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

[freedomforall]

I wanted to be a police officer when I got out of the Marines in 1970, but as it turned out, that idea had too many holes in it.
I thought about becoming a fireman, but that idea went up in smoke.
Then I thought about becoming a plumber, but that idea went down the drain.
I also thought about becoming a librarian, but the idea at some point got shelved.
Then I thought about being a speed bump, but my stomach was to high.
Couldn't be an actor because the idea went into an O-file.
Couldn't become an astronaut because the idea was too spaced out.

Etc, etc, etc.

Truth is, I couldn't be a cop because I didn't meet the height requirement of six feet.
A friend of mine, since childhood, was a cop and went up the ranks and later made Lieutenant. Of course, he met height requirement.
Looking back I'm glad I didn't serve as a cop. The temptation to go bad is ever present. And bad cops have a way of suppressing good cops trying to remain honest and upright. We hear about police corruption in some form or another regularly. Not that long ago, LA cops were under investigation for corruption. I hear Texas cops are a pain in the toosh?
Look at the cops that threw a woman to the ground in Nevada, near Bunkerville.

I have personal experiences of running into bad cops.

A Montana officer stopped me in a town, my having CA plates at the time, and he told me that I was doing 35 in a 25. Now I know he lied because as I drove into town I saw a 45 speed sign and slowed down, then a 35 and slowed down, then came a cop, stopped me and said I sped through a 25, which was a lie. He then told me to drive to an ATM and draw out #50.00 and give it to him...which i complied to. But my anger was so high that my wife had to talk to me. That jerk new I was from out of state and probably couldn't stay for a court date. Of course, this was after he asked where I was headed to, which was Portland Or. This whole incident still upsets me due to his corrupt activities, and drivers have to put up with it, because he has a gun and a badge that says he is above the law, and could kill anything that looks like a resister to tyranny.

Now it is taught to not answer any police questions because, just like in a courtroom, anything you say can and will be used against you. Ask for counsel to be present. Get a LegalShield membership, but do not answer questions. A smile can be deadly.

[freedomforall]

Do NOT talk to the police, EVER!

[cyclOps]

I wanted to be a police officer when I got out of the Marines in 1970, but as it turned out, that idea had too many holes in it.
I thought about becoming a fireman, but that idea went up in smoke.
Then I thought about becoming a plumber, but that idea went down the drain.
I also thought about becoming a librarian, but the idea at some point got shelved.
Then I thought about being a speed bump, but my stomach was to high.
Couldn't be an actor because the idea went into an O-file.
Couldn't become an astronaut because the idea was too spaced out.

Etc, etc, etc.

Truth is, I couldn't be a cop because I didn't meet the height requirement of six feet.
A friend of mine, since childhood, was a cop and went up the ranks and later made Lieutenant. Of course, he met height requirement.
Looking back I'm glad I didn't serve as a cop. The temptation to go bad is ever present. And bad cops have a way of suppressing good cops trying to remain honest and upright. We hear about police corruption in some form or another regularly. Not that long ago, LA cops were under investigation for corruption. I hear Texas cops are a pain in the toosh?
Look at the cops that threw a woman to the ground in Nevada, near Bunkerville.

I have personal experiences of running into bad cops.

A Montana officer stopped me in a town, my having CA plates at the time, and he told me that I was doing 35 in a 25. Now I know he lied because as I drove into town I saw a 45 speed sign and slowed down, then a 35 and slowed down, then came a cop, stopped me and said I sped through a 25, which was a lie. He then told me to drive to an ATM and draw out #50.00 and give it to him...which i complied to. But my anger was so high that my wife had to talk to me. That jerk new I was from out of state and probably couldn't stay for a court date. Of course, this was after he asked where I was headed to, which was Portland Or. This whole incident still upsets me due to his corrupt activities, and drivers have to put up with it, because he has a gun and a badge that says he is above the law, and could kill anything that looks like a resister to tyranny.

Now it is taught to not answer any police questions because, just like in a courtroom, anything you say can and will be used against you. Ask for counsel to be present. Get a LegalShield membership, but do not answer questions. A smile can be deadly.

A speeding ticket is not a mandatory court appearance, at least in Utah. I would suspect it's the same with other States also. It's something that can be taken care of over the phone or online.

What are your thoughts about my post in reply to Older/wiser? What do you agree or disagree with?

[freedomforall]

What are your thoughts about my post in reply to Older/wiser? What do you agree or disagree with?

I suspect you do your job according to your training and conscience, and unlike Mitt Romney, not letting your church background be forfeited so you can advance and not stand out in public as a flip-flopper on principles.

I suspect you think this to be wrong:

or:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS-kd2iWQRQ Due to language I do not post video.

[cyclOps]

What are your thoughts about my post in reply to Older/wiser? What do you agree or disagree with?

I suspect you do your job according to your training and conscience, and unlike Mitt Romney, not letting your church background be forfeited so you can advance and not stand out in public as a flip-flopper on principles.

I suspect you think this to be wrong:

or:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS-kd2iWQRQ Due to language I do not post video.

Thanks for replying. I was more interested in your thoughts on the topic of this thread: whether we have to have a driver license and vehicle registration to operate a motor vehicle on a public roadway. More specifically I was curious to hear whether you agree or disagree with my post when I said

"The constitution gives States the right to enact and enforce laws as long as those laws don't violate the Constitution. I don't see how a State requiring a driver license and vehicle registration to operate a motor vehicle on a public roadway violated anything enumerated in the Constitution."

This question or discussion has nothing really to do with cops (the executive branch), who enforce the laws and gather evidence of wrongdoing, but has more to do with the legislative branch who pass law and the judicial branch who judge whether there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that someone violated the law, and which also includes judging whether those laws are unconstitutional or not.

Again, I'd like to hear your thoughts on States having the right to enact laws about this topic of driver licenses and vehicle registration. Are they unconstitutional?

[Ezra]

They are unconstitutional because the constitution states that we have a right to travel unmolested


https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/us-supre ... -letennier

[brianj]

They are unconstitutional because the constitution states that we have a right to travel unmolested


https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/us-supre ... -letennier

Where does the constitution say that? Does that mean it's unconstitutional for the government to require pilots or ship captains be trained and licensed?

[freedomforall]

They are unconstitutional because the constitution states that we have a right to travel unmolested


https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/us-supre ... -letennier

Thank you, Ezra. What a majority of cops, whether they be city, county, state, BLM, FBI, CIA or border patrol, etc, is that they operate under the directives of their superiors, who get their detectives from elected officials...that clearly violate their oath of office and the Supreme law of the land, being the Constitution, so they can enact any law they want in order to be in control of the public, and, and strip citizens of their Constitutional rights any way they can.
And as for DUI and immigration checkpoints, these are unconstitutional as well. They are centers of entrapment, and drivers are under suspicion of guilt of wrong doing until proven innocent, a profound infraction of Constitution.

I know I have posted this many times, yet no one, I mean no one has said they have read it or even acknowledged that it has been posted.

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

Police officers from all over should read this so they come to realize just who and what they are serving. Yes, it is written by a Mormon by the name of Jerome Horowitz, a now deceased attorney at law. Please believe me, it is an eye opener. If fact, it was this booklet that got me onto a liberty kick. In short, I was among the ignorant. I've been learning, studying and pondering so many aspects of how the courts work, how cops work according to their oath of office and how "we the people" are being turned into "we the sheeple", under unconstitutional laws that cops have no problem in enforcing because they themselves are ignorant of the laws of the land that are to govern them and the laws they are supposed to protect in behalf of the people they serve and being payed by.
No one is saved in ignorance, this includes cops that refuse to uphold proper and legal laws. How many officers say they will uphold the Constitution and have never read it or even shown an interest in it? How many officers know the Constitution but will appease their bosses whims and violate their oath of office?

Please read this as well:

http://www.connorboyack.com/images/weig ... atters.pdf

President Benson has this to say:

[freedomforall]

They are unconstitutional because the constitution states that we have a right to travel unmolested


https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/us-supre ... -letennier

Where does the constitution say that? Does that mean it's unconstitutional for the government to require pilots or ship captains be trained and licensed?

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/ ... _right.pdf

https://pseudolaw.com/right-to-travel-united-states

The Right To Travel Unmolested

[cyclOps]

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

[Ezra]

They are unconstitutional because the constitution states that we have a right to travel unmolested


https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/us-supre ... -letennier

Where does the constitution say that? Does that mean it's unconstitutional for the government to require pilots or ship captains be trained and licensed?

Do you need a licens to drive a tractor? What about a bulldozer? Bicycle? License to paddle a kayak canoe boat? Do any of those need training to run or do properly?

A friend of mine is a dentist. I've asked him how long it would take him to train someone to do his job as well as him. He said 3 months. But the government requires years of schooling in order to get the license. All that schooling means student loans. Student loans and debt means they need to get payed. Which means dental health is expensive as those bills are passed to the patient in order for the dentist to pay off his debt.

Licenses are not required in order to have the skills necessary to do something. They are about control. Training is all one needs.

Are they constitutional. No. Can the states require them. Yes under the 10th amendment. but the constitution is the supreme laws of the land and trumps states laws.

[brianj]

They are unconstitutional because the constitution states that we have a right to travel unmolested


https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/us-supre ... -letennier

Where does the constitution say that? Does that mean it's unconstitutional for the government to require pilots or ship captains be trained and licensed?

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/ ... _right.pdf

https://pseudolaw.com/right-to-travel-united-states

The Right To Travel Unmolested

I was asking where in the CONSTITUTION it says that we have a right to travel unmolested. I can't find anything along those lines in the Constitution of the United States of America.

[brianj]

Do you need a licens to drive a tractor? What about a bulldozer? Bicycle? License to paddle a kayak canoe boat? Do any of those need training to run or do properly?

A friend of mine is a dentist. I've asked him how long it would take him to train someone to do his job as well as him. He said 3 months. But the government requires years of schooling in order to get the license. All that schooling means student loans. Student loans and debt means they need to get payed. Which means dental health is expensive as those bills are passed to the patient in order for the dentist to pay off his debt.

Licenses are not required in order to have the skills necessary to do something. They are about control. Training is all one needs.

Are they constitutional. No. Can the states require them. Yes under the 10th amendment. but the constitution is the supreme laws of the land and trumps states laws.

Depending on the laws of your state you may or may not need a license to drive a tractor or bulldozer on a public road. And yes, both of these require training to do in a proper (safe) manner. No, you don't need a license to paddle a kayak or canoe, or to ride a bicycle. But you aren't likely to put other people at risk by riding a bicycle whereas an automobile or aircraft operated unsafely can kill a significant number of innocent people.

I have a very hard time believing that a dentist could be trained in three months. A dental hygienist could probably come up to speed in that time frame, but the dentists I have known are quick to point out how much they really need to know and how wide the field of dentistry can be.

You are right; licenses are not required to have the skills to do something. But the licenses should require a demonstration of proficiency at doing that task and show that the person doing the task is fulfilling the various other requirements of the task. For a dentist this includes proper insurance, proper care and cleaning of equipment, sanitation, et cetera.

As you conceded in your last two sentences, such licenses can be required by states under the 10th Amendment. This makes the licenses constitutional! If the Constitution explicitly states that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States" and there is nothing elsewhere in the Constitution to prohibit licensing of operators of motor vehicles or professions then the licenses are Constitutional.

[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

[freedomforall]

They are unconstitutional because the constitution states that we have a right to travel unmolested


https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/us-supre ... -letennier

Where does the constitution say that? Does that mean it's unconstitutional for the government to require pilots or ship captains be trained and licensed?

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/ ... _right.pdf

https://pseudolaw.com/right-to-travel-united-states

The Right To Travel Unmolested

I was asking where in the CONSTITUTION it says that we have a right to travel unmolested. I can't find anything along those lines in the Constitution of the United States of America.

Privileges or Immunities Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment, and paralleled in the Articles of Confederation Art IV. (below)
Main article: Privileges or Immunities Clause

The Privileges or Immunities Clause, which protects the privileges and immunities of national citizenship from interference by the states, was patterned after the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, which protects the privileges and immunities of state citizenship from interference by other states. In the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), the Supreme Court concluded that the Constitution recognized two separate types of citizenship—"national citizenship" and "state citizenship"—and the Court held that the Privileges or Immunities Clause prohibits states from interfering only with privileges and immunities possessed by virtue of national citizenship. The Court concluded that the privileges and immunities of national citizenship included only those rights that "owe their existence to the Federal government, its National character, its Constitution, or its laws." The Court recognized few such rights, including access to seaports and navigable waterways, the right to run for federal office, the protection of the federal government while on the high seas or in the jurisdiction of a foreign country, the right to travel to the seat of government, the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and the right to participate in the government's administration. This decision has not been overruled and has been specifically reaffirmed several times. Largely as a result of the narrowness of the Slaughter-House opinion, this clause subsequently lay dormant for well over a century.

In Saenz v. Roe (1999), the Court ruled that a component of the "right to travel" is protected by the Privileges or Immunities Clause:

Despite fundamentally differing views concerning the coverage of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, most notably expressed in the majority and dissenting opinions in the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), it has always been common ground that this Clause protects the third component of the right to travel. Writing for the majority in the Slaughter-House Cases, Justice Miller explained that one of the privileges conferred by this Clause "is that a citizen of the United States can, of his own volition, become a citizen of any State of the Union by a bona fide residence therein, with the same rights as other citizens of that State." (emphasis added)

Justice Miller actually wrote in the Slaughter-House Cases that the right to become a citizen of a state (by residing in that state) "is conferred by the very article under consideration" (emphasis added), rather than by the "clause" under consideration.

In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), Justice Clarence Thomas, while concurring with the majority in incorporating the Second Amendment against the states, declared that he reached this conclusion through the Privileges or Immunities Clause instead of the Due Process Clause. Randy Barnett has referred to Justice Thomas's concurring opinion as a "complete restoration" of the Privileges or Immunities Clause.
.............................................................................................................................................
IV.

The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them.

[freedomforall]

Do you need a licens to drive a tractor? What about a bulldozer? Bicycle? License to paddle a kayak canoe boat? Do any of those need training to run or do properly?

A friend of mine is a dentist. I've asked him how long it would take him to train someone to do his job as well as him. He said 3 months. But the government requires years of schooling in order to get the license. All that schooling means student loans. Student loans and debt means they need to get payed. Which means dental health is expensive as those bills are passed to the patient in order for the dentist to pay off his debt.

Licenses are not required in order to have the skills necessary to do something. They are about control. Training is all one needs.

Are they constitutional. No. Can the states require them. Yes under the 10th amendment. but the constitution is the supreme laws of the land and trumps states laws.

Depending on the laws of your state you may or may not need a license to drive a tractor or bulldozer on a public road. And yes, both of these require training to do in a proper (safe) manner. No, you don't need a license to paddle a kayak or canoe, or to ride a bicycle. But you aren't likely to put other people at risk by riding a bicycle whereas an automobile or aircraft operated unsafely can kill a significant number of innocent people.

I have a very hard time believing that a dentist could be trained in three months. A dental hygienist could probably come up to speed in that time frame, but the dentists I have known are quick to point out how much they really need to know and how wide the field of dentistry can be.

You are right; licenses are not required to have the skills to do something. But the licenses should require a demonstration of proficiency at doing that task and show that the person doing the task is fulfilling the various other requirements of the task. For a dentist this includes proper insurance, proper care and cleaning of equipment, sanitation, et cetera.

As you conceded in your last two sentences, such licenses can be required by states under the 10th Amendment. This makes the licenses constitutional! If the Constitution explicitly states that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States" and there is nothing elsewhere in the Constitution to prohibit licensing of operators of motor vehicles or professions then the licenses are Constitutional.

Does a license make a driver more responsible? No. I venture to say that if there were no licenses required and no auto insurance policies, more people would drive much safer. Is it true that a person can have auto insurance for twenty-five years +/- and have that insurance raise the price for the same policy because of one accident? Tell us it isn't a scam. And after a few auto accidents a person can have their license revoked, right? At that moment the right to travel has been molested, hindering a person from driving 500 miles instead of walking.

According to the fourteenth amendment, even the "bad guys" still have the right to travel. Perhaps they can rent some one's tractor or bulldozer.

[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?

[freedomforall]

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?

Who are you addressing, Ezra? Who is the whom you are talking to? Or is it whom is the who you are talking to? Or is it "with whom" you are talking?

Anyway, drivers licenses are only good for extorting money from drivers. They also make it easier for cops to stop drivers from free travel in the process. I think that some people have chased down speeding cops and given them a what for.

Here is a good example of a young boy asking a cop why he is breaking the law.

[Ezra]

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?

Who are you addressing, Ezra? Who is the whom you are talking to? Or is it whom is the who you are talking to? Or is it "with whom" you are talking?

Anyway, drivers licenses are only good for extorting money from drivers. They also make it easier for cops to stop drivers from free travel in the process. I think that some people have chased down speeding cops and given them a what for.

Here is a good example of a young boy asking a cop why he is breaking the law.

I was talking to brianj

[freedomforall]

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.

[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)).