicule him ourselves as a fool, Prima Facie, for even daring to ask about this stuff all seems like the most effective way possible to push him into the sov citizen community even more

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PayrollHRGuy said:

I've never met a believer in the sovereign citizen nonsense that was willing to listen to anyone saying it wasn't a correct including people standing in front of judges being sentenced.

 

I have met some that were able to be convinced. I've probably met a lot more of those folks than you have as I was a tax protest coordinator at IRS for two years and dealt with those sorts of folks on a daily basis. There were certainly quite a few who so badly wanted to believe the misinformation they'd heard about taxes, and driver's licenses, and all the rest of it that they'd refuse to believe the correct law even if I shoved it in front of their nose. But some did see the light. Some after I pointed out what the law was, others once they saw me carting off their assets to pay those taxes they claimed the government could not impose. 😆 So never assume that someone is unwilling to learn until that particular persons shows you otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Reverend Bob said:

I default to a presumption of maximum liberty and of personal responsibility. The person responsible for making sure I am a competent and safe driver before driving in traffic is me. Vehicle registry should be an opt-in situation. Same with car insurance. If my car is stolen and I have chose not to register it which leaves police unable to identify my stolen car that's my problem... And laws requiring mandatory car insurance  to pay restitution on a hypothetical car accident that has not occurred and may never occur is a textbook example of bills of attainder, which is deemed unconstitutional for the federal government to enact, according to Article 1 Section 9 Clause 3 of the Constitution. Bills of attainder are also unconstitutional for state legislatures to enact as well, according to Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1 of our Constitution.... If someone chooses not to be insured and causes a traffic accident damaging another car or harming someone else the government should be able to hold that person accountable and make sure the injured party collects restitution for all property damage costs and medical bills....

 

Laws requiring drivers to have auto insurance are clearly not bills of attainder. A federal district court, quoting the U.S. Supreme Court, explained what a bill of attainder is as follows:

 

Quote

A bill of attainder is “a law that legislatively determines guilt and inflicts punishment upon an identifiable individual without the provision of the protections of a judicial trial.” Nixon v. Adm'r of Gen. Services, 433 U.S. 425, 468 (1977).


Riley v. Knowles, No. 1:16-CV-0057-JLT, 2016 WL 259336, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2016). Auto insurance laws do not impose punishment on anyone without a trial. Having to pay for insurance is not punishment and if you fail to obey the law, the punishment for that is only imposed after a trial.

 

The standards for a bill of attainder are set explained by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals:
 

Quote

 

The key features of a bill of attainder are “that the statute (1) specifies the affected persons and (2) inflicts punishment (3) without a judicial trial.” SeaRiver, 309 F.3d at 668 (citing Selective Serv. Sys. v. Minn. Pub. Interest Research Grp., 468 U.S. 841, 847, 104 S.Ct. 3348, 82 L.Ed.2d 632 (1984) ). The “clearest proof” is required before courts can conclude that a legislative enactment is as a bill of attainder. Id. (citing Communist Party of United States v. Subversive Activities Control Bd., 367 U.S. 1, 83, 81 S.Ct. 1357, 6 L.Ed.2d 625 (1961) ).

 

Not every law which burdens some persons or groups is a bill of attainder; after all, practically every law burdens someone. “How the class is designated and what purposes the law furthers governs the specificity analysis[.]” United States v. Munsterman, 177 F.3d 1139, 1142 (9th Cir. 1999). “If a law merely designates a properly general characteristic ... and then imposes upon all who have that characteristic a remedial measure reasonably calculated to achieve a nonpunitive purpose,” there is no attainder. Id. (quoting Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law § 10-4 at 643 (2d ed. 1988) ).

 


Franceschi v. Yee, 887 F.3d 927, 941 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 648, 202 L. Ed. 2d 493 (2018). The insurance requirements do not name specified persons or groups, but rather anyone with the general characteristic of driving a car. The insurance requirements also do not inflict "punishment" without a trial. (Having to pay for insurance is not "punishment".) So your argument on the bill of attainder fails.

 

I want the other drivers sharing the road with me to be competent. How would you ensure that people are reasonably competent to drive without requiring some test of that competence. Or do you really not care if those around you on the road are not safe drivers?

 

I think you are correct that most people would reject eliminating driver's license requirements and requirements for auto insurance. I'd be among those lobbying against you should you try to get those laws repealed in my state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Tax_Counsel said:

 

I have met some that were able to be convinced. I've probably met a lot more of those folks than you have as I was a tax protest coordinator at IRS for two years and dealt with those sorts of folks on a daily basis. There were certainly quite a few who so badly wanted to believe the misinformation they'd heard about taxes, and driver's licenses, and all the rest of it that they'd refuse to believe the correct law even if I shoved it in front of their nose. But some did see the light. Some after I pointed out what the law was, others once they saw me carting off their assets to pay those taxes they claimed the government could not impose. 😆 So never assume that someone is unwilling to learn until that particular persons shows you otherwise.

I don't know if you read my original reply,  but I pointed out the fact that I used to be one of these people. that bought into the whole right to travel argument. That the supreme court ruled over and over  that common law actually made that distinction between private travel and engaging in commerce and the reason people thought they had to subject themselves to all these laws that somehow only applied to commerce and people didn't know any better. In retrospect, I know that once I became emotionally invested in that belief I had to figure it out myself that I was wrong. No outside influence had any effect. I also think there was a period between when I first started to buy into this stuff, but before I was emotionally invested in needing to be right, because being wrong about some of it was to be wrong about all of it and being so wrong about something can be such an immensely unpleasant and demoralizing experience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Reverend Bob said:

Look at the title of this topic. He asks "Is it true i don't need anything to travel  in my personal automobile?" 

You are right that I have never seen anyone confidently asserting this bullshit who had their mind changed with ample facts and evidence and logic that reveals their mistake. Anyone who attempts to reason with them is written off as some kind of shill, intentionally trying to deceive people. Or we are all Sheeple who are programmed to accept anything the government tell us.... I don't disagree with that. This guy seems to be unsure and asking questions about it's validity..He doesn't seem to have the emotional investment in accepting this stuff that is characteristic of sov citizens.... Maybe this guy is too far gone as well. But he might not be and if the people he appears to be asking for a second opinion from (us) don't give him the information that answers his questions and debunks his misinformation and all we do is ridicule him ourselves as a fool, Prima Facie, for even daring to ask about this stuff all seems like the most effective way possible to push him into the sov citizen community even more

 

The reason you see no emotion in the OP is because he didn't really say write any new material.  He picked up the entire post from somewhere else.  The subject is simply red meat to the search engines so when people search for "Is it true I do not need anything to travel in my personal automobile?" his post will be found.  My post was actually aimed at the people that follow such a search.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Tax_Counsel said:

I have met some that were able to be convinced. I've probably met a lot more of those folks than you have as I was a tax protest coordinator at IRS for two years and dealt with those sorts of folks on a daily basis.

 

I'm sure you have.  I'll admit that most of mine are dealing with people after they have been hired who don't want to fill out W4s. I simply tell them fine we will deduct at Single and 0. They threaten to sue and I never hear from them again.  With a few exception for those that make some decent money when their wives climb up their butts for having so much deducted.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...