Driver Licensing not about highway safety

On Oct 17, 6:02 am, proffsl wrote:
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":

You are showing yourself to be a liar again.

You well know in last year's version of this thread, you lost that
battle.

SCOTUS: Hendrick. The courts have lo-o-o-o-ng ago made that
association between licensed drivers and the "ordinary way" of
operating motor vehicles on our public rights of way.

You lose again. But you knew that when you posted your discredited
claim, because you were made well familiar with the Hendrick case last
year.

Licensing and driving on public rights of way are inseparably linked
as the ordinary way and your continual ignoring of that fact is
illegitimate.

"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

Wilder was CONVICTED of driving without a licesne in this cite of
yours, and it was UPHELD on appeal. This case CONTRADCITS your claims,
yet you still cite it only having to shoot it down. This is very
foolish behavior.

Licensing is not any part of the court's recognition of our Right "to
operate a motor vehicle on public highways",

Yes it is, and THE VERY CASE YOU CITE, Wilder, GOES ON TO CONFIRM
THAT.

...but instead Licensing is
subjected upon this Right as a part of a police power:

That, dear friend IS WHAT MAKES them linked. Your inability to grok
this simple truth doesn't make it untrue, it makes you thinker than a
block of cement in understanding the truth.

"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/idahostatecases/app/1033/wilder.pdf

See? I was right, you were wrong.

What a surprise.

All your cites are belong to us!!

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? Irrelevant to the fact that police power given by the people
to the government under the Constitution IS linked here and since the
time of Hendrick (1915).

You cannot continue to ignore that simple fact that they have been
joined at the hip for nearly a century, by simply denying the truth.

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 because, despite your polite disagreement with ALL of the
legal authorities and minds of the past century who have considered,
litigated and ruled upon this very line of reasoning, the fact remains
that licensing has been found to be a reasonable application of police
powers. You lost. You can cry and stomp your feet all you want that it
is not reasonable and is arbitrary, but you are simply incorrect. Your
only explanation for the fact that you are on the losing side is that
there is this great conspiracy you have written about involving tens
of thousands of people across multiple generations in all of the he 50
states to knowingly deprive us of our rights.

Good luck trying to show THAT.

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.

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.

You lose.

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.

Ooops. You're wrong again! Proven wrong and irrefutably so.

On Oct 17, 7:45 am, "Jochen Kriegerowski" jochen-kriegerow...@t-
online.de 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.
You should either address those, or if you are not happy with what they
decide in your name, the courts as before mentioned.

He can't; he knows he already has lost the argument.

"-" schrieb im Newsbeitrag

He can't; he knows he already has lost the argument.

Sure. And he needs a shoulder to cry on. But why us? ;-)

Jochen

"Alohacyberian" wrote in message
...
"proffsl" wrote in message
oups.com...
"Alohacyberian" wrote:

I don't know where you live,

You don't know where I live, yet, in your own asshole manner, you
presume and pretend to have information about me even more personal
than those around me, who DO know where I live, have. You are
pathetic.

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

ah yes...Keith demonstrating to us all yet once again his very skilled use
of the Keith Martin of non sequiturs, red herrings, and ad hominems while
evading the key issue/question. And note his employment of the KM2 of
ignoring utterly the key issue/question not only of my rather
straightforward question:

"Do you agree that a maker of a statement is accountable for that
statement? A simple 'yes' or 'no' from you will suffice."

but also of Don Kirkman's question to him in " Second trip to the US"
here Monday, 10/15/07 1:40pm

"Do you suppose you could cite some source for the information? "

and of Don's comment in "Going Hawaii" here Saturday, 10/13/07 4:16pm as per
Keith

"...giving false impressions to people asking for reliable information?"

Notice how Keith ducks whenever he cannot/will not answer/clarify when
answers/clarifications are asked of him. I have asked him if he...as per my
question on statement accountability...stands behind his comments on
Hawaii - both in his posts here and in his website
http://keith.martin.home.att.net/ - and he evades. He employs the Keith
Martin, the KM2, the Alvin Toda of crawling back under that rock of his,
and - in the case of my accountability question - the six year old kid's
taunt "Yes or no. KM." Behavior on the one hand most arrogant, yet on the
other quite fascinatingly bizarre...bordering on the pathetic.

Quack, quack.

Jochen Kriegerowski wrote:


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)


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.

On Oct 17, 7:18 am, proffsl wrote:
"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?

Ooooooooo. Boogie boogie boogie!! The big konspiracy again!!! You make
the mistake of believing your premises were correct, which they were
not, to reach this paranoid statement.

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.

You also have no logic, truth or facts to back you up.

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?

Yes, we do... and the people to whom you refer have demanded for the
last century through their legislatures and courts that we have a
system of licensing and registration to maintain public welfare and
safety, all done very constitutionally and legally.

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.

Cheers, Alan, Australia

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.


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. 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".


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? Which Laws? The one's you love so dearly? Or the
one's that threaten the continuance of those Laws you love so dearly?


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.


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.

You lose.

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.


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. 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".


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? Which Laws? The one's you love so dearly? Or the
one's that threaten the continuance of those Laws you love so dearly?


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.


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.

You lose.

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.