On Oct 17, 8:35 pm, proffsl wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
proffsl wrote:

Licensing is not any part of the court's recognition of our Right "to
operate a motor vehicle on public highways", but instead Licensing
is subjected upon this Right as a part of a police power:

That, dear friend IS WHAT MAKES them linked.

Linked by decision, but not inseparable by nature.

Completely irrelevant to the fact that they *are* linked. At last you
have accepted that fact! Good for you!!

Without the imposition of this police power upon our Right "to
operate a motor vehicle on public highways", Licensing would
be nonexistent and not an issue.

So what?

So, without the decision to impose this police power upon our Right
"to operate a motor vehicle on public highways", Licensing would be
nonexistent, and not an issue....

Again I say, so what? The decision *was* made. Your supposition is
irrelevant to the discussion.

... because it is not the nature of the
Right which requires the Licensing, but instead the decision to impose
this police power.

So what? That does not make it illegitimate at all; in fact it makes
it completely legitimate.

The nature of the Right, without this imposition
of police power, is that we have the Right "to operate a motor vehicle
on public highways".

But we don't so that's irrelevant. Remember, Hendrick, which upheld
licensing at the SCOTUS level, preceded the other decisions you cite,
so the case law always has linked the two.

And to that point, the courts recognize a definite
limitation upon the implementation of police powers:

Under the broad authority of the police power, a state legislature may
enact laws concerning the health, safety, and welfare of the people so
long as the regulations are not arbitrary or unreasonable." - State of
Idaho v. Mark Wilder (2003) -http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/idahostatecases/app/1033/wilder.pdf

Irrelevant

Law is irrelevant?

No, your reasoning of the dicta in the Wilder case is irrelevant. You
merely differ with the decision that found licensing *is* reasonable
and not arbitrary. That's your right. But those to whom we give the
authority to make such decisions have found differently than you would
like.

Which Laws? The one's you love so dearly? Or the
one's that threaten the continuance of those Laws you love so dearly?

None of the above, as I just explained. I don't "love" any laws. What
is, is. What I do have is an understanding and respect that you lack.

Therefore, upon demonstration that said police power is indeed
arbitrary or unreasonable, the revocation of said police power must
rightfully be forthcoming, along with the revocation of any
requirement of Licensing.

No, you're wrong.

Ah! Never mind answering my previous question. You answered it
here. The Laws that are Irrelevant to you are those Laws which
threaten the continuance of other Laws you love so dearly.

You are completely incorrect. When I said that you are "wrong" above,
I referred to the indisputable fact that you have failed to show the
legitimate use of the public welfare and safety provisions of the
Constitution in requiring people to show a certain level of knowledge
and ability before piloting three-ton masses of metal on my street is
an arbitrary and unreasonable use of that authority. I said "you're
wrong" that you think you have established that.

I trust you understand now.

And I don't "love" laws. You make the common mistake of all fanatics
in that you think just because you *hate* certain laws, anyone who
disagrees with you must "love" them. If you'll recall, I have told you
many times in the past 18 months that I could support you if you were
to propose legislation to eliminate licensing. Just because I have
proven your lies to be lies regarding your grand konspiracy theory
about all this does not mean that I couldn't support alternative
methods to achieve the goals of public safety and welfare. All I am
saying is that simply because you can construct another way of doing
something doesn't mean the way we do it now is illegal, immoral of
fattening.

And, indeed, Driver Licensing IS unreasonable due to it's redundant
and unnecessary nature.

That is not a qualifier on which to declare something arbitrary or
unreasonable. Just because you think you have another way to get
to a goal doesn't mean ALL other ways are invalid.

Unnecessary laws are indeed unreasonable.

No they are not.

You lose.

Oh, I'm sorry but no, I won. You lost 18 months ago and you haven't
come up with a new line since.