Driver Licensing not about highway safety

Bwaahaaahaaahaaa! Yet again for the 11th time, you had to do duplicate
posts because having your false claims exposed for the public rattled
your brain and you forgot to change the subject line back to your
lies. I fixed it for you.

exposing your false claims has On Oct 16, 3:39 pm, proffsl prof...@my-
deja.com wrote:
wrote:
(Carole Allen) wrote:
proffsl

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

That's ONE court, ONE state.

However, the decision he is citing CONTRADICTS him.

You are such a LIAR.

Listen, fuzznuts, if you wish to start personal abuse and insults once
again as you always seem to do, be prepared to get it right back in
your lying face.

Now, to the point. Nothing I said is a lie. What I said is true - the
court decision you have been citing CONTRADICTS you. Idaho vs Wilder -
and indeed, the underlying Idaho vs Pocatello - both UPHELD licensing.
This, bird brain, is what we call a CONTRADICTION of your position
that driver licensing is unconstitutional. The exact OPPOSITE was
found. Therefore, I told the TRUTH.

I do hope you get that straight and that you now refrain from further
initiation of personal insults. Got it?

Our Right to Drive automobiles (operate motor vehicles) on our public
highways has been recognized:

Indeed, but only with a license. You cannot illogically leave out this
integral part of, as we have shown you repeatedly for 18 months, the
ordinary way of conducting or travel by motor vehicle.

"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

This case UPHOLDS licensing. As I said, it CONTRADICTS you.

You cannot accept one sentence from that decision and hold it apart
from the body of the decision.

Clearly the Right to Drive automobiles (operate motor vehicles) on our
public highways has been recognized. Deny it if you wish to further
prove you are a foolish liar.

What CONTRADICTS you is the full ruling itself which holds the exact
OPPOSITE of your long-held and long-refuted false claims. So YOU
continue to post it and prove YOU are a foolish liar. I have told the
truth. You refuse to accept it and persist in your utterly disproven
claims.

You are wrong and have been proven so.

On Oct 16, 2:07 pm, proffsl wrote:
(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.

Yes they have and it is ALWAYS only with a license and registration.
Please stop leaving out this essential element of the rulings.

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.

No, it is NOTHING like what the result has been. There is no
circumvention of anything. It is part and parcel of the constitutional
duties we have given our government top provide for public safety and
welfare. It has been fully litigated on your very objections and your
arguments have always lost.

Now, in addition to having proven that...

.... and your claim is utterly worthless because it is wrong...

... 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.

And that also has been disproven, so it is also utterly worthless.

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.

Totally irrelevant to licensing or not licensing.

Clearly, there is ample evidence that some 95% to 98% of all
automobile accidents are caused by negligence,..

False, that is not only NOT clear, it is proven wrong by your
misinterpretations of your own cites which do not say what you claim
they do.

... which is an
unwillingness to drive safely, not an inability to drive safely.

And in that you are wrong.

Driver Licensing IS ESSENTIAL to highway safety. Moreover,
Driver Licensing serves EVERY PURPOSE for highway safety that laws against
endangerment didn't already serve. Driver Licensing is Indeed
NECESSARY and GOOD.

I fixed your last paragraph.

Bwaahaaahaa! Yet again you have to post duplicate replies because you
forgot to alter the subject line to reflect you completely discredited
and disproven claims!! Even though I have reminded you each time. Is
this more aftereffects of your campaign to legalize marijuana?

On Oct 16, 2:07 pm, proffsl wrote:
(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.

Yes they have and it is ALWAYS only with a license and registration.
Please stop leaving out this essential element of the rulings.

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.

No, it is NOTHING like what the result has been. There is no
circumvention of anything. It is part and parcel of the constitutional
duties we have given our government top provide for public safety and
welfare. It has been fully litigated on your very objections and your
arguments have always lost.

Now, in addition to having proven that...

.... and your claim is utterly worthless because it is wrong...

... 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.

And that also has been disproven, so it is also utterly worthless.

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.

Totally irrelevant to licensing or not licensing.

Clearly, there is ample evidence that some 95% to 98% of all
automobile accidents are caused by negligence,..

False, that is not only NOT clear, it is proven wrong by your
misinterpretations of your own cites which do not say what you claim
they do.

... which is an
unwillingness to drive safely, not an inability to drive safely.

And in that you are wrong.

Driver Licensing IS ESSENTIAL to highway safety. Moreover,
Driver Licensing serves EVERY PURPOSE for highway safety that laws against
endangerment didn't already serve. Driver Licensing is Indeed
NECESSARY and GOOD.

I fixed your last paragraph.

On Oct 16, 2:47 pm, proffsl wrote:
"Alohacyberian" wrote:
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/idahostatecases/app/1033/wilder.pdf

Proffs, this case UPHOLDS licensing and CONTRADICTS your claims. Keep
citing it, please, to reinforce the fact that you are wrong. Like I
told you in March 2006, your cites prove you wrong almost better than
our counter-arguments have.

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.

The police powers do not circumvent anything, they are part and parcel
of an integrated system that allows free travel in safety and for the
good of public welfare. It is a while system, not circumvention.

I am sure this
isn't the only state which has recognized this Right, yet chosen to
circumvent it with a police power.

It is not a circumvention. As I proved to you unceasingly, there is no
conflict. You have the right to use the pavilion at the public park,
but if I have reserved it, you cannot use it until I am done. This is
normal and not a circumvention of any rights.

It's a privilege that is granted.

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

But only with a license. Don't forget that important and essential
piece.

"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

This case had nothing to do with licensing. In fact it had to do with
taxation in the state of Georgia. You cannot cite anything from it as
having any impact on invalidating licensing, for it does not even
speak to anything remotely having anything to do with licensing.

"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

Packard was a Manhattan taxi cab liability insurance case. It did not
invalidate licensing... the word "license" appears nowhere in the
pleadings at all. This cite is utterly irrelevant to your point.

That's because the "ordinary way" of which the court spoke in Packard
ALREADY INCLUDED licensing and registration as a result of the
Hendrick case nine years earlier. You CANNOT simply ignore that plain
truth.

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.

That'd make this the FIRST time that you failed to be the initiator of
personal abuse.

I'll just leave it
saying that Rights are not a Gift of the state, but instead a Gift of
creation.

God says get a license.

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.

You must like that then, to repeat it so often.

On Oct 16, 3:20 pm, proffsl wrote:
Dave Smith wrote:
proffsl wrote:
"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.

Pointing out your ignorance is not an ad hominem. It is just stating the
obvious.

Yet another Ad Hominem.

And, beyond your issuance of Ad Hominems, what is obvious is that all
of my claims are verified and proven.

If that falsehood seems "obvious" to you, that can only mean that you
are once again engaging in "research" in your campaign to legalize
marijuana.

The plain fact is that you have utterly failed to even SUPPORT any of
your claims let alone prove them. Your cites CONTRADICT you and
support my position. You cite cases that UPHOLD licensing as evidence
licensing is unconstitutional. That's plainly absurd. You pull one
sentence out of a case, and then dismiss the rest of it as subterfuge
and lies.

Utter nonsense.

The Operation of Motor Vehicles
on our public highways is indeed a Right, recognized by our federal
courts and by our state courts.

And in ALL of those recognitions has been either the implicit or
explicit confirmation that licensing and registration are fully a par
of that operation of MVs.

I have no idea why that knowledge disturbs you so much that you must
resort to Ad Hominems and personal attacks, unless you view this
information as a threat to your imagined authoritarian stature.

It is you who displays authoritarianism. You believe that you can
invalidate the will of the people by mere declaration of your
falsehoods and disproven claims.

On Oct 16, 8:00 pm, proffsl wrote:
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, your only resort is to
fabricate accusations against myself which you are completely and
pathetically unable to produce even one shread of evidence in support
of.

We have not only NOT been proven wrong, we have been proven CORRECT
while YOU have been proven wrong.

All your cites are belong to us!

"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

Mark Wilder's conviction for driving without a license was UPHELD in
this cite of yours that you present allegedly to support your claim
that licensing is unconstitutional. How bizarre is THAT? You
continually present us with a case that supports US and our position
that licensing is proper and legal, and try to claim that because one
sentence init says such and such, only that sentence is proper and the
entire rest of the ruling is lies and subterfuge. That's crazy.

http://proffsl.0mb.com/I_have_no_valid _argument/html

That says it all.

wrote:
proffsl wrote:

Our Right to Drive automobiles (operate motor vehicles)
on our public highways has been recognized:

Indeed, but only with a license. You cannot illogically leave out
this integral part of, as we have shown you repeatedly for 18
months, the ordinary way of conducting or travel by motor vehicle.

Out of some combination of fear, ignorance and maliciousness, you
continually and incorrectly associate licensing with the court's
recognition of our Right "to operate a motor vehicle on 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

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:

"The state of Idaho may subject this right to reasonable regulation,
however, in the exercise of its police power. Id.; Gordon v. State,
108 Idaho 178, 179, 697 P.2d 1192, 1193 (Ct. App. 1985). Therefore,
the question before this Court is whether the requirement that one
obtain a driver's license before driving upon the highways and, in the
process, provide one's social security number, is a reasonable
regulation in furtherance of the state's police power." - State of
Idaho v. Mark Wilder (2003) - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...033/wilder.pdf

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. 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/...033/wilder.pdf

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.

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

1) Redundant in that Driver Licensing serves no purpose for highway
safety that laws against endangerment did not already serve. If
someone is driving safely, there is no need to stop them to see if
they have a Driver License. If someone is driving dangerously, there
is no need for them to have a Driver License in order to stop them.
One does not need to have a Driver License in order to prosecute them
for endangerment through the operation of a motor vehicle.

2) Unnecessary in that Driver Licensing presumes to test for a quality
which virtually everyone over the age of 12 is capable of.
Specifically, virtually everyone over the age of 12 CAN drive a car
safely. And, of those few who CAN NOT drive safely, the vast majority
of them will be either Considerate of the Rights others, or Fearful of
their Prosecution for endangerment, and will simply not attempt to
drive. And, of the few who CAN NOT drive safely, of the even fewer who
are neither Considerate of the Rights of others, or Fearful of their
Prosecution for endangerment, the absence of a Driver License simply
will not be a factor.

3) Unnecessary in that Driver Licensing can not even pretend to test
for the one quality which is the primary cause of automobile
accidents. Specifically, the primary cause (95% to 98%) of automobile
accidents is willful negligence. Driver Licensing simply can not even
pretend to test for if one WILL drive safely.

4) Unnecessary in that the only thing Driver Licensing does pretend to
test for simply is not any significant factor as a cause of automobile
accidents. Specifically, of the accidents not due to willful
negligence (2% to 5%), the vast majority of those are due to
uncontrollable circumstances, such as wildlife, fallen trees, etc.

Therefore, the police power subjecting our Right to operate motor
vehicles on public highways to Driver Licensing IS INDEED and IN FACT
unreasonable, and subject to revocation.

"proffsl" schrieb

IS INDEED and IN FACT
unreasonable, and subject to revocation.

Then why don't you simply go to some supreme court and have
it revoked instead of posting this crap over and over again?
We don't make laws here, you know?

Jochen

"Jochen Kriegerowski" wrote:
"proffsl" wrote:

Therefore, the police power subjecting our Right to operate
motor vehicles on public highways to Driver Licensing IS
INDEED and IN FACT unreasonable, and subject to
revocation.

Then why don't you simply go to some supreme court and
have it revoked instead of posting this crap over and over
again?

The same courts who use deceitful methods to perpetuate the powers
they have bestowed upon themselves by the implementation of this
police power? Regardless, I am not here to debate WHY I do or do not
do something. If you wish to address any of the subject related
points I make, feel free. Otherwise, I have no interest.


We don't make laws here, you know?

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?

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

Tourists interested in travelling North America are the wrong folks to
complain to. Your whole tread could not be more off topic here.
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)

Jochen