Driver Licensing not about highway safety

wrote:
proffsl wrote:
Dave Smith wrote:

He used crap cites to support his strange conclusions,

Dave apparently considers cites where our courts recognize our Right
to Drive automobiles on our public highways as "crap sites"! And, as
my conclusion is also that we have the Right to Drive automobiles on
our public highways, then I suppose that's "strange" that my
conclusion coincides with the courts.

You have selectively presented your claim here - you say you have a
right to drive without a license yet not one single solitary court in
the land that has considered this question agrees.

Point A: I have stated, and proven, that courts have recognized our
Right to Drive automobiles on our public highways:

"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

There can be no reasonable denial that the courts above have
recognized our "right to operate a motor vehicle on public highways"
In this recognition, no appendage is added to this Right, as you have
often falsely claimed. Point A is affirmed.

Point B: I have also stated, and proven, that dispite those courts
recognizing our Right to Drive automobiles on our public highways,
they choose to circumvent this Right by their employment of a police
power:

"The state of Idaho may subject this right to reasonable regulation,
however, in the exercise of its police power." -- State of Idaho v.
Mark Wilder (2003) -http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/
idahostatecases/app/1033/wilder.pdf

This is not an appendage to our "right to operate a motor vehicle on
public highways", but instead a circumvention of that Right by the
employment of a police power. Point B is affirmed.

Point C: A police power must not be arbitrary or unreasonable:

"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/...033/wilder.pdf

Of these facts, you only prove yourself to be a fool to continue to
deny. Point C is affirmed.


And, my claim is that Driver Licensing IS INDEED "arbitrary and
unreasonable", thus my claim that Driver Licensing serves no
purpose to highway safety that laws against endangerment didn't
already serve.

And that claim is summarily dismissed as incorrect and disproven.

summarily - "done without delay or formality : quickly executed"

In other words, you have "dismissed as incorrect and disproven" more
as a reflex, without any substantive thought or consideration, much
less evidence.


In support of this claim, I present evidence that about 98% of all
automobile accidents are caused by WILLFUL acts of negligence:

This is your famous misrepresentation of a study that doe NOT say
what you claim.

Instead of expecting us to honor your summarily issued dispute, why
don't you elaborate? My claim is that 98% of automobile accidents are
caused by willful acts of negligence. My supporting evidence is:

"The majority of car accidents are caused by irresponsible driving
behavior. Statistics also show that 98% of car accidents involve a
single distracted driver." - http://www.legalmatch.com/law-librar...accidents.html

"Over 95% of motor vehicle accidents (MVAs, in the USA, or Road
Traffic Accidents, RTAs, in Europe) involve some degree of driver
behavior combined with one of the other three factors. Drivers always
try to blame road conditions, equipment failure, or other drivers for
those accidents. When the facts are truthfully presented, however, the
behavior of the implicated driver is usually the primary cause. Most
are caused by excessive speed or aggressive driver behavior." -
http://www.smartmotorist.com/acc/acc.htm

Googling "Primary Cause of Automobile Accidents" clearly returns
preponderous quantities of evidence that the primary cause of
automobile accidents is negligence. Given this preponderance of
evidence, I fail to see how you can, with any shred of credibility,
deny that 95% to 98% of automobile accidents are caused by negligence.

Now, in your "summarily" hasty and clumsy fashion, I suppose you might
be trying to dispute the whole by disputing a part. In this case, you
might be trying to dispute the fact that "95% to 98% of automobile
accidents are caused by negligence" by disputing that such negligence
was willful.

You might as well attempt to dispute that "Monarch butterflies EAGERLY
migrate south" as if you are disputing that "Monarch butterflies
migrate south".

But, back to the point, negligent driving isn't because one CAN NOT
drive safely, but rather instead because they CAN but WILL NOT drive
safely. I would dare say that of those 98% who are negligent, that
virtually 100% of them CAN drive safely. Therefore, we are only left
with the fact that they WILL NOT drive safely.


This has been repeatedly pointed out to you and your continued
use of this false citation is insulting.

When you say "false citation", are you claiming that my cites point to
nowhere, that I have falsely quoted them, or that the cites themself
contain false information? Or, are you merely saying that my cites
don't say what you'd like to say I'm saying?

I think it is the latter, as you did in the opening of this post,
saying:

"you say you have a right to drive without a license "

Where in fact, I am saying:

Point A: "we have the Right to Drive Automobiles on our public
highways"

and:

Point B: "That Right is being circumvented by a police power"

and:

Point C: "Police powers must not be arbitrary and unreasonable"

and:

Point D: "Driver Licensing serves no purpose to highway safety that
laws against endangerment didn't already serve."

Therefore, those police powers circumventing our Right to Drive
automobiles on our public highways are indeed "arbitrary and
unreasonable".


It doesn't say uch for them that they just can't leave him alone,
but the guy thrives on the abuse they heap on him. This brainless
twit is not much different. It's a sad case of masochistic mental
masturbation.

And now, according to Dave, if I don't surrender the truth to the
jackals then run and hide at the first hint of personal attacks from
jackals like himself, or k_flynn, then I am a "sad case of masochistic
mental masturbation."

I guess you couldn't have said it better yourself, then. Except for
the part about you "surrendering the truth" since all you have is a
pack of lies and misrepresentations, which we have proven. But no,
we haven't run and hid from you when you first initiate personal
attacks. People like you are a dime a dozen.

Then, one might begin to suspect you are a "sad case of masochistic
mental masturbation."

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 19:16:03 -0700, proffsl
wrote:
Point A: I have stated, and proven, that courts have recognized our
Right to Drive automobiles on our public highways:

"The Idaho Supreme Court, however, snip
That's ONE court, ONE state.

When you say "false citation", are you claiming that my cites point to
nowhere, that I have falsely quoted them, or that the cites themself
contain false information? Or, are you merely saying that my cites
don't say what you'd like to say I'm saying?

Despite the fact that you have pulled out one part of the court's
decision to support your argument, the ultimate ruling in the case
affirmed the defendant's guilt. The result is the exact opposite of
what you are asserting.

On Oct 13, 8:16 pm, proffsl wrote:
wrote:
proffsl wrote:
Dave Smith wrote:

He used crap cites to support his strange conclusions,

Dave apparently considers cites where our courts recognize our Right
to Drive automobiles on our public highways as "crap sites"! And, as
my conclusion is also that we have the Right to Drive automobiles on
our public highways, then I suppose that's "strange" that my
conclusion coincides with the courts.

You have selectively presented your claim here - you say you have a
right to drive without a license yet not one single solitary court in
the land that has considered this question agrees.

Point A: I have stated, and proven, that courts have recognized our
Right to Drive automobiles on our public highways:

Point A refuted: You have done no such thing. You have been proven
wrong. Deal with it. You cite decisions that back ME as though they
back you. You quote a sentence from a court decision that UPHOLDS
licensing as evidence licensing is not legal. This is known as crazy-
making behavior.

For instance, you went on to use the very same cite I pointed out
earlier UPHOLDS licensing as constitutional, Here, you once again
repeat your error:

"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

There can be no reasonable denial that the courts above have
recognized our "right to operate a motor vehicle on public highways"
In this recognition, no appendage is added to this Right, as you have
often falsely claimed. Point A is affirmed.

No, Point A is refuted because you MUST cite the ENTIRE ruling, not a
sentence or two therefrom. MY point is AFFIRMED. So, by the way, was
Mark Wilder's CONVICTION.

Point B: I have also stated, and proven, that dispite those courts
recognizing our Right to Drive automobiles on our public highways,
they choose to circumvent this Right by their employment of a police
power:

This is not *circumvention* at all. You have a fundamental
misunderstanding of the role courts play here. Both sides litigated
the issue before the court - and many other courts - with your same
arguments and they have been rejected each and every time. The police
powers that we the people grant to our government are NOT a
circumvention of the constitutional rights - they ARE an integral part
of our constitutional rights to public welfare and safety. Why on
earth do you not see this? Even so, you cannot leave it out or
marginalize it merely because it thoroughly defeats your argument -
much as I recognize you need to do that.

"The state of Idaho may subject this right to reasonable regulation,
however, in the exercise of its police power." -- State of Idaho v.
Mark Wilder (2003) -http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/
idahostatecases/app/1033/wilder.pdf

BINGO! Game over. You lose, I win.

This is not an appendage to our "right to operate a motor vehicle on
public highways", but instead a circumvention of that Right by the
employment of a police power. Point B is affirmed.

Au contraire, your Point B is thoroughly refuted and disproven. All
you did was deny it. That doesn't make it so. The fact is, as I
demonstrated above, police powers are PART of the constitution, they
are not a circumvention.

Point C: A police power must not be arbitrary or unreasonable:

And as the court rightly found, in this case it is not.

"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

BINGO!! You are making my case against you quite easy by providing the
ammunition that shoots you right out of the sky.

Of these facts, you only prove yourself to be a fool to continue to
deny. Point C is affirmed.

Wow, what an argument THAT was. You declare your point to be affirmed
because you affirm it? That's patently ridiculous. As you have been
more than adequately shown, licensing is neither arbitrary nor
unreasonable.

And, my claim is that Driver Licensing IS INDEED "arbitrary and
unreasonable", thus my claim that Driver Licensing serves no
purpose to highway safety that laws against endangerment didn't
already serve.

And that claim is summarily dismissed as incorrect and disproven.

summarily - "done without delay or formality : quickly executed"

In other words, you have "dismissed as incorrect and disproven" more
as a reflex, without any substantive thought or consideration, much
less evidence.

Are you crazy? "Without any substantive thought or consideration?"
Hello? Hello? Anyone home? You were completely trashed and shredded
and buried in complete refutation in a *1,700-post thread* last year
on your utterly ridiculous and illogical arguments. HOW IN THE WORLD
can you claim this is without substantive thought or consideration?

Listen, just because YOU keep repeating your demonstrably worthless
claims each post doesn't mean *I* have to repost and repost and repost
the devastating proofs that shot you down. Suffice to summarily
dismiss that which has been utterly disprove,

In support of this claim, I present evidence that about 98% of all
automobile accidents are caused by WILLFUL acts of negligence:

This is your famous misrepresentation of a study that doe NOT say
what you claim.

Instead of expecting us to honor your summarily issued dispute, why
don't you elaborate? My claim is that 98% of automobile accidents are
caused by willful acts of negligence. My supporting evidence is:

Worthless. You misread it. We showed that last year. Move on.

But, back to the point, negligent driving isn't because one CAN NOT
drive safely, but rather instead because they CAN but WILL NOT drive
safely. I would dare say that of those 98% who are negligent, that
virtually 100% of them CAN drive safely. Therefore, we are only left
with the fact that they WILL NOT drive safely.

Pointless to the debate over licensing.
This has been repeatedly pointed out to you and your continued
use of this false citation is insulting.

When you say "false citation", are you claiming that my cites point to
nowhere, that I have falsely quoted them, or that the cites themself
contain false information?

You know the answer because it has been repeatedly given to you.

It doesn't say uch for them that they just can't leave him alone,
but the guy thrives on the abuse they heap on him. This brainless
twit is not much different. It's a sad case of masochistic mental
masturbation.

And now, according to Dave, if I don't surrender the truth to the
jackals then run and hide at the first hint of personal attacks from
jackals like himself, or k_flynn, then I am a "sad case of masochistic
mental masturbation."

I guess you couldn't have said it better yourself, then. Except for
the part about you "surrendering the truth" since all you have is a
pack of lies and misrepresentations, which we have proven. But no,
we haven't run and hid from you when you first initiate personal
attacks. People like you are a dime a dozen.

Then, one might begin to suspect you are a "sad case of masochistic
mental masturbation."

Against all evidence to the contrary. I hear it makes you blind, so
maybe that's why you're having difficulty understanding what I write.

Except for the fact that is it YOU who
initiates the personal attacks as this thread and numberous others
testify to.

Hardly a fact when it has been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt
that YOU started it both last year and THIS year.

Bwahaahaaaahaaaaa! Even when you're reminded about your duplicate
posts due to your failure to change the subject line back to relect
your lies, you STILL do it again! This is too funny.

On Oct 13, 8:16 pm, proffsl wrote:
wrote:
proffsl wrote:
Dave Smith wrote:

He used crap cites to support his strange conclusions,

Dave apparently considers cites where our courts recognize our Right
to Drive automobiles on our public highways as "crap sites"! And, as
my conclusion is also that we have the Right to Drive automobiles on
our public highways, then I suppose that's "strange" that my
conclusion coincides with the courts.

You have selectively presented your claim here - you say you have a
right to drive without a license yet not one single solitary court in
the land that has considered this question agrees.

Point A: I have stated, and proven, that courts have recognized our
Right to Drive automobiles on our public highways:

Point A refuted: You have done no such thing. You have been proven
wrong. Deal with it. You cite decisions that back ME as though they
back you. You quote a sentence from a court decision that UPHOLDS
licensing as evidence licensing is not legal. This is known as crazy-
making behavior.

For instance, you went on to use the very same cite I pointed out
earlier UPHOLDS licensing as constitutional, Here, you once again
repeat your error:

"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

There can be no reasonable denial that the courts above have
recognized our "right to operate a motor vehicle on public highways"
In this recognition, no appendage is added to this Right, as you have
often falsely claimed. Point A is affirmed.

No, Point A is refuted because you MUST cite the ENTIRE ruling, not a
sentence or two therefrom. MY point is AFFIRMED. So, by the way, was
Mark Wilder's CONVICTION.

Point B: I have also stated, and proven, that dispite those courts
recognizing our Right to Drive automobiles on our public highways,
they choose to circumvent this Right by their employment of a police
power:

This is not *circumvention* at all. You have a fundamental
misunderstanding of the role courts play here. Both sides litigated
the issue before the court - and many other courts - with your same
arguments and they have been rejected each and every time. The police
powers that we the people grant to our government are NOT a
circumvention of the constitutional rights - they ARE an integral part
of our constitutional rights to public welfare and safety. Why on
earth do you not see this? Even so, you cannot leave it out or
marginalize it merely because it thoroughly defeats your argument -
much as I recognize you need to do that.

"The state of Idaho may subject this right to reasonable regulation,
however, in the exercise of its police power." -- State of Idaho v.
Mark Wilder (2003) -http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/
idahostatecases/app/1033/wilder.pdf

BINGO! Game over. You lose, I win.

This is not an appendage to our "right to operate a motor vehicle on
public highways", but instead a circumvention of that Right by the
employment of a police power. Point B is affirmed.

Au contraire, your Point B is thoroughly refuted and disproven. All
you did was deny it. That doesn't make it so. The fact is, as I
demonstrated above, police powers are PART of the constitution, they
are not a circumvention.

Point C: A police power must not be arbitrary or unreasonable:

And as the court rightly found, in this case it is not.

"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

BINGO!! You are making my case against you quite easy by providing the
ammunition that shoots you right out of the sky.

Of these facts, you only prove yourself to be a fool to continue to
deny. Point C is affirmed.

Wow, what an argument THAT was. You declare your point to be affirmed
because you affirm it? That's patently ridiculous. As you have been
more than adequately shown, licensing is neither arbitrary nor
unreasonable.

And, my claim is that Driver Licensing IS INDEED "arbitrary and
unreasonable", thus my claim that Driver Licensing serves no
purpose to highway safety that laws against endangerment didn't
already serve.

And that claim is summarily dismissed as incorrect and disproven.

summarily - "done without delay or formality : quickly executed"

In other words, you have "dismissed as incorrect and disproven" more
as a reflex, without any substantive thought or consideration, much
less evidence.

Are you crazy? "Without any substantive thought or consideration?"
Hello? Hello? Anyone home? You were completely trashed and shredded
and buried in complete refutation in a *1,700-post thread* last year
on your utterly ridiculous and illogical arguments. HOW IN THE WORLD
can you claim this is without substantive thought or consideration?

Listen, just because YOU keep repeating your demonstrably worthless
claims each post doesn't mean *I* have to repost and repost and repost
the devastating proofs that shot you down. Suffice to summarily
dismiss that which has been utterly disprove,

In support of this claim, I present evidence that about 98% of all
automobile accidents are caused by WILLFUL acts of negligence:

This is your famous misrepresentation of a study that doe NOT say
what you claim.

Instead of expecting us to honor your summarily issued dispute, why
don't you elaborate? My claim is that 98% of automobile accidents are
caused by willful acts of negligence. My supporting evidence is:

Worthless. You misread it. We showed that last year. Move on.

But, back to the point, negligent driving isn't because one CAN NOT
drive safely, but rather instead because they CAN but WILL NOT drive
safely. I would dare say that of those 98% who are negligent, that
virtually 100% of them CAN drive safely. Therefore, we are only left
with the fact that they WILL NOT drive safely.

Pointless to the debate over licensing.
This has been repeatedly pointed out to you and your continued
use of this false citation is insulting.

When you say "false citation", are you claiming that my cites point to
nowhere, that I have falsely quoted them, or that the cites themself
contain false information?

You know the answer because it has been repeatedly given to you.

It doesn't say uch for them that they just can't leave him alone,
but the guy thrives on the abuse they heap on him. This brainless
twit is not much different. It's a sad case of masochistic mental
masturbation.

And now, according to Dave, if I don't surrender the truth to the
jackals then run and hide at the first hint of personal attacks from
jackals like himself, or k_flynn, then I am a "sad case of masochistic
mental masturbation."

I guess you couldn't have said it better yourself, then. Except for
the part about you "surrendering the truth" since all you have is a
pack of lies and misrepresentations, which we have proven. But no,
we haven't run and hid from you when you first initiate personal
attacks. People like you are a dime a dozen.

Then, one might begin to suspect you are a "sad case of masochistic
mental masturbation."

Against all evidence to the contrary. I hear it makes you blind, so
maybe that's why you're having difficulty understanding what I write.

Except for the fact that is it YOU who
initiates the personal attacks as this thread and numberous others
testify to.

Hardly a fact when it has been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt
that YOU started it both last year and THIS year.

On Oct 13, 8:37 pm, (Carole Allen) wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 19:16:03 -0700, proffsl
wrote:Point A: I have stated, and proven, that courts have recognized our
Right to Drive automobiles on our public highways:

"The Idaho Supreme Court, however, snip

That's ONE court, ONE state.

However, the decision he is citing CONTRADICTS him. He is hilariously
citing a case that contradicts him as evidence to support him.

When you say "false citation", are you claiming that my cites point to
nowhere, that I have falsely quoted them, or that the cites themself
contain false information? Or, are you merely saying that my cites
don't say what you'd like to say I'm saying?

Despite the fact that you have pulled out one part of the court's
decision to support your argument, the ultimate ruling in the case
affirmed the defendant's guilt. The result is the exact opposite of
what you are asserting.

Exactly.

NO PART of this case supports his argument. It undermines him.

"proffsl" wrote in message
ups.com...
Dave Smith wrote:

He used crap cites to support his strange conclusions,

Dave apparently considers cites where our courts recognize our Right
to Drive automobiles on our public highways as "crap sites"! And, as
my conclusion is also that we have the Right to Drive automobiles on
our public highways, Snipped by Citizens' Rights Group

You need to brush up on your definitions of legal terms. Driving an
automobile is not a "right" in any American state or territory or any
Canadian province or territory. It's a privilege that is granted. A grant
isn't a gift, it requires something from the recipient, in this case,
passing the test(s) and paying the fee(s). You might as well study the
driver test or wait until your revocation lapses. And don't drink, smoke
funny cigarettes or take mind-altering drugs and drive, it's a no-no
everywhere. And those who get caught find it to be deleterious to their
otherwise sunny dispositions - something that could really put the hurt on
someone of your temperament. ;-) So, if you really want to do some good on
Planet Earth, why don't you "Free Tibet" instead of beating your head bloody
against the driver license brick wall? 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/

"proffsl" wrote in message
ups.com...
"Alohacyberian" wrote:
"proffsl" wrote in message
"Alohacyberian" wrote:
LOL! Hilarious! The malcontented mouse who roared because he
can't get a driver license.

Care to put your money where your mouth is? Say $40,000?

Sure. Bring it on. KM

Then, deposit your $40,000 with a lawyer of your choosing, and provide
his contact information here.


I don't know where you live, but lawyers don't do that sort of thing here.
Sorry. :-( 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/

(Carole Allen) wrote:

Despite the fact that you have pulled out one part of the court's
decision to support your argument,

No Despite to it. The courts have recognized that we have the Right
to operate motor vehicles on our public highways.


The result is the exact opposite of what you are asserting.

Not at all. I claim the courts have recognized our Right to operate
motor vehicles on our public highways, and that they have chosen to
circumvent this Right by the employment of police powers. And, that
is EXACTLY what the result to date has been.

Now, in addition to having proven that, I also make the additional
claim that this police power is arbitrary and unreasonable and that
driver licensing serves no purpose to highway safety that laws against
endangerment didn't already serve.

Driver licensing can only determine if someone CAN drive safely. But,
the fact is that virtually everybody over the age of 12 CAN drive
safely. The question is if someone WILL drive safely. And, driver
licensing can not even pretend to determine if someone WILL drive
safely.

Clearly, there is ample evidence that some 95% to 98% of all
automobile accidents are caused by negligence, which is an
unwillingness to drive safely, not an inability to drive safely. And,
not even the remaining 2% of all automobile accidents can be claimed
to be caused by an inability to drive safely.

Driver Licensing serves NO PURPOSE to highway safety. Moreover,
Driver Licensing serves NO PURPOSE to highway safety that laws against
endangerment didn't already serve. Driver Licensing is Indeed
arbitrary and unreasonable.

(Carole Allen) wrote:

Despite the fact that you have pulled out one part of the court's
decision to support your argument,

No Despite to it. The courts have recognized that we have the Right
to operate motor vehicles on our public highways.


The result is the exact opposite of what you are asserting.

Not at all. I claim the courts have recognized our Right to operate
motor vehicles on our public highways, and that they have chosen to
circumvent this Right by the employment of police powers. And, that
is EXACTLY what the result to date has been.

Now, in addition to having proven that, I also make the additional
claim that this police power is arbitrary and unreasonable and that
driver licensing serves no purpose to highway safety that laws against
endangerment didn't already serve.

Driver licensing can only determine if someone CAN drive safely. But,
the fact is that virtually everybody over the age of 12 CAN drive
safely. The question is if someone WILL drive safely. And, driver
licensing can not even pretend to determine if someone WILL drive
safely.

Clearly, there is ample evidence that some 95% to 98% of all
automobile accidents are caused by negligence, which is an
unwillingness to drive safely, not an inability to drive safely. And,
not even the remaining 2% of all automobile accidents can be claimed
to be caused by an inability to drive safely.

Driver Licensing serves NO PURPOSE to highway safety. Moreover,
Driver Licensing serves NO PURPOSE to highway safety that laws against
endangerment didn't already serve. Driver Licensing is Indeed
arbitrary and unreasonable.

"Alohacyberian" wrote:
"proffsl" wrote:

Dave apparently considers cites where our courts recognize our
Right to Drive automobiles on our public highways as "crap sites"!

You need to brush up on your definitions of legal terms.

Ad Hominem.


Driving an automobile is not a "right" in any American state or territory
or any Canadian province or territory.

"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

They have indeed recognized our Right to operate motor vehivles on
public highways. Yet, they continue on to exercise a police power to
circumvent this Right they must and do acknowledge. I am sure this
isn't the only state which has recognized this Right, yet chosen to
circumvent it with a police power.


It's a privilege that is granted.

No, it is a Right that is endowed by our creation.

"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one
place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal
liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through
the territory of any state is a right secured by the 14th Amendment
and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Williams v. Fears, 179
U.S. 270 (1900) - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/179/270.html#274

"The streets belong to the public and are primarily for the use of the
public in the ordinary way." -- Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140 (1924)
- http://laws.findlaw.com/us/264/140.html#144


A grant isn't a gift,

I'm not going to employ the use of an Ad Hominem and suggest you need
to brush up on your understanding of Rights. I'll just leave it
saying that Rights are not a Gift of the state, but instead a Gift of
creation.


You might as well study the driver test or wait until your
revocation lapses.

Now you venture beyond Ad Hominems into the realm of False Witness.
I'm not going to waste any more of my time asking you to put your
money where your accusational mouth is. Clearly, you are only
interested in cheap shots of your ass.


directives deleted

I'm not here to take directives from falsely accusational asses on the
internet. The more you continue to show your ass, the more you
continue to show your ass. Show your ass if you must, but you only
accomplish the showing of your ass.