Driver Licensing not 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.

"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.

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

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.

- 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.

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.

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.

wrote:
proffsl wrote:

You are lying.

I have never lied.

You are lying.

"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/

"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!