Mandated health care & constitutionality??
John Pak
A Libertarian co-worker of mine proposed this question:
Under Clinton's health care system, in which all employers and
employees would be forced to work with the system, what would
happen if an employee like me decided NOT to join??
What if I and a couple of friends decided to opt out of the system
and form a little collective, in which we decided to take out a
catastrophic insurance underwritten by Lloyds in London??
(For the sake of argument, let's assume that finance wasn't a
problem).
My question is: if I did challenge the government's right to
FORCE me into a health care system, and the decision went to the
Supreme Court, what would the ruling be and what would the
attorney for the US government use to win the case??
I am looking for Constitutional interpretations, NOT a flame.
Thanx,
JP
Wade Hines
>Hello all:
>A Libertarian co-worker of mine proposed this question:
>Under Clinton's health care system, in which all employers and
>employees would be forced to work with the system, what would
>happen if an employee like me decided NOT to join??
Do you one better. What if someone objected to their choices on
religious grounds. The trivial example is some Christian Scientists
have objections to certain medical proceedures.
Seems to me that people should have the same right to refuse
coverage that they have to attend private school instead of
public. Only they don't have a right to reimbursement of equivalent
funds.
The mandate is that the plan be offered - not accepted.
(or is it?)
-- Wade
John R. Moore
>However, this "health care" reform will be funded by PREMIUMS that those
>who make above a certain income must pay. The premiums are not (or should
>not be) added to the General Fund (didn't I hear this before concerning
>Social Security funds??). If I refuse to have health care coverage for
>myself, why am I obligated to pay for this??
This is a myth. It isn't premiums any more than the Medicare tax you pay
is a premium. If it were a premium, it would vary based on risk. It instead
varies based on income. It is simply a progressive income tax, and as
such is (currently) held to be constitutional (even though I think it
violates the 14th amendment).
>A precedent that seems to be similar is when the Amish refused to pay Federal
>income taxes and won.
Religious exemption, I'll bet.
>Of course, the "Interstate Commerce" clause has been REALLY overstretched.
>It was used to end discrimination of customers by businesses (something
>laudable) but it was also used to burden the business sector with sometimes
>needless regulation.
Exactly.
>How can the government force me to start buying a product/service from only
>one provider??
By putting you in jail if you buy it from someone else. You deleted my
observation about price control, but THAT is the same sort of regulation:
a prohibition of a private contract to exchange goods between willing
individuals (or corporations).
>Isn't anybody alarmed by this? This includes non-Libertarians. BTW,
>I am NOT a libertarian.
It scares the hell out of me but get a clue.... the health plan is just the
latest of this sort of infringement of liberties. It's been going on a long
time.
--
DISCLAIMER: These views are mine alone, and do not reflect my employer's!
John Moore 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253 USA (602-951-9326)
jo...@anasazi.com Amateur call:NJ7E Civil Air Patrol:Thunderbird 381
- - Gun Control Means Hitting What You are Aiming At! - -
- - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -
John R. Moore
>Hello all:
Well, I think you would lose. I don't think you SHOULD lose, but the
Supreme Court has failed to correct for its absurdities under Roosevelt,
where it stretched the "Interstate Commerce" clause to allow the
federal government to do anything it damn well wanted to in the economy (and
hence the current near dictatorship of economic intervention).
Consider that making you pay into the system is constitutionally no different
from making you accept no wage increase (wage controls) or from limiting the
price you can pay for a commodity (price controls - also in the Clinton
plan).
--
DISCLAIMER: These views are mine alone, and do not reflect my employer's!
John Moore 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253 USA (602-951-9326)
jo...@anasazi.com Amateur call:NJ7E Civil Air Patrol:Thunderbird 381
- - Don't forget the thought which by it's very nature cannot be remembered!- -
- - - - - - Storm Chasers Do It in All Kinds of Weather! - - - - - -
John Pak
John R. Moore <jo...@anasazi.com> wrote:
>jp...@ecst.csuchico.edu (John Pak) writes:
>
>>Hello all:
>
>>A Libertarian co-worker of mine proposed this question:
>
>>Under Clinton's health care system, in which all employers and
>>employees would be forced to work with the system, what would
>>happen if an employee like me decided NOT to join??
>
>>What if I and a couple of friends decided to opt out of the system
>>and form a little collective, in which we decided to take out a
>>catastrophic insurance underwritten by Lloyds in London??
>>(For the sake of argument, let's assume that finance wasn't a
>>problem).
>
>>My question is: if I did challenge the government's right to
>>FORCE me into a health care system, and the decision went to the
>>Supreme Court, what would the ruling be and what would the
>>attorney for the US government use to win the case??
>
>>I am looking for Constitutional interpretations, NOT a flame.
>
>Well, I think you would lose. I don't think you SHOULD lose, but the
>Supreme Court has failed to correct for its absurdities under Roosevelt,
>where it stretched the "Interstate Commerce" clause to allow the
>federal government to do anything it damn well wanted to in the economy (and
>hence the current near dictatorship of economic intervention).
>
me to pay a tax on something that I refuse to use. Now, no matter how little
you use government services like welfare or educational grants, you are
obligated to pay income taxes to the Federal government because this money
is spent on the "common good", like defense or the infrastructure. I guess,
in a simple sense, it is the cost of living in the US.
However, this "health care" reform will be funded by PREMIUMS that those
who make above a certain income must pay. The premiums are not (or should
not be) added to the General Fund (didn't I hear this before concerning
Social Security funds??). If I refuse to have health care coverage for
myself, why am I obligated to pay for this??
A precedent that seems to be similar is when the Amish refused to pay Federal
income taxes and won.
Of course, the "Interstate Commerce" clause has been REALLY overstretched.
It was used to end discrimination of customers by businesses (something
laudable) but it was also used to burden the business sector with sometimes
needless regulation.
How can the government force me to start buying a product/service from only
one provider??
This is like if the government started regulating the gasoline industry and
took over all oil companies (Shell, BP, Exxon, etc.). The companies
would still exist, to provide you with a choice. However, they would all
be run by the government, NOT by private businesses. Then the government
forced you to buy gas, even though you don't own a car.
Isn't anybody alarmed by this? This includes non-Libertarians. BTW,
I am NOT a libertarian.
Any comments?
JP
Alan Bomberger
resemblence to what is proposed by Billary. However, I think that
you might win with the current court (thank heaven for all those
"conservative" judges). There is certainly nothing that I read
in the Constitution that would support mandatory PREMIUMS. If they
finally call them Taxes ala Medicare, we all lose.
--
Fred Tormala
>jp...@ecst.csuchico.edu (John Pak) writes:
>>How can the government force me to start buying a product/service from only
>>one provider??
>By putting you in jail if you buy it from someone else. You deleted my
>observation about price control, but THAT is the same sort of regulation:
>a prohibition of a private contract to exchange goods between willing
>individuals (or corporations).
>>Isn't anybody alarmed by this? This includes non-Libertarians. BTW,
>>I am NOT a libertarian.
>It scares the hell out of me but get a clue.... the health plan is just the
>latest of this sort of infringement of liberties. It's been going on a long
>time.
>--
I've wondered about some of the constituional and civil liberties
questions raised here for a while. What sort of information will
be encoded on this health care card that's in the plans and who
can access it? Could we required to show it for any other purpose
besides access to health care, like to identify ourselves to
police? I'll admit that some of this sounds a little paranoid, but
I just don't trust these bureaucrats.
Bertil Jonell
>Seems to me that people should have the same right to refuse
>coverage that they have to attend private school instead of
>public. Only they don't have a right to reimbursement of equivalent
>funds.
Do you know what the result of that is? The main result is that
special health care(1) or private schools will only be for the *really*
rich, those who are rich enough to pay twice: Once directly and once
through the taxes.
(1) Special health care, what's that? That means everything the government
won't pay for. Depending on government it might be abortions, eye
surgery for people over 60, heart surgery for people who don't behave in
a govt-approved manner, AIDS-treatments and so on.
Check my adress. I have first hand experience about this.
>-- Wade
-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
exercise for your kill-file."
John Pak
Well Fred,
When Social Security cards were issued, they were (and are still)
not to be used for Identification purposes. Yet, now everybody
asks for your SSN for recording/identification purposes.
I just read an article in today's newspaper concerning privacy in
today's electronic revolution. Guess what? The item that will
be the most helpful in tracking someone down is an SSN. If
an embezzler or con man wanted to glean information about you
or tamper with your financial records, he/she would most want
a SSN because it can be used as a cross-reference from everything
from your marriage certificiate to your credit rating.
So I am just as apprehensive as you are about this health care
card.
JP
Tim Smith
>When Social Security cards were issued, they were (and are still)
>not to be used for Identification purposes. Yet, now everybody
>asks for your SSN for recording/identification purposes.
The number is not the card, grasshopper.
--Tim Smith
Rick Beckham
No, you're not being paranoid. The gov't promised that the social
security number would NEVER be used as a source of identification.
In the 60's, the gov't started allowing the IRS to use the SS number
as a taxpayer's identification number, or TIN.
As for information on the card, I am especially distrustful of this.
The main objection the IRS has over shifting to a flat tax; the
amount of information about taxpayers would decrease. Currently the
IRS has REAMS of info about every taxpayer.
Mark O. Wilson
|FORCE me into a health care system, and the decision went to the
|Supreme Court, what would the ruling be and what would the
|attorney for the US government use to win the case??
|I am looking for Constitutional interpretations, NOT a flame.
This is the US government we are talking about.
Constitutionality is irrelevant.
--
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark....@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Mark O. Wilson
|In article <hines.7...@cgl.ucsf.edu> hi...@socrates.ucsf.edu (Wade Hines) writes:
|>Seems to me that people should have the same right to refuse
|>coverage that they have to attend private school instead of
|>public. Only they don't have a right to reimbursement of equivalent
|>funds.
| Do you know what the result of that is? The main result is that
|special health care(1) or private schools will only be for the *really*
|rich, those who are rich enough to pay twice: Once directly and once
|through the taxes.
Under Clinton's plan, the health care alliances have the authority to
forbid doctors from charging more than the alliances guidlines.
This includes doctors that aren't in the alliance.
Greg Banerian
crap? Don't you guys realize ... government is our _FRIEND_. Our friend
wouldn't go back on her word. Our friend wouldn't invade our privacy. Our
friend wouldn't take from us without good intentions, and when our friend
does so, surely it is for our benefit.
No, government's responsibility is to govern. To govern, one needs to
control. And what better way to control than to foster government
dependency from the weak and to accumulate vast amounts of information on
those who insist on being self-sufficient and independent, and over time
systematically stripping the latter of their means of self-sufficiency
and independence. That's what "effective" government is all about.
Greg "With friends like that, who needs enemies?" Banerian
==============================================================================
THE OPINIONS ABOVE ARE WHOLLY MY OWN AND THOSE OF ANY SANE, INTELLIGENT
PERSON, BUT ARE NOT NECESSARILY THOSE OF MY EMPLOYER,
NOR SHOULD THEY BE CONSTRUED AS SUCH.
==============================================================================
John R. Moore
>In <CGGE2...@news.chalmers.se> d9be...@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell) writes:
>|In article <hines.7...@cgl.ucsf.edu> hi...@socrates.ucsf.edu (Wade Hines) writes:
>|>Seems to me that people should have the same right to refuse
>|>coverage that they have to attend private school instead of
>|>public. Only they don't have a right to reimbursement of equivalent
>|>funds.
>| Do you know what the result of that is? The main result is that
>|special health care(1) or private schools will only be for the *really*
>|rich, those who are rich enough to pay twice: Once directly and once
>|through the taxes.
>Under Clinton's plan, the health care alliances have the authority to
>forbid doctors from charging more than the alliances guidlines.
>This includes doctors that aren't in the alliance.
I'd like to see how they justify THAT in the constitution!
--
DISCLAIMER: These views are mine alone, and do not reflect my employer's!
John Moore 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253 USA (602-951-9326)
jo...@anasazi.com Amateur call:NJ7E Civil Air Patrol:Thunderbird 381
- - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
- - It is not enough to be right. One must also be effective! - -
Roger Bryner
prove that they have health insurance before they are allowed to register?
This will be in effect next year at the school I am at. This is just the
same thing on a smaller level.
Just as a side note, the policy being offered through the school
here is highly over priced, and seems to be a pork mechanism. Somone is
lining their pockets with this. I smell a rat.
I wonder what we will be required to show our health card for, for
our own good. Maby government sponsored health and rehabilitation camps
with signs saying "freedom through work" above them. Nahhhhh, it could
_never_ hapen.
Roger, Mad Dog Libertarian, Bryner.
Alan Bomberger
|> jp...@ecst.csuchico.edu (John Pak) writes:
|>
|> |FORCE me into a health care system, and the decision went to the
|> |Supreme Court, what would the ruling be and what would the
|> |attorney for the US government use to win the case??
|>
|> |I am looking for Constitutional interpretations, NOT a flame.
|>
|> This is the US government we are talking about.
|> Constitutionality is irrelevant.
I opined once that
Republicans honor the Constitution but find sneaky ways to get
around troublesome sections
Democrats ignore the Constitution because they know what is
right.
We are doomed. I only hope some semblance of freedom survives while
I am alive. The rest of you get what you deserve!
I must be in a bad mood today! Peace
--
Mark O. Wilson
>mwi...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark O. Wilson) writes:
|>Under Clinton's plan, the health care alliances have the authority to
|>forbid doctors from charging more than the alliances guidlines.
|>This includes doctors that aren't in the alliance.
|I'd like to see how they justify THAT in the constitution!
Haven't you learned by now. The constitution is irrelevant.
Greg Banerian
> How about a government run school requiring graduate students to
>prove that they have health insurance before they are allowed to register?
>This will be in effect next year at the school I am at. This is just the
>same thing on a smaller level.
Not quite. I'd put this on the same line as requiring automobile insurance
when registering your vehicle. The car is a priviledge, not "required" in
life, so if you're going to use it, you have to insure it to protect others
from the potential cost of misuse or accident.
Now I'm gonna stretch this really far: a graduate education can also be
considered a priviledge (as a side note, are they requiring the same of
undergrads?). If you're going to get it, you've got to follow the
requirements they set forth as long as they are universally applicable
and fairly executed (not likely).
Earning an income is a requirement in life, except for a few hermits (it
is, however, a priviledge in the current economic climate). So the
government, in it's infinite wisdom and unending quest for control, is
going to force anyone who wants to earn what they eat to pay for services
the government has deemed everyone needs, but don't worry, it's all because
the government can control costs better. The Feds do a great job with the
+20% of the economy they now control, so why not give them 14% more. Then
they can shrink the health care sector the way they've already shrunk the
size of government: by increasing efficiency. History shows it's what they
do best.
To be honest Roger, I think your government school is giving you the shaft,
but then again, why should the government treat you differently than anyone
else who tries to improve their lot?
Greg Banerian
Brian Anderson
>mwi...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark O. Wilson) writes:
[snip]
>>Under Clinton's plan, the health care alliances have the authority to
>>forbid doctors from charging more than the alliances guidlines.
>
>>This includes doctors that aren't in the alliance.
>I'd like to see how they justify THAT in the constitution!
Unfortunately our constitution does very little to protect economic
rights. When it was written nobody had any idea that government could
grow so opressively large and consume such an obscene percentage of the
national income (>40% today.) There is nothing to stop Congress from:
Limiting wages & prices.
Imposing tax rates of 99.99%.
Redistributing wealth arbitrarily.
Using the tax code and the IRS to coerce people and states into giving
up other (non-economic) freedoms.
This all got started when we amended the constitution to permit an
income tax. It really became a problem after FDR and the various "new
deal" intrusions into what were previously private economic decisions.
Today it is all but impossible to do anything without running into one
or more manifestations of our ever-expanding welfare state.
Freedom comes in two forms; political and economic. We need to protect
the latter if we intend to keep the former.
--
"make lots of money", "enjoy the work", "operate within the law": choose 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Anderson | "It's difficult to work in a group when
cast...@media-lab.media.mit.edu | you're omnipotent." - Q, ST-tng "Deja-Q"
Tim Smith
> The main objection the IRS has over shifting to a flat tax; the
> amount of information about taxpayers would decrease. Currently the
> IRS has REAMS of info about every taxpayer.
How would a flat tax change anything? The amount of information collected
by the IRS (and the complexity of the tax code) is almost all related to
the questions of what is income, and when is it income, rather than how
much should it be taxed.
--Tim Smith
Brian Anderson
The flat tax could be applied to spending instead of income. This is
already done in every state that has a sales tax. Any problems with
regressivity at the lower end of the income scale could be handled by
boosting the welfare checks an appropriate amount. There would be no
need for an Orwellian government agency to monitor every aspect of our
economic lives. It would also relieve individuals and businesses of an
administrative headache that costs tens of billions annually. It would
be easier to enforce, more universal, less arbitrary and more
honest...which is probably why we'll never see it happen.
71446...@compuserve.com
To anyone who believes the Government can provide _any_ domestic service
competitively with private business, let us just glance at the U.S. Snail vs.
any private mail-delivery service you would like to examine.
If you favor government control of health care, then you probably can't _wait_
for the government's version of Internet.
Good luck. You'll need it, because, in all liklihood, no one will ever hear
from you again.
############################################################################
In article <1993Nov16....@data-io.com>, bane...@Data-IO.COM (Greg Banerian) writes...
Rick Beckham
Well, for one thing you wouldn't have to list deductibles. Just list
your income and move the decimal point one place to the left.
A better tax for totally eliminating information gathered against
people would be sales tax, where no information is required.
Alan Bomberger
That this thread even exists is alarming. We act more and more like
a banana republic every day. These statists in power don't give a
flying .... about the Constitution. They know what is right! They
scream foul when the President of Chili suspends Chili's Constitution
but don't even blink an eye when they suggest "banning guns", "censoring
violence on TV", "restricting my rights the the health care of my choice".
Example of hypocracy:
Campaign reform keeps getting hung up because it is reasoned that the
Constitution will forbid laws that prevent a politicion from spending
any amount of money on TV time to fill the air with vicious lies. Yet
these same politicians don't think twice about preventing a sick person
from spending his/her money to get the medical care he/she needs. No!
The sick person will take the medical care that the Plan offers and
take it quietly! They, on the other hand are free to spend any amount
of money spreading lies. I don't like the idea of filling the airwaves
with lies but I think that we can fix the problem within the rules (like
with truth in advertizing applied to politics - make the liar pay)
The Health reform package should be declared DOA until it conforms to the
Constitution.
I agree 100% that there are problems with guns, campaigns, and even
health care. We, however, have a set of rules that have helped this
country survive several wars over 200 years. The rules may even need
some changes. Guess what folks, the rules even include rules on how
to change the rules.
SO FOLLOW THE DAMN RULES!!!!
I half expect Bill to announce any day now that he can't seem to
govern withen these rules so "I am suspending the Constitution".
Welcome to Chili.
Yes, it is hard to change the rules. It was meant to be
so that the country could not be taken over by a bunch of statist fanatics.
It is so hard to change the rules that recently we could not get the
ERA passed which seemed like a good thing to a lot of people. So what
have we done instead. We have politicized the court that interprets
the rules so that it will ignore them in the ways that the statists
want (The Republicans share the guilt of politicizing though they did
try to get Bork on the court, the one man I would trust to actually
read the Constitution and force laws to conform to it no matter how
much "Good" the law represented). Essentially law and order have
broken down in this country! We each of us shout about what is
"RIGHT". It doesn't matter a tinkers damn what you think is right!
There is a Constitution that determines what is right. If you
disagree with the Constitution, change it.
The Constitution is
even written in simple straight forward language. It was done that
way so that the farmers of the 18th century (who had a better
understanding of the language than many people who post in these
forums) could understand it. You don't need to be a rocket
scientist to figure out that things like RICO (drug profit
seizures) are unconstitutional. Yes, friends, our beloved court
has ruled otherwise and we must live with that. And, yes we
can't all decide indendently what laws might actually be
interpreted today, given the crap shoot of our political
court, as unconstitutional. That does not mean that we
should spend time proposing obviously unconstitutional
solutions to problems in hopes that we can someday (maybe today)
appoint a court that will ignore the correct part of the
constitution and allow it.
We tell our citizens that they must obey the law even if they don't
think it is right. This is a high principle. Work within the
system to change the law. Well there are laws that dictate the
workings of government. Learn to live within them! Sure guns seem to
cause a problem. The Constitution says that we have the right
to guns and Waco proves that we need them. Why do you think
Jefferson wanted the people to have guns? Target practice? NO!
He wanted the people to be able to protect themselves from BATF!
So what do you do when things are not working out?
Try to figure out a way WITHIN THE RULES to solve the problem.
If the problem can't be solved and you can convince 75% of the
people that the problem needs solving, you can get the rules
changed. Until then SHUT THE HELL UP (Not you Roger).
--
The Masked Jackal
erosion of civil liberties this century? Why all the pissing and moaning
now about America's tin-horn tendencies, when we've been left with a
Republican engineered governmental behemoth that quadrupled the national
debt and expanded the list of freedoms subverted to ideological perogatives?
Or were you cowards hiding behind the flag and foaming at the mouth with
unfettered jingoism while your wallets grew at the expense of the poor and
the middle class? Quit your bitching get get the hell to work on it!
The Masked Jackal
Christopher M. Conway
In article <2burs3...@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu>, jp...@ecst.csuchico.edu (John Pak) writes:
-
- What I wanted was a discussion about the Constitutional validity of forcing
- me to pay a tax on something that I refuse to use. Now, no matter how little
- you use government services like welfare or educational grants, you are
- obligated to pay income taxes to the Federal government because this money
- is spent on the "common good", like defense or the infrastructure. I guess,
- in a simple sense, it is the cost of living in the US.
I can't cite a case for you, but the Supreme Court has ruled that there is
no requirement that the taxee be able to use the taxed for service in order
to legally tax said taxee.
I.e., tough shit.
A simple case in point-- a few years ago, I worked in the People's Republic
of Massachusetts. I lived in New Hampshire. New Hampshire had no real
income tax; the government was funded primarily locally by property taxes,
with state liquor stores and prepared food and lodging taxes added in. In
other words, I was paying a full tax burden in New Hampshire.
The PRM, however, subjected me to *their* income tax. It didn't matter that
I didn't enjoy state benefits. (What do you think the PRM state police would
have done if I'd called for help from home? How about getting in-state
tuition rates) I was still subject to the tax.
In fact, I'm not certain, but I believe that it is theoretically possible
for *both* states to have fully taxed my income, though I'm not sure on
that.
[ much of rest of post deleted ]
-
- Isn't anybody alarmed by this? This includes non-Libertarians. BTW,
- I am NOT a libertarian.
-
I *am* a libertarian, and I'm scared shitless.
--
In no way should any statement, question, or other transferral of
information in this post be construed in any way as being an
official communication of Digital Equipment Corporation.
==============================================================================
Christopher M. Conway | U*ix and C Guru
wom...@abo.dec.com | Legalize Freedom!
wom...@nfinit.enet.dec.com | Resist the Tyrants in Washington, D.C.!
nfinit::wombat (DECnet internal)| "We must all hang together or, most
P.O. Box 92703 | assuredly, we will all hang separately"
Albuquerque, NM 87199 | (505)761-2413 DTN 552-2413
==============================================================================
Anyone sending email to me implicitly releases said email for whatever
use I choose, including, but not necessarily limited to, posting publicly.
If you do not accept these terms, do not send me email. These terms do not
apply to email the sole purpose of which is discussion of these terms, or
to messages sent to mailing lists to which I have requested a subscription.
John Pak
The Masked Jackal <ams...@ritvax.isc.rit.edu> wrote:
>Where the hell were you when the Reagan/Bush regimes conducted the greatest
>erosion of civil liberties this century? Why all the pissing and moaning
>now about America's tin-horn tendencies, when we've been left with a
>Republican engineered governmental behemoth that quadrupled the national
>debt and expanded the list of freedoms subverted to ideological perogatives?
freedoms. Who did? Who the hell started this road to socialism by
packing the Supreme Court?? FDR??? Hmmmm..????
>Or were you cowards hiding behind the flag and foaming at the mouth with
>unfettered jingoism while your wallets grew at the expense of the poor and
>the middle class?
Explain to me how his, or my, wallet grew "..at the expense of the poor
and the middle class..." Aren't the poor defined as such because they
DON'T have money; if they don't have money, how can you say that anybody
benefitted at the expense of the poor? More crap from a soft-headed
liberal!
And before you revise and disparage the Reagan years, why don't you
read the studies done by some of YOUR think-tanks, like the liberal
Urban Institute, which concluded that 60% of the poor of 1976 moved
up the socio-economic strata by 1986 (yes, during those Reagan years).
>Quit your bitching get get the hell to work on it!
I think YOU should quit bitching about the Reagan years. Just because
others, because they worked harder or had better luck, got ahead while
people like YOU waited for the government (or anybody except yourself)
to make things better for you, DON'T disparage them. Why don't leftists
like YOU wake up and smell the coffee? THE AMERICAN DREAM IS EARNED,
NOT FOUND!!! So GO EARN IT and stop complaining about your sour
grapes!
You want all your needs taken care of you?? Go to one of those few
remaining socialist nations that are still around. How 'bout Cuba??
I am sure a Cuban would PAY YOU to trade places. Or how about
Singapore?? No, scratch that idea. Even though they are a model
socialistic nation, they do expect you to work hard.
Sad that these immigrants, who struggle so hard to get here, by illegal
methods of entrance, packed like sardines in smuggling ships, or
riding rafts for 90 miles over shark-infested waters, have a better
understanding about the American Dream and the opportunities it
offers, while sated, self-absorbed, complacent, indulgent natives
like you bitch and moan because you didn't automatically get what
you wanted.
It's not about the equality of opportunity that you bemoan; it's
the lack of equality of results that socialists like you care about.
> The Masked Jackal
A more appropriate nom de plume would be "The Masked Jackass"
PS: Yeah, I know you resent being labelled, but since you do
it so well, I thought I'd share with you how it feels.
Bertil Jonell
>In <CGGE2...@news.chalmers.se> d9be...@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell) writes:
>|In article <hines.7...@cgl.ucsf.edu> hi...@socrates.ucsf.edu (Wade Hines) writes:
>|>Seems to me that people should have the same right to refuse
>|>coverage that they have to attend private school instead of
>|>public. Only they don't have a right to reimbursement of equivalent
>|>funds.
>
>| Do you know what the result of that is? The main result is that
>|special health care(1) or private schools will only be for the *really*
>|rich, those who are rich enough to pay twice: Once directly and once
>|through the taxes.
>
>Under Clinton's plan, the health care alliances have the authority to
>forbid doctors from charging more than the alliances guidlines.
Largely irrelevant since I was answering Wade Hines statement that no
reimbursement (of money payed to health care through collective programs)
should take place if people choose to get their healthcare from outside
that same program.
I don't know how Clintons program is designed. If it behaves like
Wade Hines suggested a program should work it will have effects like
those I described, if it don't it might not have effects like that.
Mark O. Wilson
|In article <CGJGs...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwi...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark O. Wilson) writes:
|>In <CGGE2...@news.chalmers.se> d9be...@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell) writes:
|>|In article <hines.7...@cgl.ucsf.edu> hi...@socrates.ucsf.edu (Wade Hines) writes:
|>|>Seems to me that people should have the same right to refuse
|>|>coverage that they have to attend private school instead of
|>|>public. Only they don't have a right to reimbursement of equivalent
|>|>funds.
|>
|>| Do you know what the result of that is? The main result is that
|>|special health care(1) or private schools will only be for the *really*
|>|rich, those who are rich enough to pay twice: Once directly and once
|>|through the taxes.
|>
|>Under Clinton's plan, the health care alliances have the authority to
|>forbid doctors from charging more than the alliances guidlines.
| Largely irrelevant since I was answering Wade Hines statement that no
|reimbursement (of money payed to health care through collective programs)
The suggestion was made that rich people could buy out of the system.
At least that is what I thought you were implying when you brought up the
ability of rich to go to private schools.
I was just noting that under the plan presented to congress, the health
care alliances have the ability to prevent people from buying outside the
plan. The backdoor that you mention may not exist.
Jacqueline U. Robertson
Just a small point here - everything that Reagan and Bush did to subvert the
Constitution (like the war on drugs and the laws it has spawned) went on
with the happy consent of Congress - which was controlled by Democrats. We
have to get past the idea of 'Republicans' and 'Democrats' here - there's the
ruling class in Washington and then there's the rest of us. They know
what's good for us (War on Drugs, Fairness Doctrine, etc. ad nauseaum) and
will give it to us whether we like it or not. So long as we keep electing the
same bums to office each year nmothing is likely to change.
Based on my reading of the enumerated powers and the 10th amendment, MOST
of what the federal govt is doing is not constitutionally kosher. But
we've let them gain power in order to 'help' us. You can either have rights
or a national nanny. You don't get both.
James A. Robertson
<Standard Disclaimers>
G. Thomas Rush
bane...@Data-IO.COM (Greg Banerian) writes:
>Roger Bryner writes:
>> How about a government run school requiring graduate students to
>>prove that they have health insurance before they are allowed to register?
>>This will be in effect next year at the school I am at. This is just the
>>same thing on a smaller level.
>
>Not quite. I'd put this on the same line as requiring automobile insurance
>when registering your vehicle. The car is a priviledge, not "required" in
>life, so if you're going to use it, you have to insure it to protect others
>from the potential cost of misuse or accident.
Sigh.
Remember the Ninth? Not a ninth symphony,, but the Ninth
Amendment to the US Constitution? ell, look, here it is:
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not
be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Numerous court decisions have affirmed that we have a RIGHT to
drive when not engaged in commerce. You don't need a drivers
license. You don't need your car registered. You simply need to
be going about your business.
When you pick up passengers or freight for hire, it becomes
commerce, and you do need what the state proscribes. When
driving to and from work, or school, or the grocery store,
though, remember the ninth. I have cites available.
Don't let them take your rights too easily -- especially since
you seem to understand how precious they are.
>Now I'm gonna stretch this really far: a graduate education can also be
>considered a priviledge (as a side note, are they requiring the same of
>undergrads?). If you're going to get it, you've got to follow the
>requirements they set forth as long as they are universally applicable
>and fairly executed (not likely).
The rights acknowledged by the Bill or Rights are our right to
have the government leave us alone, as long as we respect other's
right to be free from coercion and fraud. You have the right to
have the government leave you alone while you get your education,
but no right for the government to _provide_ your education.
>Earning an income is a requirement in life, except for a few hermits (it
>is, however, a priviledge in the current economic climate). So the
>government, in it's infinite wisdom and unending quest for control, is
>going to force anyone who wants to earn what they eat to pay for services
>the government has deemed everyone needs, but don't worry, it's all because
>the government can control costs better. The Feds do a great job with the
>+20% of the economy they now control, so why not give them 14% more. Then
>they can shrink the health care sector the way they've already shrunk the
>size of government: by increasing efficiency. History shows it's what they
>do best.
I wonder how many got this? You may be being too subtle.
>To be honest Roger, I think your government school is giving you the shaft,
>but then again, why should the government treat you differently than anyone
>else who tries to improve their lot?
Yep.
--
thomas rush compaq computer corporation
tho...@cpqhou.compaq.com their employee, not their opinions.
It's time to tell President Clinton to cut spending _first_. Write him
at Pres...@WhiteHouse.Gov. Please do it today (and tomorrow and...).
Tim Smith
>Numerous court decisions have affirmed that we have a RIGHT to
>drive when not engaged in commerce. You don't need a drivers
>license. You don't need your car registered. You simply need to
>be going about your business.
Can you post cites to these "numerous court decisions"? So far, every time
someone has made this claim, and been asked to back it up with cites, they
have responded with cases that do not support their position, and have
ignored the numerous cases that say they are wrong.
--Tim Smith
ps: I'm only interested in the cites, not in quotes from the cited cases.
71446...@compuserve.com
In article <1993Nov17.1...@ultb.isc.rit.edu>, ams...@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (The Masked Jackal) writes...
>Where the hell were you when the Reagan/Bush regimes conducted the greatest
>erosion of civil liberties this century? Why all the pissing and moaning
>now about America's tin-horn tendencies, when we've been left with a
>Republican engineered governmental behemoth that quadrupled the national
>debt and expanded the list of freedoms subverted to ideological perogatives?
>Or were you cowards hiding behind the flag and foaming at the mouth with
>unfettered jingoism while your wallets grew at the expense of the poor and
>the middle class? Quit your bitching get get the hell to work on it!
>
> The Masked Jackal
Good choice.
D. Anton Sherwood
>erosion of civil liberties this century?
What, you think libertarians STARTED denouncing statism on 1993-Jan-20?
--
"This is a vat of viscous red fluid."
Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* DAS...@netcom.com
"Only dangerous psychotics celebrate real blood."
John Pak
>or a national nanny. You don't get both.
I prefer my rights. This slow but inexorable move towards collectivist
statism is the dream that Democrats and out-of-touch Republicans have
for America. The vision is that all Americans will have their welfare
taken care of, at the expense of their rights. This really sounds
like Lee Kwan Yew's Singapore, a place where the citizens are happy
as clams because they have little poverty, almost no crime, and
little racial tensions. However, for the "good of society," you
aren't allowed to posess gum!
We have to remember that if you forfeit your rights for a secure
welfare, you have lost control over your welfare. Lenin won
Russia with the promise of "Bread, Land, Peace." Too many
Russians took the easy way out and it took them a half-century
to throw off the yokes of a totalitarian government.
JP
The Pinhead
Just a small point here - everything that Reagan and Bush did to subvert the
Constitution (like the war on drugs and the laws it has spawned) went on
with the happy consent of Congress - which was controlled by Democrats. We
have to get past the idea of 'Republicans' and 'Democrats' here - there's the
ruling class in Washington and then there's the rest of us. They know
what's good for us (War on Drugs, Fairness Doctrine, etc. ad nauseaum) and
will give it to us whether we like it or not. So long as we keep electing the
same bums to office each year nmothing is likely to change.
Based on my reading of the enumerated powers and the 10th amendment, MOST
of what the federal govt is doing is not constitutionally kosher. But
we've let them gain power in order to 'help' us. You can either have rights
or a national nanny. You don't get both.
Well, not exactly. The Supreme Court has helped Congress out by
continually propping up the two Constitutional "loop-holes" that kept
the Federal Powers in check: the "general welfare" clause and the
"interstate commerce" clause. For an excellent treatise on the
subject of the usurpation of power by the Federal Government, see "The
Law That Never Was, Vol. II", by Bill Benson.
--
Ronald Cole E-mail: ron...@netcom.com
Senior Software Engineer ron...@abysmal.chico.ca.us
OPTX International zi...@ecst.csuchico.edu
"The Bill Of Rights -- Void Where Prohibited By Law"
Student Extraodinaire
the federal government handle what should be a state or municipal problem.
The main problem I have with nationalized health care is that it will be
chronically underfunded. In a recent National Geographic article on Sweden, it
was reported that 2/3 of their national budget was health care. Now, that would
mean $1 trillion for the US if that rate holds true. If that rate did hold
true that allows $4,000/person. Now while that may be fine for the average
person. 1 open heart surgery uses up between 4 and 5 other people's allotment.
A person I know went to the hospital for chest pains and it ran $2500, over
1/2 that person's allotment for 1 visit to the hopsital for 1 problem, this,
of course, assumes the government is willing to spend 2/3 of the budget on
health care, which I doubt it is. National health care is not the answer, a
large industrial base to create more jobs for those unemployed or underemployed
with decent enough pay to afford good insurance is a good answer to this
question. Remeber, anytime the government steps into a supply and demand
equation, the end result is rationing, and somehow I doubt the middle class will
stand for that.
--
********************************************************************************
* Warning: This .sig is under construction. Hard Hat Area! *
* Send all inquiries to kar...@expert.cc.purdue.edu *
********************************************************************************
Jeffrey Hunt
>In article <2cbsv0$r...@news.u.washington.edu>,
>Tim Smith <t...@stein3.u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>In article <2c8gfl$d...@crchh9a7.bnr.ca>, Rick Beckham <rbec...@bnr.ca> wrote:
___ amount of information about taxpayers would decrease. Currently the
___ IRS has REAMS of info about every taxpayer.
__
__How would a flat tax change anything? The amount of information collected
__by the IRS (and the complexity of the tax code) is almost all related to
__the questions of what is income, and when is it income, rather than how
__much should it be taxed.
__
__--Tim Smith
_
_ Well, for one thing you wouldn't have to list deductibles. Just list
_ your income and move the decimal point one place to the left.
_ A better tax for totally eliminating information gathered against
_ people would be sales tax, where no information is required.
_
_
With a flat tax, you shouldn't even have to file a return or give the IRS
your name. The tax can be witheld by the employer as he pays it. Then,
the only information that the IRS needs is the employer's payroll, which
information the IRS already has.
--
Jeffrey Hunt (602) 581-4082
hu...@agcs.com
Compuserve: 7376...@compuserve.com
Tim Smith
>With a flat tax, you shouldn't even have to file a return or give the IRS
>your name. The tax can be witheld by the employer as he pays it. Then,
What if there isn't an employer? For instance, what if I decide to buy
an apartment building and make my living renting out apartments?
--Tim Smith
Ted Krueger
This one is too easy. In that case you are self-employed and must file
the forms yourself, just like self-employed people today.
Ted
--
"I represent a state where gun control is how steady you hold your rifle."
- Sen. Alan Simpson
te...@twisto.compaq.com
John R. Moore
Uh huh. And how about income from that restaurant you own? How about stock
dividends or capital gains?
A flat tax is a good idea, but not for the reason you state.
--
DISCLAIMER: These views are mine alone, and do not reflect my employer's!
John Moore 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253 USA (602-951-9326)
jo...@anasazi.com Amateur call:NJ7E Civil Air Patrol:Thunderbird 381
- Democracy is two wolves and a sheep using majority vote to decide what -
- to have for dinner. SUPPORT THE BILL OF RIGHTS - INCLUDING THE 2nd! -
Tim Smith
>>Jeffrey Hunt <hu...@agcs.com> wrote:
>>>With a flat tax, you shouldn't even have to file a return or give the IRS
>>>your name. The tax can be witheld by the employer as he pays it. Then,
>>
>>What if there isn't an employer? For instance, what if I decide to buy
>>an apartment building and make my living renting out apartments?
>>
>the forms yourself, just like self-employed people today.
In other words, a flat tax wouldn't eliminate tax returns except for people
who have no income other than wages from employement and conduct no other
trade or business. Whoopi.
--Tim Smith
Ted Krueger
Exactly. Did you have any scenarios in which it would?
G. Thomas Rush
>G. Thomas Rush <tho...@cpqhou.sys.hou.compaq.com> wrote:
>>Numerous court decisions have affirmed that we have a RIGHT to
>>drive when not engaged in commerce. You don't need a drivers
>>license. You don't need your car registered. You simply need to
>>be going about your business.
>
>Can you post cites to these "numerous court decisions"? So far, every time
>someone has made this claim, and been asked to back it up with cites, they
>have responded with cases that do not support their position, and have
>ignored the numerous cases that say they are wrong.
Well, here's what I have. I hope it is of interest to you; it is
long.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 93 18:24:59 CST
From: ml...@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee)
Subject: Common Law Right to Travel/Drive
To: liber...@Dartmouth.EDU
Some background info on the definition of "Driving".
Driving is a word with multiple meanings.
It has the general usage meaning of "sitting behind the wheel of a car/truck
and managing its movement". It is a particular kind of traveling (which is a
right). Let's call this 'driving'.
It also has a narrower meaning of "managing the movement of a car/truck
which is engaged in commerce. COMMERCE includes carrying passengers or
freight on the public roads for hire". Let's call this 'DRIVING'.
driving is a right.
DRIVING is a privilege.
Texas has the authority to regulate commerce under the Texas Constitution.
It's authority to do so is based on the idea that Texas should protect the
ordinary driving public from the excesses of the commercial DRIVERS who are
using the roads in an extra-ordinary way.
Texas can therefore require DRIVERS to submit to testing and make them pay
for a DRIVING license. But, they cannot require a driver to take a test or
pay for a license.
A license is a permit to do something which would otherwise be illegal.
driving is a right and cannot be illegal.
If you have to pay for the privilege to exercise your rights, your rights
have been taken away.
If you voluntarily get a DRIVER'S license, you agree to be subject to the
authority of Texas. It is an admission that you will be DRIVING, not
driving.
Your DRIVING contract with Texas says you agree to give up your license if
your are found guilty of DRIVING while you are drunk. Also, in Texas, you
agree to forfeit your license if you refuse to take a breath or blood alcohol
test.
If you lose your license to DRIVE, you still have the right to drive.
I suggest you look up the following words in Bouvier's or Black's Law
Dictionary. The older editions are preferred for the historical
definitions which were in use when the DRIVING statutes were written.
Most DRIVING statutes were written between 1910 and 1940, as cars and trucks
became very common:
DRIVE, TRAFFIC, TRANSPORT, CARRIER, PASSENGER, FREIGHT, COMMERCE
Most of these have a general meaning and a narrower meaning under the laws
of COMMERCE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
MARK SLAGLE wrote (and I agree completely):
"The RIGHT of the citizen to drive on a 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 travel on the public highways is a constitutional
RIGHT." - Teche Lines v. Danforth, Miss. 12 So 2d 784, 787
"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
"Constitutionally protected liberty includes...the RIGHT to travel..."
as quoted in 13 Cal Jur 3d p.416
"The RIGHT of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to
transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn 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." - Slusher v. Safety
Coach Transit Co., 229 Ky 731, 17 SW2d 1012, and affirmed by the
Supreme Court in Thompson v. Smith 154 S.E. 579.
"Operation of a motor vehicle upon public streets and highways is NOT
a mere PRIVILEGE but is a RIGHT or liberty protected by the guarantees
of Federal and State constitutions." - Adams v. City of Pocatello 416
P2d 46
[Emphasis mine. Thanks to Ronald Cole (r...@unify.com)
for the citations.]
== End article 1 ==========================================================
The Right To Travel in America v1.0 collected by A. Nonymous
This file covers basic constitutional background and precedent case law.
The file "Manufacturer's Statement of Origin: Key to Ownership", introduces
the reader to the concept of avoiding the administrative nexus in the first
place.
Dedicated to the founder of the Nitty Gritty Law School, Roger Elvick.
--
Note: All citations are those of the highest court in the land, the Supreme
Court of the United States, unless otherwise noted. All decisions are in the
format volume_# U.S. [or S. Ct.] page_# [page_# page_# ...] (cal year)
--
background
"All laws which are repugnant to the constitution are null and void."
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
"The Bill of Rights was provided as a barrier, to protect the
individual against arbitrary exactions of majorities, executives,
legislatures, courts, sheriffs, and prosecutors, and it is the primary
distinction between democratic and totalitarian processes. - STANDLER
- Supreme Court of Florida en Banc, 36 So 2d 443, 445 (1948)
"Government may not prohibit or control the conduct of a person for
reasons that infringe upon constitutionally guaranteed freedoms." -
Smith v. U.S. 502 F2d 512 CA Tex (1974)
"Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be
no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them." - Miranda v.
Arizona (U.S. Supreme Court) 380 US 436 (1966)
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his
exercise of Constitutional rights." - Sherar v. Cullen 481 F2d 946 (
1973)
"We find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to
be surrendered in order to assert another." - Simmons v. US, 390 US
389 (1968)
"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted
to a crime." - Miller v. US, 230 F 486 at 489
--
when the government violates any right guaranteed by the Constitution
"To maintain an action under 42 USC 1983, it is not necessary to
allege or prove that the defendants intended to deprive plaintiff of
his Constitutional rights or that they acted willfully, purposefully,
or in a furtherance of a conspiracy...it is sufficient to establish
that the deprivation...was the natural consequences of defendants
acting under color of law..."Ethridge v. Rhodos, DC Ohio 268 F Supp 83
(1967), Whirl v. Kern CA 5 Texas 407 F 2d 781 (1968)
"When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the
constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it."
- State v. Sutton 63 Minn 167, 65 NW 262, 30 LRA 630
--
case law precedent acknowledging our right to travel
"The right of the citizen to drive on a 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 travel on the public highways is a constitutional
right." - Teche Lines v. Danforth, Miss. 12 So 2d 784, 787
"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
"Users of the highway for transportation of persons and property for
hire may be subjected to special regulations not applicable to those
using the highway for public purposes." - Richmond Baking co. v.
Department of Treasury 18 N.E. 2d 788
"Constitutionally protected liberty includes...the right to travel..."
as quoted in 13 Cal Jur 3d p.416
"Personal liberty largely consists of _the right of locomotion_ - to
go where and when one pleases - only so far restrained as the rights
of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens.
The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to
transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn 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
guarantee 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." - 11 Am Jur 1st, Constitutional
Law, Sec 329, p. 1135. see also - Slusher v. Safety Coach Transit Co.,
229 Ky 731, 17 SW2d 1012, and affirmed by the Supreme Court in Thompson
v. Smith 154 S.E. 579.
In California, a license is defined as "A permit, granted by an
appropriate governmental body, generally for a consideration, to a
person or firm, or corporation to pursue some occupation or to carry
on some business subject to regulation under the police power." -
Rosenblatt v. California 158 P2d 199, 300.
"APPLICATION. A putting to, placing before preferring a request or
petition to or before a person." - Black's, 4th ed., p 127
"REQUEST. v. To ask for something or for permission or authority to
do, see, hear, etc., something, to solicit, and is synonymous with
beg, entreat, and beseech." - Black's, 4th ed., p 1468
"PETITION. A written address, embodying an application...from the
person...preferring it, to the power, body or person to whom it is
presented, for...the grant of some favor, _privilege_, or license."
-Black's, 4th ed., p 1302
"Operation of a motor vehicle upon public streets and highways is not
a mere privilege but is a right or liberty protected by the guarantees
of Federal and State constitutions." - Adams v. City of Pocatello 416
P2d 46
And here's where even your own State of California admits there is a
difference between traveling as a matter of right, and engaging in
business on the highway:
"A citizen may have the right, under the 14th amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, to travel and transport his
property upon the public highways by auto vehicle, but he has no right
to make the highways his place of business by using them as a common
carrier for hire; such use being a privilege which may be granted or
withheld by the state in its discretion, without violating the due
process or equal protection clauses." - In Re Graham 93 Cal App 88.
The California 1937 Vehicle Code stated: "The term 'operator' shall
include all persons engaging in the transportation of persons or
property for hire or compensation by or upon motor vehicles upon any
public highway in this state, either directly or indirectly, but shall
not include the following: Any person transporting his own property in
his own vehicle..." It should be quite clear that an "operator" is/
was and still is only a person moving persons or property for hire or
compensation. This was established in 1917, followed through on in
1919, 1921, restated in 1925 and 1927 and again restated in 1937, as
well as 1941 and almost every year thereafter up to 1970 when it was
last verified and left to continue in perpetuity at that time. The
district Attorneys of this state recognise the fact that the 1923
Vehicle Act establishes the Vehicle code. Here is the original
licensing requirement: "Operators and chauffeurs MUST be licensed. It
shall be unlawful for any person to drive any motor vehicle upon any
public highway in this state whether as an operator or a chauffeur
unless licensed as an operator or a chauffeur." These two licenses
were later combined into the "driver's license", but no intention was
manifest to bring within the code any persons heretofore exempted.
Thus, you only need the license in order to engage in commercial
activity. This has been recognized by many federal and state courts.
So, you have to wonder, as I do, why most people feel compelled
to apply for and obtain licenses that they do not need, when they are
only using their cars for personal reasons. It's like going out and
getting all the licenses you need to fish for salmon, when you only
intend to have a few goldfish in a bowl. The state will not inquire
as to why you want the license. If you apply for it, they'll give it
to you.
Some confused people think that license fees are what we all owe for
the use of the roads. Not so. "The license charge imposed by the
motor vehicle act is an excise or privilege tax, established for the
purpose of revenue in order to provide a fund for roads while under
the dominion of the state authorities, it is not a tax imposed as a
rental charge or a toll charge for the use of the highways owned and
controlled by the state." - PG&E v. State Treasurer 168 Cal 420.
Notice: fees are only applicable to those in privilege, not exercising
rights.
"Justice Douglas maintained that the privileges and immunities clause
was the proper basis for the holding and further insisted that freedom
of movement was a right of national citizenship binding upon the
states and recognized as such by Crandall v. Nevada (73 US 35) before
the 14th Amendment was ratified." - in Edwards v. California 314 US
160
"Moreover, a distinction must be observed between a regulation of an
activity which may be engaged in as a matter of right and one carried
on by government sufference or permission. In the latter case the
power to exclude altogether generally includes the lesser power to
condition and may justify a degree of regulation not admissable in the
former." - Packard v. Banton 264 US 140
"The state cannot diminish rights of the people." - Hurtado v.
California 110 US 516.
"Failure to obey the command of a police officer constitutes a
traditional form of breach of the peace. Obviously, however, one
cannot be punished for failing to obey the command of an officer if
the command itself is violative of the constitution." - Wright v.
Georgia 373 US 284
"Under our form of government, the legislature is not supreme...like
other departments of government, it can only exercise such powers as
have been delegated to it, and when it steps beyond that boundary, its
acts, like those of the most humble magistrate in the state who
transcends his jurisdiction, are utterly void." - Billings v. Hall 7
CA 1
"Constitutional rights may not be infringed simply because the
majority of the people choose that they be." - Westbrook v. Mihaly 2
C3d 756
"Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to the law, for it is the author
and source of law, but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to
the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom
and for whom all government exists and acts." - "For, the very idea that one
man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material
right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to
be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of
slavery itself." Yick Wo v. Hopkins, Sheriff, 118 U.S. 356.
So you see, Road Rider, that you have to be able to understand what
the court has already said, and put it together for your own purposes.
You will never see a case come out and say "It is not illegal to eat
bananas on Sunday", and you will never see a case where someone who
ate bananas on Sunday was reported to have done so because it is not
against the law. In the same manner, you will never see a law
stating that "you don't need a driver's license or registration." You
have to be competent enough to figure it out, since you cannot find a
law requiring a person who is not in commerce to have a license or
registration. I hope that this has helped you to understand the
difference between a right and a privilege.
You should look at California Code of Civil Procedure, sections 20
to 32. We need only those sections to prove that there is no
jurisdiction to prosecute unlicensed and unregistered drivers.
Road Rider>> What do you do when the cop pulls you over for no license
plate?<<
No cop has ever "pulled me over" for that yet. They usually
follow me until I stop on private property, and then they approach to
inquire about it. I ask them to properly identify themselves, which
they usually refuse to do, and so I tell them that I can't give them
any information. Then I hand them a copy of a constructive notice
that I have specially prepared for them, which informs them of the
legal jeopardy they are putting themselves in, and also informs them
of their legal options. Since I developed that strategy, none has
seen fit to stick around. They hand back the notice and take their
leave.
It's "Admiralty JURISDICTION". Talking to a judge about
"admiralty LAW" will just inform him that you don't know what you are
talking about, and he'll ride right over you.
In a letter from Roger Hagen, Chief of DMV Division of Registration
and Investigative Services, to "All law enforcement agencies and
investigative services personnel; field offices, and headquarters
managers, dated 1/18/85, Mr. Hagen says, under the heading "Current
Trends", "Our department is currently receiving an average of two
notifications per week, requesting cancellation of their driver's
license and vehicle registration." He goes on to say, "...affidavits
are currently being received from all over the state. Cities from
which ...include...Anderson, Barstow, Burbank, Carmichael, Carson,
Cottonwood, Cupertino, Eagle Rock, Fontana, Grass Valley, Hacienda
Heights, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Milpitas, North Hollywood, Pasadena,
Redding, Sacramento, San Jose, Santa Clara, San Mateo, Santa Maria,
Summit City,, West Covina." He says, "Our experience...based upon
telephone calls, written correspondence and formal hearings, are that
they are...conversant with the California Public Records Information
Act and Information Practices Act." Under "Specific Cases", Hagen
says, "To date, our department is aware of two instances of law
enforcement encounters with members of this group which led to the
seizure and/or impound of vehicles."
But the burden of proof is on the one who claims that some law
has jurisdiction in a particular case. When that alleged jurisdiction
is challenged, the burden of proof is on the person claiming it to
exist. This is a well known maxim of law. It is impossible to prove
a negative (such as that jurisdiction does NOT exist). If it does
exist, the person(s) claiming it to exist should surely be able to
prove it. Relying upon hearsay fable or general false belief is not
sufficient.
Example: I call you a thief. If I want any hope of getting you punished
and getting paid for the damages done to me, LAWFULLY, as opposed to
killing you myself or some such uncivilized way as that (sizce we are
a government of laws and not of men), I would have to take you to court.
I would have to swear to an affidavit, stating the facts that prove you
stole something from me, the laws which make this a crime as well as the
penalties for violating them, and SWEAR means to take an oath. If you
are later found to have broken your oath, you are liable for charges of
perjury on the part of the person you accused.
Now, as the person who accuses, the burden of proof is on me; hence, the
affidavit stating relevant facts and laws applicable to those facts. Since
you can't prove a negative -- you cannot prove that you are NOT a thief,
and there is no way you should be forced to until you are accorded due
process and brought to trial, following proper procedure (which, if not
followed, can nullify your chances of convicting me) -- YOU have to prove
beyond syspicion that your accusation is true. If you can't, then the law
and the courts will not help you, and if I feel angry and damaged enough
by your false accusations, I have every right to have the courts punish
YOU (as long as I follow due process, swear to an affidavit, etc.)
The Pinhead
[Emphasis mine. Thanks to Ronald Cole (r...@unify.com)
for the citations.]
Here I am! You can find me at ron...@netcom.com. You forgot the best
evidence:
"The navigable waters leading into the Mississippi and St. Lawrence,
*and the carrying places between the same, shall be common highways and
forever free*, as well to the inhabitants of the said territory as to
the citizens of the United States, and those of any other States that
may be admitted into the confederacy, without any tax, impost, or duty
therefor." [Northwest Ordinances, Article 4]
This and Article VI, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution are enough.
Ted Frank
>>someone has made this claim, and been asked to back it up with cites, they
>>have responded with cases that do not support their position, and have
>>ignored the numerous cases that say they are wrong.
>
>Well, here's what I have. I hope it is of interest to you; it is
>long.
It's also tremendously inaccurate. Please check your facts before
posting long legal theories. The citations to quotes from court
opinions are taken out of context; a number of opinions cited
come to precisely the opposite conclusion; and crucial omissions
litter the line of reasoning -- nearly all the cites come from
California cases, for example, but California courts have consistently
rejected the idea that one has the right to drive with whatever window
tinting they want, etc.
The "right to travel" is the right to migrate from state to state,
*not* the right to drive drunk, without a license, speed, or what-have-you.
The cites to the California statutes are incomplete: they use citations
of definitions of a statutory term in the context of one law to inform
the definition in a different law, even when that law specifically states
what its definition is.
> It's "Admiralty JURISDICTION". Talking to a judge about
> "admiralty LAW" will just inform him that you don't know what you are
> talking about, and he'll ride right over you.
Precisely. But then, so will "admiralty jurisdiction." Citing UCC 1-107,
when the UCC explicitly states that it doesn't apply to traffic law, will
give the judge and the clerks a good laugh, also.
> But the burden of proof is on the one who claims that some law
>has jurisdiction in a particular case. When that alleged jurisdiction
>is challenged, the burden of proof is on the person claiming it to
>exist. This is a well known maxim of law. It is impossible to prove
>a negative (such as that jurisdiction does NOT exist). If it does
>exist, the person(s) claiming it to exist should surely be able to
>prove it.
Your very presence in the state grants in personam jurisdiction. Nice
try, though.
--
ted frank | Top Ten Ways to Improve Usenet Newsgroups
th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu | 10. Create soc.buttafuoco
the u of c law school | 9. Free car wash with every hundred posts
standard disclaimers | 8. Less talk, more rock
The Pinhead
who have no income other than wages from employement and conduct no other
trade or business. Whoopi.
How do you figure that wages are income? The U.S. Supreme Court
clearly decided in Merchants' Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255
U.S. 509, 519 (1921) that the word "income" in any tax statute passed
by Congress can have no other meaning than that of a corporation
profit from either capital, labor or both combined, or from a sale or
conversion of capital assets, or from interest.
I am aware of a lower court statement to the contrary (United States
v. Koliboski, 732 F.2d 1328, 1329 (CCA7 1985)). But arrogant and
unsupported whimsy from the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit does not have more authority than the U.S. Supreme
Court.
The Pinhead
Your very presence in the state grants in personam jurisdiction. Nice
try, though.
Oh, and of course personam jurisdiction is the only jurisdiction!
Or perhaps the only one that is not frivilous and without merit?
Rights are recognized and not granted, Ted. And turning a blind eye
to a right doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Ted Frank
>In article <1993Nov25....@midway.uchicago.edu> th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> Your very presence in the state grants in personam jurisdiction. Nice
> try, though.
>
>Oh, and of course personam jurisdiction is the only jurisdiction!
In personam jurisdiction is the only jurisdiction of relevance in this
instance. Claiming that the state doesn't have jurisdiction over you while
you're driving on their highways will only give the judge a good laugh.
>Or perhaps the only one that is not frivilous and without merit?
Do you have the faintest idea what you're babbling about?
>Rights are recognized and not granted, Ted. And turning a blind eye
>to a right doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Yes, sweetheart. Then you should phrase your argument like that,
rather than claiming that courts will actually enforce your pipe
dream.
Ted Frank
> In other words, a flat tax wouldn't eliminate tax returns except for people
> who have no income other than wages from employement and conduct no other
> trade or business. Whoopi.
>
>How do you figure that wages are income? The U.S. Supreme Court
>clearly decided in Merchants' Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255
>U.S. 509, 519 (1921) that the word "income" in any tax statute passed
>by Congress can have no other meaning than that of a corporation
>profit from either capital, labor or both combined, or from a sale or
>conversion of capital assets, or from interest.
You're good at taking opinions out of context, aren't you?
Income includes wages, as just about every Supreme Court case of relevance
has held. See, for example, Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930).
Brett J. Kottmann
>In article <ZIPPY.93N...@hairball.ecst.csuchico.edu> zi...@hairball.ecst.csuchico.edu (The Pinhead) writes:
>>In article <1993Nov25....@midway.uchicago.edu> th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>> Your very presence in the state grants in personam jurisdiction. Nice
>> try, though.
>>
>>Oh, and of course personam jurisdiction is the only jurisdiction!
>In personam jurisdiction is the only jurisdiction of relevance in this
>instance. Claiming that the state doesn't have jurisdiction over you while
>you're driving on their highways will only give the judge a good laugh.
So if a neigbhors driveway is your only access out of your
garage you have absolutely no rights beyond what they grant you?
A guess the local judge who ruled against the City of West
Carollton for just that circumstance would be mighty interested
to hear your arguments about why he should reverse his decision
to grant permanent access priviliges to the only means of egress
from a lot.
The point being, of course, is that are there alternatives?
>Yes, sweetheart. Then you should phrase your argument like that,
>rather than claiming that courts will actually enforce your pipe
>dream.
Probably as much as a pipe dream as overtuning fraudulent
elections. Does that mean we shouldn't keep trying?
Brett
Ted Frank
>th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>>In article <ZIPPY.93N...@hairball.ecst.csuchico.edu> zi...@hairball.ecst.csuchico.edu (The Pinhead) writes:
>>>In article <1993Nov25....@midway.uchicago.edu> th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>>> Your very presence in the state grants in personam jurisdiction. Nice
>>> try, though.
>>>
>>>Oh, and of course personam jurisdiction is the only jurisdiction!
>
>>In personam jurisdiction is the only jurisdiction of relevance in this
>>instance. Claiming that the state doesn't have jurisdiction over you while
>>you're driving on their highways will only give the judge a good laugh.
>
> So if a neigbhors driveway is your only access out of your
> garage you have absolutely no rights beyond what they grant you?
You must be confusing me with a libertarian.
> A guess the local judge who ruled against the City of West
> Carollton for just that circumstance would be mighty interested
> to hear your arguments about why he should reverse his decision
> to grant permanent access priviliges to the only means of egress
> from a lot.
I fail to see how anything I wrote has any implications whatsoever for
the centuries-old law of easements. It's an entirely separate issue.
>>Yes, sweetheart. Then you should phrase your argument like that,
>>rather than claiming that courts will actually enforce your pipe
>>dream.
>
> Probably as much as a pipe dream as overtuning fraudulent
> elections. Does that mean we shouldn't keep trying?
It's an entirely different thing to claim "I wish the law was X" as
opposed to telling people "The law is X," when people taking the
latter statement at its word could be faced with civil penalties.
My statements were addressed entirely at the bogus list of court
cases taken out of context.
Tim Smith
>How do you figure that wages are income? The U.S. Supreme Court
>clearly decided in Merchants' Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255
>U.S. 509, 519 (1921) that the word "income" in any tax statute passed
>by Congress can have no other meaning than that of a corporation
>profit from either capital, labor or both combined, or from a sale or
>conversion of capital assets, or from interest.
I figure that wages are income because (a) I've actually read the case you
are quoting, and it does not say what you claim it says, and (b) I've also
read many following Supreme Court cases which also make it clear that wages
are income.
--Tim Smith
Roger Bryner
Lots of people break it the law. Ever known anyone who has been hit
by an uninsured driver? I have insurance for myself covering UNINSURED
DRIVERS. Don't you think it would be beter to throw people who kill
people with cars, LIKE CONGRESMAN TED, in prison, and buy insurance to
protect yourself from damage by criminals?
Wow, I have some weird ideas somtimes.
Roger, Mad Dog Libertarian, Bryner.
Ted Frank
>Well, back on track, you know, manditory auto insurance is a bad idea.
What does that have to do with mandatory licensing of drivers?
--
ted frank | Top Ten Ways to Improve Usenet Newsgroups
th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu | 7. Mandatory seminar for use of apostrophe's
the u of c law school | 6. Wire brightness control of monitor to
standard disclaimers | make posts more intelligent.
Roger Bryner
>(Brett J. Kottmann) writes:
>>th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>>>In article <ZIPPY.93N...@hairball.ecst.csuchico.edu> zi...@hairball.ecst.csuchico.edu (The Pinhead) writes:
>>>>In article <1993Nov25....@midway.uchicago.edu> th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>>>> Your very presence in the state grants in personam jurisdiction. Nice
>>>> try, though.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, and of course personam jurisdiction is the only jurisdiction!
>>
>>>In personam jurisdiction is the only jurisdiction of relevance in this
>>>instance. Claiming that the state doesn't have jurisdiction over you while
>>>you're driving on their highways will only give the judge a good laugh.
>>
>> So if a neigbhors driveway is your only access out of your
>> garage you have absolutely no rights beyond what they grant you?
>
>You must be confusing me with a libertarian.
He isn't, and your fears about the drivway are a big exageration.
People like him make libertarians look silly for the reason of scaring
people like you off. He is a STATIST.
To find out what the Libertarians *REALLY* think,
Use anonymous FTP to RTFM.MIT.EDU
(ftp rtfm.mit.edu, prompt for user-name, give anonymous, login
name is your e-mail address)
it is under the directory
pub/usenet-by-hierarchy/alt/politic/libertarian
Or e-mail me;^)
Rick Beckham
the section that 'explicitly states it doesn't apply to traffic law'?
Ted Frank
>In article <1993Nov25....@midway.uchicago.edu>,
>Ted Frank <th...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>>> It's "Admiralty JURISDICTION". Talking to a judge about
>>> "admiralty LAW" will just inform him that you don't know what you are
>>> talking about, and he'll ride right over you.
>>
>>Precisely. But then, so will "admiralty jurisdiction." Citing UCC 1-107,
>>when the UCC explicitly states that it doesn't apply to traffic law, will
>>give the judge and the clerks a good laugh, also.
>>
> I believe it is UCC 1-207 you are referring to. And could you quote
> the section that 'explicitly states it doesn't apply to traffic law'?
Certainly. The UCC is state law of limited scope, defined by UCC 1-102,
UCC 1-103, UCC 2-102, UCC 2A-102, UCC 3-102, UCC 4-102, UCC 4A-102,
UCC 5-102, UCC 6-103, Articles 7 and 8, and UCC 9-102.
Hence, the UCC, with some variation in state to state, is applicable to
sales of goods, leases, negotiable instruments, bank deposits and
collections, funds transfers, letters of credit, bulk sales and
transfers, warehouse receipts, bills of lading, investment securities,
secured transactions, sales of accounts, and chattel paper, but it
is definitively *not* applicable to traffic violations.
--
ted frank | "But I'm not in anyone's .sig"--Vicki Robinson
the u of c | Tell your site: "I want my a.t.f.t^3!"
law school |
kibo#=0.5 | Standard disclaimers apply
Dena L Bruedigam
>...mandatory auto insurance is a bad idea. Lots of people break it the law.
> Ever known anyone who has been hit by an uninsured driver? I have insurance
> for myself covering UNINSURED DRIVERS. Don't you think it would be better to
> throw people who kill people with cars, LIKE CONGRESMAN TED, in prison, and
> buy insurance to protect yourself from damage by criminals?
You have brought up an interesting subject, and a personal pet peeve of mine.
I have been hit THREE times by motorists who did not stop, and each time I
sustained quite a bit of damage to my car, which, of course, I paid for.
Consequently my insurance rates are rather high now.
Now, I'm just speculating here....but since Ohio is a mandatory car insurance
state, I'm guessing that the people who hit me didn't have any and that's why
they kept going. Whatever the reason, it only proves that laws such as these
do not prevent innocent citizens like myself from being victimized.
=============================================================================
Dena L. Bruedigam, Publisher A radically different political 'zine!
Claustrophobia
400 N. High St. #137 Send 29-cents for free sample
Columbus, OH 43215 $10 for one-year subscription
=============================================================================
Ted Frank
>You have brought up an interesting subject, and a personal pet peeve of mine.
>I have been hit THREE times by motorists who did not stop, and each time I
>sustained quite a bit of damage to my car, which, of course, I paid for.
>Consequently my insurance rates are rather high now.
>
>Now, I'm just speculating here....but since Ohio is a mandatory car insurance
>state, I'm guessing that the people who hit me didn't have any and that's why
>they kept going. Whatever the reason, it only proves that laws such as these
>do not prevent innocent citizens like myself from being victimized.
And murder laws! They have all these penalties for murder, but I understand
that tens of thousands of people are murdered in this country every year!
It only goes to prove that laws such as these do not prevent innocent
citizens from being victimized.
What implications this has for public policy, though, I fail to see. That
mandatory insurance laws don't prevent everybody from driving without
insurance hardly means that, at the margin, they don't ensure many more
insured drivers than would exist without the law.
Dena L Bruedigam
Ted Frank writes:
> ... They have all these penalties for murder, but I understand
>that tens of thousands of people are murdered in this country every year!
>It only goes to prove that laws such as these do not prevent innocent
>citizens from being victimized.
I did not intend to make the point that no laws should exist because people
break them anyway. Rather, I was attempting to suggest that we carefully
consider the effect, purpose, and value of laws before we whole-heartedly
endorse them, and make sure that we are punishing the law-breaker for the right
reason.
Suppose you are hit by a speeding motorist who runs a red light.
He could be guilty of breaking many laws...maybe his auto registration or
drivers license is expired...maybe he doesn't have any insurance....maybe his
car doesn't have a government inspection sticker on it...whatever. So what?
These things have no effect on me (victimless crimes). But what has harmed me
is the fact that this person ran into me and damaged my property through no
fault of mine, and for that I want him to make restitution. This is the true
crime he has committed.
(And I can't help but think that the fact that he broke the other,
insignificant laws may make him more inspired to keep going and not look back,
thus making it even more difficult for me to receive payment for my damages.)
You can pass a million laws which require people to have auto insurance and
but that won't make them responsible citizens. By the same token, you can
require a million licenses to operate a vehicle and it still won't eliminate
irresponsibility. So why bother? Why not hold people responsible for their
actions which harm others rather than for not buying the right license/permit?
^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^
Tim Smith
>>Can you post cites to these "numerous court decisions"? So far, every time
>>someone has made this claim, and been asked to back it up with cites, they
>>have responded with cases that do not support their position, and have
>>ignored the numerous cases that say they are wrong.
>
>Well, here's what I have. I hope it is of interest to you; it is
>long.
Thanks. I went to the library and read the cases. Below are the quotes
from them that you supplied, and my corrections. Whoever did the original
"research" was dishonest. I say dishonest, rather than incompetent, because
these are not simple misquotes. In one case, for instance, the "quote" is
an extensive rearrangement of what was actually in the court's opinion.
When reading the material that follows, please keep in mind that G. Thomas
Rush merely passed it on. Don't blame him.
> "The RIGHT of the citizen to drive on a 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)
That should have been 14 Cal App 3rd 930. It's page 667 in Cal Rptr. At
least this one is not misquoted. It's just inappropriate. It has nothing
to say about driving without a license or vehicle registration.
> "The RIGHT to travel on the public highways is a constitutional
> RIGHT." - Teche Lines v. Danforth, Miss. 12 So 2d 784, 787
I didn't write down any comments on this one. If anyone really cares
what was wrong with it, I'll go back and take another look.
>
> "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
A better cite for this would be 222 P.2d 1. That's more likely to be available
in a typical law library. The problem here is blatant misquoting. The above
contains parts of two separate sentences. The part of the above up to the
semi-colon is from the first sentence. That sentence goes on with something
like "and subject to reasonable regulation" (I didn't write down exact quotes).
The second sentence, from which the part after the semi-colon in the above
is cut, also mentions that the right is subject to regulation.
> "Constitutionally protected liberty includes...the RIGHT to travel..."
> as quoted in 13 Cal Jur 3d p.416
I didn't look for this one. If someone can give me a better cite, I'm willing
to take a look and see what's been left out in those "..."s, although it's
pretty easy to guess!
> "The RIGHT of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to
> transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn 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." - Slusher v. Safety
> Coach Transit Co., 229 Ky 731, 17 SW2d 1012, and affirmed by the
> Supreme Court in Thompson v. Smith 154 S.E. 579.
The first case above, the one from Kentucky, does not contain anything
whatsoever resembling the above quote. The second case, which is not
an affirmation of the first (the "Supreme Court" mentioned above is a
state Supreme Court, not the U.S. Supreme Court, and state Supreme Courts
do not affirm the decisions of other state Supreme Courts), contains a
couple of paragraphs that contain the words in the above quote. To get
to the quote above, you have to delete the parts that talk about how
states can regulate driving by individuals, and then do a bunch of
rearrangement of what's left, but all the words are there at least!
>
> "Operation of a motor vehicle upon public streets and highways is NOT
> a mere PRIVILEGE but is a RIGHT or liberty protected by the guarantees
> of Federal and State constitutions." - Adams v. City of Pocatello 416
> P2d 46
The very next sentence says that this right can be regulated under the
police power of the state. (I may be slightly off here about the police
power part. I think this was the one that mentioned that, but it may
have been one of the others. All I wrote down in my notes was "next
sentence-regulation" rather than the contents of the next sentence).
I am not impressed.
--Tim Smith