Do we actually have to have a driver license and a registered vehicle?

[Ezra]

I was talking to brianj

Gotcha!

On a second look at your post I saw his name staring right at me. So all I can say is #-o

Is there a "dah" or "oh, dah" smiley icon? Do'h doesn't seem to fit at times. There also needs to be a "light turning on" icon. You know, when someone finally gets something like E=MC Squared? Or why water goes in circles when going down a drain.

Ya I edited it. Thanks for pointing it out.

[cyclOps]

It doesn't appear you're even a little bit willing to have a coherent debate or discussion, FFA.

What does the word "coherent" mean to you?

A dictionary defines it as: capable of logical and consistent speech, thought, etc

There is a saying that goes: once a Marine, always a Marine. Let's just conclude that in similitude...once a cop, always a cop. Does this sound about right?

I had a conversation with a retired LA cop, a husband to a cousin of my wife, while visiting southern CA. During the course of discussion, I made mention that cops profile people. This somehow offended him and he defended the cops. I suppose it is normal for a cop to defend other cops, even knowing full well that profiling goes on. Let's face the facts. Every person going through unconstitutional checkpoints...are being profiled. Every person is under suspicion until proven innocent. What's next, cops checking in everyone's drawers to see what gender they are? Which brings us to the TSA, got to love the TSA, right? They get to use body scanners and do invasive body rubs to see if anyone is carrying something like a very small pair of folding scissors...my wife had hers confiscated. Their tactics is just another case of being under suspicion until proven innocent.

Now take Burns Oregon into account. Highway cameras were discovered by Lavoy Finicum and others. Why were they there? To spy, to watch, and to catch/entrap motorists, now don't think for one moment that this practice is not going on all across the nation. Cops should be saying no way, yet I suppose they love to catch the bad guy before they did any wrong. But cops holding other cops accountable for breaking the law...is a no-no.

Then there is officer ding-bat, David Ward, in Burns, who did nothing to protect the travelers headed to John Day. It was his job to protect the rights of those people, not to allow federal agents to kill him like a mad dog. And nobody can say he didn't know any better.

I've about concluded that although we should show respect for officers, which ones can be trusted underneath their persona?

This cop got busted big time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BK0QhRCaSNo

Your responses and lack there of are incoherent because you can't stay on topic. You just hate cops and want to release your built up emotions onto this thread which is about driver licenses and vehicle registrations and relating laws. This thread is not about checkpoints or profiling or cops speeding or LaVoy Finicum or the TSA.

By the way, profiling is neither illegal nor otherwise wrong.

[brianj]

Brianj. If it's right to license a person to drive. It's is right to license a person to ride a bike Or walk from place to place.

You said that a licenses "demonstrates " proficiency.

I've seen many license drivers that demonstrate they should not drive.

And I've seen 10 year olds driving tractors and cars with all the proficiency needed.

This is about control.

Do you want to have control over others? Make them jump through the hoops that that you think they should? Or should they be free to do as they please?

Under the 10th amendment the states can do all sorts of things. But maybe I didn't explain myself. If what the states try to do is unconstitutional the constitution trumps the state.

And I have already provided a long list of court cases that show that the constitution trumps license laws that states have.

So I ask why do you think it's ok to pick and choose how you use government to control your fellow men?

Once again, if you are walking or riding a bike (or paddling a canoe, etc.) you are very unlikely to present a risk to other people. But when you get into a ton of metal and take it up to 15 miles per hour or faster, you can easily cause injury or death to other people.

Yes, there are many drivers who don't have the proficiency need to safely drive. I've observed this with particular frequency in Florida, where I have heard of people seeing drivers licenses issued to senior citizens who were so mentally incapacitated by age that they couldn't follow simple instructions. But we all have to pass a practical test to acquire a license and we should be periodically retested.

Regarding 10 year old drivers, do you think the average American ten year old has the maturity to safely operate a motor vehicle unsupervised? If so then you and I live in very different communities!

I looked at a few of the court cases you provided. The Butcher's Benevolent Association case doesn't address licensing at all. The Saenz case was focused on the question of if California can limit welfare payments to new residents; though it states that we have the right to travel between states it doesn't begin to suggest that the licensing of drivers is unconstitutional. And I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU BROUGHT UP THE MCDONALD CASE. That case was challenging certain restrictions on the Second Amendment right to bear arms, but the decision DID NOT CHANGE ILLINOIS LAW REQUIRING LICENSING OF GUN OWNERS!

You seem to be of the opinion that if the Constitution does not explicitly say that state or federal government can regulate something then they are not legally permitted to do so. If you take a sincere look at jurisprudence you will find that courts disagree with you.

[Ezra]

Brianj. If it's right to license a person to drive. It's is right to license a person to ride a bike Or walk from place to place.

You said that a licenses "demonstrates " proficiency.

I've seen many license drivers that demonstrate they should not drive.

And I've seen 10 year olds driving tractors and cars with all the proficiency needed.

This is about control.

Do you want to have control over others? Make them jump through the hoops that that you think they should? Or should they be free to do as they please?

Under the 10th amendment the states can do all sorts of things. But maybe I didn't explain myself. If what the states try to do is unconstitutional the constitution trumps the state.

And I have already provided a long list of court cases that show that the constitution trumps license laws that states have.

So I ask why do you think it's ok to pick and choose how you use government to control your fellow men?

Once again, if you are walking or riding a bike (or paddling a canoe, etc.) you are very unlikely to present a risk to other people. But when you get into a ton of metal and take it up to 15 miles per hour or faster, you can easily cause injury or death to other people.

Yes, there are many drivers who don't have the proficiency need to safely drive. I've observed this with particular frequency in Florida, where I have heard of people seeing drivers licenses issued to senior citizens who were so mentally incapacitated by age that they couldn't follow simple instructions. But we all have to pass a practical test to acquire a license and we should be periodically retested.

Regarding 10 year old drivers, do you think the average American ten year old has the maturity to safely operate a motor vehicle unsupervised? If so then you and I live in very different communities!

I looked at a few of the court cases you provided. The Butcher's Benevolent Association case doesn't address licensing at all. The Saenz case was focused on the question of if California can limit welfare payments to new residents; though it states that we have the right to travel between states it doesn't begin to suggest that the licensing of drivers is unconstitutional. And I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU BROUGHT UP THE MCDONALD CASE. That case was challenging certain restrictions on the Second Amendment right to bear arms, but the decision DID NOT CHANGE ILLINOIS LAW REQUIRING LICENSING OF GUN OWNERS!

You seem to be of the opinion that if the Constitution does not explicitly say that state or federal government can regulate something then they are not legally permitted to do so. If you take a sincere look at jurisprudence you will find that courts disagree with you.

You will find that the government gives it self raises too. You will find that they do all sorts of things that they shouldn't do. Like use tax dollars to fund the killing of millions of baby's a year. Finding that they disagree with the constitution and me is nothing new. It restricts them if they actually followed it. Which they don't. Good news for you. You get to control other people's life's. Put them into bondage and chains because they ignore it.

Doctors which are licensed kill close to a half a million people every year from mistakes. Where car accidents kill 32,000 per year.

Both are licensed. What's the bigger problem? And why is it a bigger problem.

Well I will tell you. When it's your own life you take it seriously.

You don't do things that put yourself at risk. At least almost all people don't. There are risk takers out there.

With or without a license people who care for their life will protect it. People who don't with or without a license will take risks. A license doesn't change anything other then make hoops to jump through cost money. Drive up costs.

Who cares the most that they drive safe and why?

Each and every person who wants to get from point a to b safely. Period.

That will never change. You can justify the control the bondage the chains you place on your fellow men anyway you want. If you would restrict their freedoms then that is what will happen to you. This quote puts it best.

WE WILL SPEND ETERNITY WITH THOSE WHO WILL ALLOW US NO MORE FREEDOM THAN WE ARE WILLING TO ALLOW THEM.
Over and over again, the scriptures emphasize that we will be judged according to our treatment of our fellowmen. If we are charitable, we will be placed with the sheep in the Lord’s kingdom rather than with the goats in outer darkness. (Matt. 25:31—46) If we forgive, we may be forgiven. (Matt.6:12) If we are just, we may rise in the resurrection of the Just: and dwell with them. (D&C Sec. 76) If we refrain from exercising compulsion unrighteously, our dominion in the hereafter may be everlasting and flow unto us forever and ever without compulsory means. (D&C Sec. 121) In short, we can expect to be treated in the next life as we treat others here.
The exact implementation of this law of the harvest will occur at the end of this life, when we will be divided into groups and each will be consigned to spend eternity with those with whom he is most like. An unjust person will dwell with those who will treat him unjustly; a kind, forgiving person will enjoy the companionship of kind and forgiving associates, etc. But the fact which is important to our discussion here is that each person will be with that group who will allow him to exercise no more freedom than he is willing to allow them.
If, during this life, we have been persuaded to believe that the force of government, or any other agency, should be used to deny our fellowmen the stewardship which God has given them over their families, their property, and their private affairs, we can be very certain that we will be placed with a group in the hereafter who will hold similar views. With such an attitude, we cannot expect to have stewardship or dominions of our own because we do not believe in them for others and neither will those with whom we will dwell believe in them for us. The poetic justice of God decrees that if we deprive our fellow of those unalienable rights which, according to the
Declaration of Independence, they have been endowed by their Creator, we will lose our free agency to the same extent.
H. Verlin. Anderson, “The Great and Abominable Church of the
Devil”

I want to be free to do as I please. To go where I want when and how I want. I want the freedom to build a paradise. Not ask permission jump through hoops pay fees. I want true freedom. To make my own living my own choices. And I want all men to have that as well.

You can keep your licenses your fees your restrictions commandments. God does not require them. In fact he says that if you have to be commanded (licensed) in all thing you have no reward.

I choose to live a good life not because I'm told or commanded to but Because that's what i want to do. Fear of consequences do not drive my decisions.

The only reason people get a license is because they fear the consequences of the government. Not to be a better driver.

I bet you that if you cut up your license you would be exactly the same skilled driver you currently are.

So what does that license actually do? Costs you money and puts you in chains and bondage to your fellow man. And if you support that want that. Well good luck.

[nvr]

Self-evaluation question: If you were asked to enforce something that was considered legal under state law but violated the spirit of the constitution, would you still enforce it?

The constitution simply spells out what should already be taken as true regarding individual rights - we all have natural God-given rights to live our lives however we see fit - we simply need to do so without encroaching on the livelihood or well-being of others. The constitution does not grant us our liberties, they were there to begin with. Government, implicitly, has no place to mettle with these natural rights. In the Bill of Rights, the founders simply highlighted, just to be sure, important rights that government needed to respect out of all our other natural rights.
In the preamble, Madison wrote,
"That government is instituted, and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

So, bicyclists and pedestrians do not need to have a license to travel about public highways or byways. Cars only add speed and value. Registration / licensing cannot be for the purpose of getting taxes to upkeep roads as you already have toll roads and gas and diesel road taxes. Commercial vehicles put most of the wear on roads as they utilize them heavily as an integral of their business. They can congest roadways and otherwise reduce access to the rest of the general pubic to the point where they can start to infringe on others rights 'to pursue and obtain happiness and safety'. This is where I think you see terms for "drivers" (ie. professional drivers) come from in a lot of state laws in earlier times - they have those additional rules set in place to prevent these commercial drivers from putting undue burdens on rest of people needing to freely travel on the public roads.

As for it being a means to prevent and hold people liable for accidents, there's the self-regulating ecosystem of lawsuits for this. There is insurance for people who want to protect themselves just like businesses do to handle incidents on their premises. Insurance companies might provide better rates for drivers who went through training and who's cars passed the company's safety standards. Isn't it the IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) that's always pushing the bar for vehicle crash-worthiness anyways (beyond gov't safety ratings) ?
I don't think it should be considered a viable argument that police are justified in upholding these laws simply because they are part of the statutes of the state. As was hinted at previously, states or any level of government should not expect to establish and enforce any laws that are repugnant to the constitution as these would be considered automatically null and void (Marbury v. Madison (1803)).

[freedomforall]

It doesn't appear you're even a little bit willing to have a coherent debate or discussion, FFA.

What does the word "coherent" mean to you?

A dictionary defines it as: capable of logical and consistent speech, thought, etc

There is a saying that goes: once a Marine, always a Marine. Let's just conclude that in similitude...once a cop, always a cop. Does this sound about right?

I had a conversation with a retired LA cop, a husband to a cousin of my wife, while visiting southern CA. During the course of discussion, I made mention that cops profile people. This somehow offended him and he defended the cops. I suppose it is normal for a cop to defend other cops, even knowing full well that profiling goes on. Let's face the facts. Every person going through unconstitutional checkpoints...are being profiled. Every person is under suspicion until proven innocent. What's next, cops checking in everyone's drawers to see what gender they are? Which brings us to the TSA, got to love the TSA, right? They get to use body scanners and do invasive body rubs to see if anyone is carrying something like a very small pair of folding scissors...my wife had hers confiscated. Their tactics is just another case of being under suspicion until proven innocent.

Now take Burns Oregon into account. Highway cameras were discovered by Lavoy Finicum and others. Why were they there? To spy, to watch, and to catch/entrap motorists, now don't think for one moment that this practice is not going on all across the nation. Cops should be saying no way, yet I suppose they love to catch the bad guy before they did any wrong. But cops holding other cops accountable for breaking the law...is a no-no.

Then there is officer ding-bat, David Ward, in Burns, who did nothing to protect the travelers headed to John Day. It was his job to protect the rights of those people, not to allow federal agents to kill him like a mad dog. And nobody can say he didn't know any better.

I've about concluded that although we should show respect for officers, which ones can be trusted underneath their persona?

This cop got busted big time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BK0QhRCaSNo

Your responses and lack there of are incoherent because you can't stay on topic. You just hate cops and want to release your built up emotions onto this thread which is about driver licenses and vehicle registrations and relating laws. This thread is not about checkpoints or profiling or cops speeding or LaVoy Finicum or the TSA.

By the way, profiling is neither illegal nor otherwise wrong.

No where have I come out and said I hate cops. I don't trust most of them, but hate...this is a word you used, not me. But thank you for building my case and reasons for not trusting them. Profiling people is nothing more than suspecting someone of wrong doing just because they look different than others.

I get a profound, deep impression that you think that whatever cops do to profile, stop, harass, bully, throwdown and even kill citizens suspected of wrong doing is okay with you.
Did this boy deserve to be killed while going for fast food? Did it make a huge difference that he most likely had a valid driver license and registration...he is still DEAD.

.............................................................................................................................................
Or this woman because she had a gun?

.............................................................................................................................................
Oh, here's a good one. A UT woman was arrested for DUI after calling police for HELP. Now she does not trust cops. Standard practice my tail. These cops violated her Constitutional rights, including the lame duck Lieutenant.

.............................................................................................................................................
Armed and dangerous! A cop gets put back on the street after killing two unarmed people. Don't reach for your driver license and registration without wearing body armor?

[freedomforall]

The Video That SHOULD Infuriate EVERY Human Being!!

With friendly cops like this one, who needs enemies? Be careful when showing your license.

[Ezra]

Here locally a rancher was shot and killed by 2 cops. They called him because a bull of his was out on the highway and had been hit by a car. The cops had already shot the bull a dozen times and it was not dead. But it was laying on the side of the road still breathing. So the rancher got out a gun to shoot it in the head and put it out of its misery. And the cops shot him in front of his wife. Numerous times. She then had a heart attach.

The cops got off free as a bird. Even got payed vacation leave for awhile.

[freedomforall]

Here locally a rancher was shot and killed by 2 cops. They called him because a bull of his was out on the highway and had been hit by a car. The cops had already shot the bull a dozen times and it was not dead. But it was laying on the side of the road still breathing. So the rancher got out a gun to shoot it in the head and put it out of its misery. And the cops shot him in front of his wife. Numerous times. She then had a heart attach.

The cops got off free as a bird. Even got payed vacation leave for awhile.

Perhaps a few childless cows will form a copblock group and keep an eye on them. :))

[cyclOps]

Haha thanks for proving my point FFA.

And no, profiling doesn't mean suspecting people of wrongdoing because of the way they look. Obviously profiling based on certain criteria is illegal and wrong, such as race, etc. But profiling in and of itself is not illegal nor wrong.

[freedomforall]

Haha thanks for proving my point FFA.

And no, profiling doesn't mean suspecting people of wrongdoing because of the way they look. Obviously profiling based on certain criteria is illegal and wrong, such as race, etc. But profiling in and of itself is not illegal nor wrong.

Okay. I guess the type of profiling you're inferring is where you go into the mind of a criminal to discover what causes them to act certain ways, then take that data and compare it to the minds of other criminals so you can determine just who you are pursuing and what they may or could do next. Am I close?
I should have said racial profiling. My mistake.

Look, you may be an exception to a rule. I see in many cases there are a lot of people wearing badges and toting guns that shouldn't be allowed to cruise the streets of America. Likewise, I see a lot of good people doing the same job. The problem being, the bad ones make the good ones look bad. Therefore, how can anyone tell the difference from a distance not knowing the good from the bad?

[cyclOps]

Haha thanks for proving my point FFA.

And no, profiling doesn't mean suspecting people of wrongdoing because of the way they look. Obviously profiling based on certain criteria is illegal and wrong, such as race, etc. But profiling in and of itself is not illegal nor wrong.

Okay. I guess the type of profiling you're inferring is where you go into the mind of a criminal to discover what causes them to act certain ways, then take that data and compare it to the minds of other criminals so you can determine just who you are pursuing and what they may or could do next. Am I close?
I should have said racial profiling. My mistake.

Look, you may be an exception to a rule. I see in many cases there are a lot of people wearing badges and toting guns that shouldn't be allowed to cruise the streets of America. Likewise, I see a lot of good people doing the same job. The problem being, the bad ones make the good ones look bad. Therefore, how can anyone tell the difference from a distance not knowing the good from the bad?

What do you mean they shouldn't be able to cruise the streets of America? I thought they have the right to travel? Haha.

Anyway, yeah we agree racial profiling is bad and wrong. But there is more to profiling than what you describe when talking about going into the mind of a criminal. The majority of profiling comes from profiling behavior. Everyone does this, including you. Police do it to profile criminal behavior.

I had a thought and was curious how you would answer this question... assuming your premise is correct for the sake of this question, if requiring a driver license or vehicle registration is an unconstitutional restriction on our right to travel, then what about stop signs and stop lights? Is requiring someone to stop at those unconstitutional?

[freedomforall]

Cop says we cannot ride our bikes/bmx, I lay down the law and tell him to beat it. And he does

[freedomforall]

Haha thanks for proving my point FFA.

And no, profiling doesn't mean suspecting people of wrongdoing because of the way they look. Obviously profiling based on certain criteria is illegal and wrong, such as race, etc. But profiling in and of itself is not illegal nor wrong.

Okay. I guess the type of profiling you're inferring is where you go into the mind of a criminal to discover what causes them to act certain ways, then take that data and compare it to the minds of other criminals so you can determine just who you are pursuing and what they may or could do next. Am I close?
I should have said racial profiling. My mistake.

Look, you may be an exception to a rule. I see in many cases there are a lot of people wearing badges and toting guns that shouldn't be allowed to cruise the streets of America. Likewise, I see a lot of good people doing the same job. The problem being, the bad ones make the good ones look bad. Therefore, how can anyone tell the difference from a distance not knowing the good from the bad?

What do you mean they shouldn't be able to cruise the streets of America? I thought they have the right to travel? Haha. They do, but not with a badge indicating that they get paid to be a jerk and someone to fear or avoid under duress or caused to be under duress by them because of their cockiness or lousy PR.

Anyway, yeah we agree racial profiling is bad and wrong. But there is more to profiling than what you describe when talking about going into the mind of a criminal. The majority of profiling comes from profiling behavior. Everyone does this, including you. Police do it to profile criminal behavior.

I had a thought and was curious how you would answer this question... assuming your premise is correct for the sake of this question, if requiring a driver license or vehicle registration is an unconstitutional restriction on our right to travel, then what about stop signs and stop lights? Is requiring someone to stop at those unconstitutional?

Driving safely is a responsibility. Having a driver license is a way for cops to extort money, not for making anyone drive any more safely than they already do. Being ticketed for speeding can be done with or without a necessary driver license. Believe me, a lot of drivers are scary to be around. A license in no way makes them any safer or worse. It's human nature and a rebellious attitude that make so many drivers dangerous. You have seen repeat offenders before. Did them having a required license make any difference? Neither will a suspended license. Just the opposite can happen, where a person is ticked off due to his own fault for getting busted and so they speed even more or whatever the case may be.

Here is an example of cops taking away a person's Constitutional privileges.

Also check from the 5:52 mark.

This is how Nazi Germany seemed to be our model...show your papers, tell where you're going and what you have in the car. Otherwise, dogs will be sicked on you and given commands to accuse you of something so they can search your car. THIS IS NOT FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT. Unless you are a cop in plain clothes and only have to flash a badge and get waved through, correct? And it wouldn't matter how many beers the cop had at the bar with all his buddies.

[nvr]

Haha thanks for proving my point FFA.

And no, profiling doesn't mean suspecting people of wrongdoing because of the way they look. Obviously profiling based on certain criteria is illegal and wrong, such as race, etc. But profiling in and of itself is not illegal nor wrong.

Okay. I guess the type of profiling you're inferring is where you go into the mind of a criminal to discover what causes them to act certain ways, then take that data and compare it to the minds of other criminals so you can determine just who you are pursuing and what they may or could do next. Am I close?
I should have said racial profiling. My mistake.

Look, you may be an exception to a rule. I see in many cases there are a lot of people wearing badges and toting guns that shouldn't be allowed to cruise the streets of America. Likewise, I see a lot of good people doing the same job. The problem being, the bad ones make the good ones look bad. Therefore, how can anyone tell the difference from a distance not knowing the good from the bad?

What do you mean they shouldn't be able to cruise the streets of America? I thought they have the right to travel? Haha.

Anyway, yeah we agree racial profiling is bad and wrong. But there is more to profiling than what you describe when talking about going into the mind of a criminal. The majority of profiling comes from profiling behavior. Everyone does this, including you. Police do it to profile criminal behavior.

I had a thought and was curious how you would answer this question... assuming your premise is correct for the sake of this question, if requiring a driver license or vehicle registration is an unconstitutional restriction on our right to travel, then what about stop signs and stop lights? Is requiring someone to stop at those unconstitutional?

Is running a lawnmower over gravel next to sunbathers legal? There's no law for it - it is simply common sense not to do that. Same might apply for road signs. In an ideal free society, when people didn't follow signs and caused accidents, they would become liable for lawsuits and also face higher insurance premiums. That said, with freedom comes the additional responsibility not to create mayhem. As it is, I think we have the police state that we have because we accept the idea that we're not responsible enough to abide by common sense guidelines and cannot take care of ourselves. If we got rid of police pulling people over for not stopping a full second at a sign, I don't think we'd lose out on any benefits other than maybe some revenue for the city.

[cyclOps]

Guys, FFA and NVR, you didn't answer my question. I'm not talking about right or wrong or responsibility or common sense. I'm talking about Constitutionality. After all, that is the issue you guys see with driver license laws.

Is requiring someone by law to stop at stop signs and stop lights unconstitutional because it restricts their right to travel?

[freedomforall]

Guys, FFA and NVR, you didn't answer my question. I'm not talking about right or wrong or responsibility or common sense. I'm talking about Constitutionality. After all, that is the issue you guys see with driver license laws.

Is requiring someone by law to stop at stop signs and stop lights unconstitutional because it restricts their right to travel?

No, because they are free to proceed when it is safe to do so, rather than being detained by police and questioned as if they are a common criminal. Plus, I doubt many of us attended a hair-splitting convention. The stopping at a stop sign is being conscientious and respectful of other drivers and of being safe in one's driving. Yet you failed to mention yellow blinking lights. Even then precaution is a correct action.
There is a difference between being stalled for reasons of safety and being stopped by the police and receiving a ticket for S120.00, or sent to jail for driving 110 mph on a freeway.

Okay, your turn. Why are police stopping people and asking them if they had anything to drink? Entrapment is all these checkpoints are for. Why is everyone under suspicion of wrong doing, being stopped, possibly frisked and their car gone through? This is breaking the right to travel, and is wrong. Why is the Constitution of no value within the first 100 miles from any coast within the US?

[cyclOps]

You've really got to stop contradicting your own reasoning FFA.

I assume when you say

Why are police stopping people and asking them if they had anything to drink? Entrapment is all these checkpoints are for. Why is everyone under suspicion of wrong doing, being stopped, possibly frisked and their car gone through? This is breaking the right to travel, and is wrong.

that you are talking about checkpoints, correct? We don't run checkpoints where I work, so I'm not completely familiar with them. From what I understand though, checkpoints have to be approved by a judge and have to be advertised to allow drivers to take a different route if desired. It is not entrapment. It is essentially saying this road is closed but you are free to go through if you stop at the checkpoint first.

See Stacy Oliver's post on why that is not entrapment. Entrapment doesn't mean you are trapped because you have to stop.

[freedomforall]

You've really got to stop contradicting your own reasoning FFA.

I assume when you say

Why are police stopping people and asking them if they had anything to drink? Entrapment is all these checkpoints are for. Why is everyone under suspicion of wrong doing, being stopped, possibly frisked and their car gone through? This is breaking the right to travel, and is wrong.

that you are talking about checkpoints, correct? We don't run checkpoints where I work, so I'm not completely familiar with them. From what I understand though, checkpoints have to be approved by a judge and have to be advertised to allow drivers to take a different route if desired. It is not entrapment. It is essentially saying this road is closed but you are free to go through if you stop at the checkpoint first.

See Stacy Oliver's post on why that is not entrapment. Entrapment doesn't mean you are trapped because you have to stop.

Okay, so I used an incorrect word. My bad.
Now, let's look at it this way. A man driving along the highway intoxicated comes to a DUI barricade set up by the police. There is no way around it, so the driver proceeds to enter the barricade. The driver is asked if he had anything to drink. This is a type of snare used to trap an intoxicated driver. So now the driver has two options, 1) either get busted for drinking, or 2) floor the gas peddle and try to evade charges. So the driver chooses the latter and then gets busted five miles down the road, having added charges brought against him for running.

Had the barricade not been there the driver would not have been put into a position of possibly furthering his guilt.

Now its DUI checkpoints, and immigration checkpoints. What's next, "have you picked your nose recently?"

Just because a Fed court says these checkpoints are okay, they are still against the Constitution, period. Even the courts are under obligation to uphold the Constitution, it being the Supreme law of the land.

For those who like to quote what courts have to say about anything, I urge you to read this:

The Gospel Key To Our True Constitution
Formerly
The United States Has Two Constitutions
How to identify and promote the true Constitution

Ask this man what he thinks of the Court System: Ernie Wayne Tertelgte. He is talking about the driving without a license.

[freedomforall]

I apologize for any confusion, contradictions, misunderstandings or articulation errors. This is a cross I have to bear. So please bear with me and know I do my very best. I'm not an authoritarian, just a guy who loves the Constitution and trying to abide by its precepts...knowing it came from God. Man's views of it that are unconstitutional in thought and application is that which they must bear. With what limited understanding capabilities I may have, I think I am doing more than a lot of really, profoundly sharp individuals that are ignorant of the law and especially the Supreme law of the land..and will defend unconstitutional laws resulting in stripping away more of our rights and privileges of WE THE PEOPLE.

Doctrine and Covenants 131:6
6 It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance.

So doing something is better than being apathetic or complacent.

Have priesthood bearers become neutralized in their duty to uphold the Constitution?

From (April 1965, General Conference) we read:
The devil knows that if the elders of Israel should ever wake up, they could step forth and help preserve freedom and extend the gospel. Therefore the devil has concentrated, and to a large extent successfully, in neutralizing much of the priesthood. He has reduced them to sleeping giants. His arguments are clever….
[Says the devil]: “Don’t do anything in the fight for freedom until the Church sets up its own specific program to save the Constitution.” This brings us right back to the scripture…to those slothful servants who will not do anything until they are “compelled in all things” [D&C 58:26]. Maybe the Lord will never set up a specific church program for the purpose of saving the Constitution. Perhaps if he set one up at this time it might split the Church asunder, and perhaps he does not want that to happen yet for not all the wheat and tares are fully ripe….
[H]ave we elders been warned? Yes, we have. And have we elders been given the guidelines? Yes indeed, we have. And besides, if the Church should ever inaugurate a program [to save the Constitution], who do you think would be in the forefront to get it moving? It would not be those who were sitting on the sidelines prior to that time or those who were appeasing the enemy. It would be those choice spirits who, not waiting to be “commanded in all things,” used their own free will, the counsel of the prophets, and the Spirit of the Lord as guidelines and who entered the battle “in a good cause” and brought to pass much righteousness in freedom’s cause….
Brethren, if we had done our homework and were faithful, we could step forward at this time and help save this country. The fact that most of us are unprepared to do it is an indictment we will have to bear. The longer we wait, the heavier the chains, the deeper the blood, the more the persecution, and the less we can carry out our God-given mandate and worldwide mission. The war in heaven is raging on the earth today. Are you being neutralized in the battle?

I do my best with what I got because I, for one, am not neutralized.

[cyclOps]

FFA, I can see you love and respect the constitution and that's wonderful. As you said, there are lots of people that are ignorant of it or even those who would purposefully seek to undermine it. In my line of work I come across people every so often who claim to know their rights, but really they know nothing about them.

I also love and respect the constitution. I bet we would agree on most things, honestly. Just remember, the founding fathers were all good and brilliant men, but even they disagreed on what to put in the constitution. Then after it became the supreme law of the land they disagreed on how to interpret it and those disagreements continue to this day.

[Ezra]

FFA, I can see you love and respect the constitution and that's wonderful. As you said, there are lots of people that are ignorant of it or even those who would purposefully seek to undermine it. In my line of work I come across people every so often who claim to know their rights, but really they know nothing about them.

I also love and respect the constitution. I bet we would agree on most things, honestly. Just remember, the founding fathers were all good and brilliant men, but even they disagreed on what to put in the constitution. Then after it became the supreme law of the land they disagreed on how to interpret it and those disagreements continue to this day.

That's why we were told by our prophets to read the federalist papers and study the scriptures along side the constitution to understand it.

The principles of the constitution are gospel principles. Moral principles.

In order for us to be free we have to allow others to be free. Not dictating what they do with their time and money. How they choose to live there life's or educate themselves or how they choose to make a living.

A big part of that is judge not least ye be judged. If we judge our neighbors to be ignorant and think we should force education on him for his own good. Use our vote to make sure he is not ignorant through government mandates. We have put him ourselfs and our fellow men into bondage to pay for it.

You will find that almost all of the infringements of our freedoms have come from the heart strings being pulled. Or from judgement of others.


We are supposed to have a government of the people for the people.

We have a responsibility of the actions of the government. We will be judged by what we allow our government to do. D&c 121 33-43 points that out as well. Most are not chosen because of unrighteousness dominion. Which is inherent in almost all men that as soon as they get some authority (vote) they practice it.

And that is how almost all are not chosen due to our support of unrighteousness dominion through our government of their fellow men.

The burden and bondage of taxation and of unconstitutional laws.

We have to remember that if it is not ok for me to do it as an individual then it's not ok for me to use the government to do it.

Like.

It's not ok for me to go to my neighbors and demand and force they pay for my food. Or my schooling. And so on and so on.

[freedomforall]

FFA, I can see you love and respect the constitution and that's wonderful. As you said, there are lots of people that are ignorant of it or even those who would purposefully seek to undermine it. In my line of work I come across people every so often who claim to know their rights, but really they know nothing about them.

I also love and respect the constitution. I bet we would agree on most things, honestly. Just remember, the founding fathers were all good and brilliant men, but even they disagreed on what to put in the constitution. Then after it became the supreme law of the land they disagreed on how to interpret it and those disagreements continue to this day.

That's why we were told by our prophets to read the federalist papers and study the scriptures along side the constitution to understand it.

The principles of the constitution are gospel principles. Moral principles.

In order for us to be free we have to allow others to be free. Not dictating what they do with their time and money. How they choose to live there life's or educate themselves or how they choose to make a living.

A big part of that is judge not least ye be judged. If we judge our neighbors to be ignorant and think we should force education on him for his own good. Use our vote to make sure he is not ignorant through government mandates. We have put him ourselfs and our fellow men into bondage to pay for it.

You will find that almost all of the infringements of our freedoms have come from the heart strings being pulled. Or from judgement of others.


We are supposed to have a government of the people for the people.

We have a responsibility of the actions of the government. We will be judged by what we allow our government to do. D&c 121 33-43 points that out as well. Most are not chosen because of unrighteousness dominion. Which is inherent in almost all men that as soon as they get some authority (vote) they practice it.

And that is how almost all are not chosen due to our support of unrighteousness dominion through our government of their fellow men.

The burden and bondage of taxation and of unconstitutional laws.

We have to remember that if it is not ok for me to do it as an individual then it's not ok for me to use the government to do it.

Like.

It's not ok for me to go to my neighbors and demand and force they pay for my food. Or my schooling. And so on and so on.

I have these books but doubt I'll ever get through them. Each book is quite thick. I bought them individually, some used, not trusting that what a seller may call a five set...not containing all five books, because the added, combined price of each book I think exceeds the listed price for the five set. Nevertheless, it is a buyer's choice.

vol 1 https://www.amazon.com/Founders-Constit ... n%2C+Vol.2
vol 2 https://www.amazon.com/Founders-Constit ... n%2C+Vol.2
vol 3 https://www.amazon.com/Founders-Constit ... CQ4V6EKDA5
vol 4 https://www.amazon.com/Founders-Constit ... T6GCX1847K
vol 5 https://www.amazon.com/Founders-Constit ... PV1E2JH5G2

[freedomforall]

Also check this out:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/toc.html

Want to try out some quizzes?
https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-co ... tory-quiz/
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/usconsti ... izzes.html
http://www.funtrivia.com/quizzes/world/ ... e_usa.html
https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-constitution-kids/

[freedomforall]

A Woman Who Drives Without A License - And Tells How