Driver Licensing not about highway safety

This is unbelievable. Yet again for the 13th time, you have to
immediately repost your false claims in a reply because you again
forgot to rechange the subject line back to reflect your lies -- even
after I pointed this out each time! Wow.


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.

On Oct 17, 6:18 pm, Alan S wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 11:56:15 -0400, Dave Smith

wrote:

You are quite right. It isn't exactly on topic for this news group.
However, it has probably become clear to you, as it is to many others, that
his constant re-posting of the same nonsense, his inappropriate cites and
his blatant misinterpretation of legal cases, that the poor guy has some
significant mental problems.

As do those who keep arguing with a closed mind.

Yet neither compares with those so obsessed that they would keep
following such an exchange and then jump in to tell us we should stop,
when they can simply not follow it in the first place. Eh?

"Jochen Kriegerowski" wrote:
"proffsl" schrieb

Correct me if you wish to be incorrect, but aren't we supposed
to have a government by the people, of the people, and for the
people?

The people (or better: Peoples, since this newsgroup is worldwide)
doesn't (or don't) govern by newgroups, but (in most cases) by
elected representatives.

Yet, it is the opinions of those people that are supposed to be
represented, and newsgroups is a place where opinions are expressed
and adopted. But, that isn't the issue, so I see no use in pursuing
this path of discussion.


You should either address those, or if you are not happy with
what they decide in your name, the courts as before mentioned.

This may offend you, but I am not here seeking advice.


Tourists interested in travelling North America are the wrong folks
to complain to.

This may confuse you, but I am not here "complaining". Just the
facts.


Your whole tread could not be more off topic here.

This may disillusion you, but you are incorrect.


So it's you who obviously is not interested in discussing subject
related points (even if driving a car on highways is one way to
travel)

You avoid the subject to tell me I'm not interested in discussing the
subject. I'm not interested in discussing how you believe I'm not
interested in discussion the subject. That isn't the subject. If you
wish to get on subject, you will cease this line of discussion.

proffsl wrote:
"Jochen Kriegerowski" wrote:
"proffsl" schrieb

Correct me if you wish to be incorrect, but aren't we supposed
to have a government by the people, of the people, and for the
people?

The people (or better: Peoples, since this newsgroup is worldwide)
doesn't (or don't) govern by newgroups, but (in most cases) by
elected representatives.

Yet, it is the opinions of those people that are supposed to be
represented, and newsgroups is a place where opinions are expressed
and adopted. But, that isn't the issue, so I see no use in pursuing
this path of discussion.

The opinion of the people has been represented here, and in society,
for a century in the demand for and use of a system of licensing and
registration as part of fostering the public welfare and safety in the
use of our roads.

You should either address those, or if you are not happy with
what they decide in your name, the courts as before mentioned.

This may offend you, but I am not here seeking advice.

Nor are you seeking truth. You know what the courts have rules, and
they have all ruled consistently against all of your claims.

Tourists interested in travelling North America are the wrong folks
to complain to.

This may confuse you, but I am not here "complaining". Just the
facts.

You wouldn't know a fact if it showed up in your bong.

So it's you who obviously is not interested in discussing subject
related points (even if driving a car on highways is one way to
travel)

You avoid the subject to tell me I'm not interested in discussing the
subject. I'm not interested in discussing how you believe I'm not
interested in discussion the subject. That isn't the subject. If you
wish to get on subject, you will cease this line of discussion.

The subject is: Why do you persist in presenting claims that have been
utterly disproven, and why do you cite court cases that contradict you
-except for the one you completely fabricated?

wrote:
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.

Because a police power may not be either arbitrary or unreasonable,
and because my argument is that this police power is indeed
unnecessary and therefore unreasonable, the fact that Licensing and
our Right to operate a motor vehicle on public highways are linked
ONLY by this police power is far from irrelevant and in fact extremely
relevant and pivotal to this discussion.


At last you have accepted that fact! Good for you!!

At least you have accepted the fact their not linked by nature, and
only by a police power. 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 because it is not the nature
of the Right which requires the Licensing, but instead the decision
to impose this police power.

Again I say, so what?

That in itself, and that you have accepted the fact that 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. Great job k_flynn!


The decision *was* made. Your supposition is irrelevant
to the discussion.

Because a police power may not be either arbitrary or unreasonable, my
argument is that this police power is indeed unnecessary and therefore
unreasonable is far from irrelevant and in fact extremely relevant and
pivotal to this discussion.


So what?

So, you agree that Licensing is not a natural part of our Right to
operate a motor vehicle on our public highways, but instead a part of
a police power circumventing this Right. In respect to your prior
understand, you have made giant leaps k_flynn, but still a
considerable way to go. Keep up the good work.


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.

Indeed they are. You lose. You should be use to it, as you never win.

On Oct 19, 12:17 am, wrote:
wrote:
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.

Because a police power may not be either arbitrary or unreasonable,
and because my argument is that this police power is indeed
unnecessary and therefore unreasonable,...

Your argument, however, is faulty and is nonsense, as I have amply
demonstrated.

... the fact that Licensing and
our Right to operate a motor vehicle on public highways are linked
ONLY by this police power is far from irrelevant and in fact extremely
relevant and pivotal to this discussion.

You missed it again, what a surprise. I didn't say that it's
irrelevant that the Constitution's completely lawful authorization, by
and through the people, of governmental policing authority for public
welfare and safety, and our right to travel by driving motor vehicles,
are linked. What I said was irrelevant was your point that they are
not inseparable. That's a given but irrelevant to this discussion.
Your argument comes down to "because they are linked, they should be
unlinked." That's no argument and is an irrelevant point.

Besides, you were wrong in your original claim that licensing isn't
part of any court's decision on our right to travel by driving. It is,
since Hendrick a century ago.

At last you have accepted that fact! Good for you!!

At least you have accepted the fact their not linked by nature, and
only by a police power. Good for you!

I never said otherwise. Are you again having trouble comprehending?

You seem to think that's some magical discovery that makes you right.
No one's ever disputed that the system of licensing is based on the
lawful constitutional authority - indeed, duty - of government given
by us to establish public welfare and safety. That only strengthens my
case. Thank 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 because it is not the nature
of the Right which requires the Licensing, but instead the decision
to impose this police power.

Again I say, so what?

That in itself, and that you have accepted the fact that 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. Great job k_flynn!

You think that realizing the tautological nature of what you just said
takes anything other than reading it? Wow.

Still it's irrelevant, and I again say, so what? All you said was "If
we never voted to have a system of licensing, we wouldn't have a
system of licensing." If you never smoked another bong, you'd never
get stoned. So what?

It means nothing in the discussion. We *have* voted ourselves a system
of licensing, and it's OK and proper that we've done so. If we hadn't,
then we wouldn't have it. You think this is some major breakthrough in
understanding? You are at kindergarten level then.

The decision *was* made. Your supposition is irrelevant
to the discussion.

Because a police power may not be either arbitrary or unreasonable, my
argument is that this police power is indeed unnecessary...

Well, you've been shown to be wrong on this so many times, it needn't
be repeated. So your conclusion is irrelevant.

... and therefore
unreasonable is far from irrelevant and in fact extremely relevant and
pivotal to this discussion.

You aren't Boss of the World yet so just because *you* think it was
arbitrary and unreasonable, that and a dollar and a half will get you
a cup of coffee at the Who Gives A **** Diner.

So what?

So, you agree that Licensing is not a natural part of our Right to
operate a motor vehicle on our public highways, but instead a part of
a police power circumventing this Right.

That's a completely illogical conclusion on your part, but again no
surprise. As I said many many times, the lawful public safety function
of the Constitution is *not* a circumvention of any right. It *is* a
right - we have a right to safety and the general good public welfare.
It's actually in there in the Constitution thingy.

In respect to your prior
understand, you have made giant leaps k_flynn, but still a
considerable way to go. Keep up the good work.

It's good that you're recognizing my superior intellect compared to
yours. Your realization may reflect a dawning or awakening on your
part since you are slowly starting to see you are wrong.

Nothing I have said has ever changed. The fact that you sense some
change must mean the truth may eventually slowly dawn on you.

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.

Indeed they are.

No, they are not. You're just stringing words together and pretending
they mean something.

You lose. You should be use to it, as you never win.

Put down the bong, Proffs. You've been thoroughly thrashed. I've
completely refuted each and every point you've tried to make; in fact,
all of the cites you've posted, upon analysis, actually supported my
point of view and contradicted yours. You're the one posting case law
that upholds licensing to support your claims that licensing is
unconstitutional. That is the very definition of someone who is
"lost."

Speaking of lost, what's with the new email address. Changing your
identity?

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 23:17:55 -0700, wrote:

Because a police power may not be
drivel snipped

Amazing! You've slipped out of my killfile so you must have
kept this monomania up for more than thirty days!
Congratulations on the troll, as I know you've managed to
suck people in who have continued to respond to your weird
crap.

You have my award for troll of the month.

Now back you go for another thirty days...

Cheers, Alan, Australia
--
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: Slovenia
http://loraltraveloz.blogspot.com/
latest: Mossman Gorge in the Daintree Rainforest

"Alan S" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 23:17:55 -0700, wrote:

Because a police power may not be
drivel snipped

Amazing! You've slipped out of my killfile so you must have
kept this monomania up for more than thirty days!
Congratulations on the troll, as I know you've managed to
suck people in who have continued to respond to your weird
crap.

You have my award for troll of the month.

Now back you go for another thirty days...


Well, at least he'll have 30 days to think of something new to post, though
I'm not holding my breath! ;-)
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website view over 3,600 live cameras or
visit NASA, the Vatican, the Smithsonian, the Louvre, CIA, FBI, and
NBA, the White House, Academy Awards, 150 language translators!
Visit Hawaii, Israel and more at: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

"proffsl" wrote in message
ps.com...
"Alohacyberian" wrote:
live, have. You are pathetic.

I may be pathetic, but, I have a driver license. You don't.

What makes you so damn pathetic is that after you have been so
thoroughly proven wrong in regards to your ignorance of our Right to
operate motor vehicles on our public highways

Operation of motor vehicles isn't a "right". You need a new dictionary, a
new lawyer, a new mentor, a new tin-foil hat or new medication. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website view over 3,600 live cameras or
visit NASA, the Vatican, the Smithsonian, the Louvre, CIA, FBI, and
NBA, the White House, Academy Awards, 150 language translators!
Visit Hawaii, Israel and more at: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

wrote:
proffsl wrote:

At least you have accepted the fact their not linked by nature, and
only by a police power. Good for you!

I never said otherwise.

As if you agree.


So, you agree that Licensing is not a natural part of our Right to
operate a motor vehicle on our public highways, but instead a part
of a police power circumventing this Right.

That's a completely illogical conclusion on your part,

As if you disagree.