If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#271
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing is about highway safety
proffsl wrote:
wrote: proffsl wrote: "Alohacyberian" wrote: "proffsl" wrote: "Alohacyberian" wrote: Operation of motor vehicles isn't a "right". The operation of a motor vehicle on public highways is a Right, Sorry, you don't know the legal meaning of a "right". Baseless Ad Hominem. "The Idaho Supreme Court, however, has held that the right to operate a motor vehicle on public highways is a matter of constitutional dimension. In Adams v. City of Pocatello , 91 Idaho 99, 101, 416 P.2d 46, 48 (1966), the Court declared that the right to drive "is a right or liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions. Consequently, the courts of this state must regard the right to drive a motor vehicle on public highways as constitutionally protected." - State of Idaho v. Mark Wilder (2003) -http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/idahostatecases/app/1033/wilder.pdf You left out the part of the ruling, as you always do, that included licensing as part of the exercise of the right to travel by auto. Licensing is not a part of our Right to operate a motor vehicle on public highways. Yes it is. I've proven that unquestioningly and irrefutably. You have a right to travel on the public streets in the ordinary way and that ordinary was fully includes licensed drivers in registered vehicles. That's your right, so have a license. No question about it. If you continue to question it, it only makes you continue to be wrong. Try to change it, as I said, I could be supportive of that. But you cannot deny the obvious truths, as you've been doing through your misinterpreted cites and even that fabricated one last year when we proved you wrong. All your cites contradicted your position. Doesn't that give you some sort of clue? Licensing is a part of the police power being unreasonably imposed upon our Right to operate a motor vehicle on public highways. As has been proven, it is not unreasonable at all. It is fully in line with the Constitution and your point has been argued often in litigation, and is always on the losing side. Sorry. You don't get to make your own laws. |
#272
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
"Alohacyberian" wrote:
"proffsl" wrote in message "Alohacyberian" wrote: "proffsl" wrote: "Alohacyberian" wrote: Operation of motor vehicles isn't a "right". The operation of a motor vehicle on public highways is a Right, Sorry, you don't know the legal meaning of a "right". Baseless Ad Hominem. My response is not baseless and has nothing to do with ad hominem It most certainly is, and does. (which apparently is another definition which escapes you). An Ad Hominem is an attack against the messenger as if it were an atack against the message. http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-hominem.html Getting a driver license is not a "right" in the legal sense of the word. You will be quite unable to show where I have ever claimed anyone has a "Right to get a driver license". I have never made such a claim. If you think it's a right, then you don't know the legal meaning of the word, This is a false delima. It is entirely possible that one can have a very clear understanding of the meaning of the word "right", yet still believe we do or do not have a certain Right when the state or others disagree. Besides, I'm only reporting what the court said. If what you claimed were true, then you would be saying that the courts don't know the legal meaning of the word. "The Idaho Supreme Court, however, has held that the right to operate a motor vehicle on public highways is a matter of constitutional dimension. In Adams v. City of Pocatello , 91 Idaho 99, 101, 416 P.2d 46, 48 (1966), the Court declared that the right to drive "is a right or liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions. Consequently, the courts of this state must regard the right to drive a motor vehicle on public highways as constitutionally protected." - State of Idaho v. Mark Wilder (2003) - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...033/wilder.pdf Which is also probably why you stated, "Baseless Ad Hominem," because you are unable to refute the statement. I said it was baseless, because YOU made a statement that YOU are unable to support. |
#273
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing is all about highway safety
proffsl wrote: wrote: proffsl wrote: "Alohacyberian" wrote: It would be much easier for you to study your local driver license manual and try to pass the test this time rather than go on the Usenet and plea for laws to be changed for those who flunk the tests. More Ad Hominems by someone who seems only to exercise their imagined psychic powers as a means of generating baseless personal attacks. You are the one who initiates personal attacks. You are lying. I have never lied. You are a liar; you started it last year, and you know it because it was pointed out to you *and you acknowledged the offensive behavior at the time* only to deny it later and pretend not to know anything about it. You started it this year undeniably and I pointed it out to you for posterity. It is your track record, your proven MO. Thankfully you backed off since you got it back in spades. I don't take it from you, so don't start it again |
#274
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing is most certainly about highway safety
proffsl wrote:
This is a false delima. Does that mean relating the capital of Peru being phony? Besides, I'm only reporting what the court said. No you're not. You're taking snippets out of context. You cannot do that. You must take the case as a whole as the court considered it. The Wilder case UPHELD licensing. Your citation of it is ludicrous as it contradicts your positions. "The Idaho Supreme Court, however, has held that the right to operate a motor vehicle on public highways is a matter of constitutional dimension. In Adams v. City of Pocatello , 91 Idaho 99, 101, 416 P.2d 46, 48 (1966), the Court declared that the right to drive "is a right or liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions. Consequently, the courts of this state must regard the right to drive a motor vehicle on public highways as constitutionally protected." - State of Idaho v. Mark Wilder (2003) - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...033/wilder.pdf Thank you for proving my case again for me!! Wilder's conviction for driving without a license was UPHELD. Here, for you, more snippets that you overlooked (this one is right at the top of your cite): "Judgment of conviction for driving without a license, affirmed." http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...033/wilder.pdf And: "A state law does not impermissibly infringe on this right unless impeding travel is the law's primary objective, the law actually deters such travel, or the law uses a classification that serves to penalize the exercise of the right." http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...033/wilder.pdf And try this one on for size too: "Other jurisdictions have held that the right to travel does not imply the right to choose a particular mode of travel, or a "right to drive." (sorta blows you outta the water there too) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...033/wilder.pdf And this too: "Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that right to travel was not unconstitutionally impeded where appellant's application for renewal of driver's license was rejected for failure to supply social security number because appellant did not have a fundamental right to drive a motor vehicle)" http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...033/wilder.pdf And take that too: "State v. Skurdal, 767 P.2d 304 (Mont. 1988) (holding that right to travel was not implicated where appellant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle without a valid driver's license because the right to travel did not include the right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways)" http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...033/wilder.pdf AND THAT: "16B Am. Jur. 2d, Constitutional Law § 613 ("There is no constitutional right to a particular mode or manner of travel." http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...033/wilder.pdf And if that weren't enough to bury you under the contradictory weight of your very own cite, let's lay this on top of your grave: "The courts of this state must regard the right to drive a motor vehicle on public highways as constitutionally protected. The state of Idaho may subject this right to reasonable regulation, however, in the exercise of its police power." http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...033/wilder.pdf KAPOW: "We have previously held that driver's license and vehicle registration requirements are legitimate exercises of the state's police power, Gordon, 108 Idaho at 180, 697 P.2d at 1194." http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...033/wilder.pdf The coup de grace: "The requirement that drivers be licensed before operating motor vehicles on the streets and highways of this state promotes public safety and order by requiring that vehicle operators meet minimal standards for knowledge of the rules of the road and driving competence." http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...033/wilder.pdf Et la finale: "The judgment of conviction is therefore affirmed." http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...033/wilder.pdf These are all FROM YOUR CITE. Your argument is not only a dead horse, but that horse has become the glue that binds my irrefutable proof that you are wrong. You're finished. Your arguments cannot be resuscitated. Organize a political drive to change the current system, I have told you many times, and I could support that. But as of now, your arguments are down with the Titanic. |
#275
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing is about highway safety
- wrote:
Licensing is not a part of our Right to operate a motor vehicle on public highways. Yes it is. I've proven that unquestioningly and irrefutably. You have a right to travel on the public streets in the ordinary way and that ordinary was fully includes licensed drivers in registered vehicles. That's your right, so have a license. No question about it. If you continue to question it, it only makes you continue to be wrong. Try to change it, as I said, I could be supportive of that. It would appear that proffsl's fixation is not really about the legality of driver licensing but about his sanity. He keeps dragging his bull**** argument out into a travel news group over and over and over, using the same arguments and the same bull**** misinterpreted cites. He needs professional help. My best advice is to ignore him. I think that everyone knows he is terribly stupid, misguided and not playing with a full deck. Ignore him for a while and he will go somewhere else to play. |
#276
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing is about highway safety
On Oct 25, 7:43 pm, Dave Smith wrote:
- wrote: Licensing is not a part of our Right to operate a motor vehicle on public highways. Yes it is. I've proven that unquestioningly and irrefutably. You have a right to travel on the public streets in the ordinary way and that ordinary was fully includes licensed drivers in registered vehicles. That's your right, so have a license. No question about it. If you continue to question it, it only makes you continue to be wrong. Try to change it, as I said, I could be supportive of that. It would appear that proffsl's fixation is not really about the legality of driver licensing but about his sanity. He keeps dragging his bull**** argument out into a travel news group over and over and over, using the same arguments and the same bull**** misinterpreted cites. He needs professional help. My best advice is to ignore him. I think that everyone knows he is terribly stupid, misguided and not playing with a full deck. Ignore him for a while and he will go somewhere else to play. Nah, that doesn't work. He's impervious to being ignored. He sometimes replies to himself. I just enjoy proving him wrong because it's so easy I can post while watching the World Series here, or doing Sudoku online. My suggestion for folks who find it annoying is just to kf the thread, or him, or me. |
#277
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
wrote:
proffsl wrote: wrote: proffsl wrote: "Alohacyberian" wrote: "proffsl" wrote: "Alohacyberian" wrote: Operation of motor vehicles isn't a "right". The operation of a motor vehicle on public highways is a Right, Sorry, you don't know the legal meaning of a "right". Baseless Ad Hominem. "The Idaho Supreme Court, however, has held that the right to operate a motor vehicle on public highways is a matter of constitutional dimension. In Adams v. City of Pocatello , 91 Idaho 99, 101, 416 P.2d 46, 48 (1966), the Court declared that the right to drive "is a right or liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions. Consequently, the courts of this state must regard the right to drive a motor vehicle on public highways as constitutionally protected." - State of Idaho v. Mark Wilder (2003) -http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/idahostatecases/app/1033/wilder.pdf You left out the part of the ruling, as you always do, that included licensing as part of the exercise of the right to travel by auto. Licensing is not a part of our Right to operate a motor vehicle on public highways. Yes it is. I've proven that unquestioningly and irrefutably. As you have previously acknowledged what I say, you are lying. Where the court recognizes the Right to operate motor vehicles on public highways, Licensing is not mentioned as a part of that Right.. Licensing IS NOT a part of our Right to operate a motor vehicle on public highways. Licensing is a part of the police power being unreasonably imposed upon our Right to operate a motor vehicle on public highways. As has been proven, it is not unreasonable at all. The police power to require Driver Licensing, circumventing our Right to operate motor vehicles on public highways, serves no purpose to highway safety that laws against endangerment didn't already serve, and is therefore unreasonable. |
#278
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
wrote:
proffsl wrote: You are lying. I have never lied. You are lying. |
#279
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing is about highway safety
"Dave Smith" wrote in message
... It would appear that proffsl's fixation is not really about the legality of driver licensing but about his sanity. What sanity? 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/ |
#280
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing is about highway safety
"Alohacyberian" wrote in message ... "Dave Smith" wrote in message ... It would appear that proffsl's fixation is not really about the legality of driver licensing but about his sanity. What sanity? KM Keith performing before us all his rendition yet again of the Keith Martin of red herrings, non sequiturs, and ad hominems rather than addressing the question/issue. And in so doing, he yet again does the KM2 of ignoring the question/issue as per my question to him: "Do you agree that a maker of a statement is accountable for that statement? A simple 'yes' or 'no' from you will suffice." Note also, please, that he has yet to respond to my request that he substantiate his Sunday, 10/21/07 5:28am statement that it rains no more in Hilo than in the UK....another instance of the KM2. Perhaps after his unsuccessfully employing the Keith Martin of non sequiturs, red herrings, and ad hominems; the Alvin Toda of crawling back under his rock for a while; and his own very childish six year old taunt "Yes or no. KM," he is of the thinking that the KM2 of ignoring will be successful in silencing my reminders that he is a master evader. Sorry, Keith, no such luck. You keep ducking my accountability question - and each and every time you appear I will remind all here that you do indeed duck. Duck-a-way, duck-a-way Keith. Quack, quack! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Driver Licensing serves no purpose for highway safety | proffsl | USA & Canada | 0 | September 17th, 2007 09:50 AM |
Become an Activist for Better Health! Join Bio Pro's Company to promote the Safety Wireless Initiative! safety for Cell Phones & Bio Pro Technology! research Its a WIN WIN! | [email protected] | Asia | 0 | July 27th, 2007 03:41 AM |
Safety for Cell Phones-Mobile Hazards-Cell Phone Safety-Bio Pro Universal Cell Chip, Purchase from a Bio Pro Consultant, Destress EMF Radiation in Australia, South Africa, United States, New Zealand, and Canada!! | [email protected] | Europe | 0 | June 6th, 2007 03:47 AM |
Smart Card BIO PRO, Purchase products from Bio Pro Consultant,Australia,New Zealand,South Africa,Canada,A New Generation of wellness and safety, Safety for Electronics with Bio Pro | [email protected] | Europe | 0 | May 6th, 2007 06:07 PM |
Licensing tellys | [email protected] | Europe | 2 | October 12th, 2004 03:23 AM |