The right of travel vs. driver's 'license' revenue = ploy

by steven Posted January 27,=20 2011 20:53:22

Related = Topics:=20 Supreme Court, = Fraud, = Fuel

+8 Rave=20
share this Share

Read=20 all 64 opinions

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/travel.htm

I've = gotten into it=20 a few times with other SH'ers here, regarding whether we have the right = of=20 travel or need to bow to revenue machines, whether state-sponsored or = just the=20 antics TSA presses upon us in order to get on a plane. As you likely = already=20 know, I favor liberty first and foremost. Many of you feel the same way, = but=20 there are those who seem to look forward to bending over and having the=20 inevitable cavity search that government will force upon us if we = quietly=20 submit. First the airports, then the trains, the subways and buses. Then = maybe=20 taxis. Won't that be=20 fun?
-------------------------------------------------------------...<= BR>

Right to Travel
DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND = LOCAL=20 COURTS,
HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS
HAVE A = RIGHT=20 TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS

By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet=20 Newsletter)

For years professionals within the criminal justice system have = acted on=20 the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was = given to a=20 citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a = permit=20 or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted = the=20 privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal.=20 Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware = that=20 there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a = privilege=20 and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. = Presented=20 here are some of these cases:

CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and=20 transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental = right of=20 which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." = Chicago=20 Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public = highways and=20 to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by = automobile, is=20 not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, = but a=20 common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and = the=20 pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE=20 579.

It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens = of the=20 states have a common law right to travel, without approval or = restriction=20 (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S = Constitution.

CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which = the=20 citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the = Fifth=20 Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, = 125.

CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right = that=20 does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is = recognized by=20 the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC = 287, 225=20 F2d 938, at 941.

As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, = there is no=20 room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do = indeed=20 have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any = manner as=20 long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of = others.=20 Government -- in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and=20 accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question = -- is=20 restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to = travel.

Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. = This=20 means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, = and=20 those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error. = Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is = overwhelming in=20 determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the = free=20 exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms = secured=20 by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. That means it = is=20 unlawful. The revelation that the American citizen has always had the=20 inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who = are=20 involved in making and enforcing state laws. The first of such = questions may=20 very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are=20 unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some = way that=20 a state can legally put restrictions -- such as licensing = requirements,=20 mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name = just a=20 few -- on a citizen's constitutionally protected rights. Is that so? =

For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a=20 determination of this very issue. In Hertado v. California, 110 US = 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly:

"The state cannot diminish rights of the people." =

And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60,

"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common = right=20 and common reason are null and void."

Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the = point --=20 that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or=20 limitations on rights belonging to the people? Other cases are even = more=20 straight forward:

"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably = made, is=20 not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. = Wechsler,=20 263 US 22, at 24

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can = be no=20 rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda = v.=20 Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be = converted=20 into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at = 489.

There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of = this=20 exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F=20 946

We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; = however, the=20 Constitution itself answers our question - Can a government legally = put=20 restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any = reason?=20 The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall = be made=20 in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and = the Judges=20 in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution = or laws=20 of any State to the Contrary not one word = withstanding."

In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is = bound=20 by this Supreme Law:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the = Members of=20 the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial = Officers,=20 both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound = by Oath=20 or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."

Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an = excuse for=20 such acts by officials? If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as = we are=20 sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such = unlawful=20 acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal = crime=20 to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected = rights. Our=20 system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove = a right=20 belonging to the people. These are:

by lawfully amending the constitution, or
by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.

Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many = millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and=20 volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have = knowingly given=20 up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must = acquire the=20 proper permits and registrations. There are basically two groups of = people in=20 this category:

More- http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/right2travel.shtml<= /A>
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Raymond Karczewski
DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL
Thu Mar = 29=20 14:52:35 2001

DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO = TRAVEL

George Lee=20 McElroy wrote:

Raymond Karczewski wrote:

rk: I = received Mr.=20 McElroy's letter to DA Clay Johnson (see below) and was given = permission to=20 repost it. May I suggest readers also repost it widely for whomever = has the=20 intelligence to understand the conversion of our Unalienable Rights = and=20 Freedoms into the slavery of governmental "Privilege" where an = Inalienable=20 Right can be transformed into a Crime.

rk: It would seem that = some=20 people are waking up to this Insurance Industry/Government=20 Bureaucracy-instigated Driver's Licensing "Construction Fraud" long=20 perpetrated upon the gullible American People by its mind-controlling=20 government.

rk: It appears that we are no longer a nation = governed by=20 Constitutional Law, but have slowly and incrementlly through mind = control=20 techniques (Propaganda) become a nation controlled and dominated by=20 bureaucratic regulation which operates under the shadowy "color" of = law. Such=20 could not happen if the public "Traveller" who travels the public = roadways in=20 the "usual conveyance of the day," i.e., private automobile, for = nonbusiness,=20 private purposes were not coerced into entering a contract without = full=20 disclosure of the contract's terms being made at the
time. Signing = that=20 contract without full knowledge of its terms requires one to waive = one's=20 Contitutional Rights and accept the full terms of a regulatory = contract with=20 penalties and sanctions designed to police the actions and conduct of = those=20 who use the public roadways for business or profit.

rk: It is = through=20 such nefarious manipulations that confusion regarding the relationship = of a=20 people and with its government emerges, wherein the Master -- the = people --=20 become the Servant, and the Servant -- the government -- becomes the = Master.=20 Such is the transformation from Freedom to Tyranny when Rights are = converted=20 into Privileges.

rk: Here in the United States, isn't it time = we took=20 back control of our country? Isn't it time we took back control over = our=20 lives?

rk: How many reading this have been damaged = psychologically and=20 financially by such fraud through fines, incarceration, and or = coercive=20 participation in mental health program followup, and are up for = joining in and=20 launching a Class Action Law Suit against the government in this=20 issue?

rk; Yes, folks, the curtain has been lifted and it's = about time=20 YOU PAID ATTENTION to the WIZARD BEHIND IT.

Ray Karczewski=20

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Clay=20 Johnson
District Attorney
Josephine County, Oregon
500 N.W. = 6th=20 Street / Courthouse
Grants Pass, Oregon 97526

Mr.=20 Johnson,

Free people have a right to travel on the roads that = are=20 provided by their servants for that purpose, using ordinary = transportation of=20 the day. Licensing cannot be required of free people because taking on = the=20 restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a right. The = drivers=20 license can be required of people who use the highways for trade, = commerce or=20 hire; that is, if they earn their living on the road, and they use=20 extraordinary machines on the roads. In other words, if you are not = using the=20 highways for profit, you cannot be required to have a drivers license. =

Personal liberty consists of the power of locomotion, of = changing=20 situations, of removing one's person to whatever place one's = inclination may=20 direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of = law.=20 Streets and highways are established and maintained for the purpose of = travel=20 and transportation by the public. Such travel may be for business or = pleasure.=20 The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation = is not a=20 mere privilege, but a common and fundamental right of which the public = and the=20 individual cannot be rightfully deprived.
Where rights secured by = the=20 Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation = that=20 would abrogate them. The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right = cannot=20 be converted into a crime. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed = upon=20 one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights. I believe a = great fraud=20 has been perpetrated against the free people of the United States of = America.=20 Be advised that fraud vitiates the most solemn contract.

I do = not make=20 my living on the roads. I have never applied for a grant of driving = privileges=20 from the State of Oregon in the form of a license. I was, however, on=20 10/15/2000, charged with the offense of "No Operators License". I was = given a=20 summons to appear in the Grants Pass Circuit Court. I was not required = to sign=20 the summons nor did I agree to appear. The state cannot produce any = document=20 signed by me granting an attachment of equity jurisdiction between the = United=20 States and me. The Josephine County court, without proper = jurisdiction, has=20 attached a liability to me in the amount of $218.75 and assigned it to = the=20 Oregon Department of Revenue for collection. I am being threatened = with the=20 issuance of a distraint warrant. The DMV has issued me a license = number for=20 tracking purposes so they can record a suspension of driving = privileges. The=20 state has converted my Constitutional right into a crime without due = process=20 of law.

At this time I respectfully demand that all records = involving=20 driving or operating privileges, all court records, all assignments,=20 liabilities, and warrants having my name on them be destroyed. This=20 communication, in addition to you, is also being sent to all the major = newsgroups on the internet and other groups in the United States that = are=20 actively involved in restoring our sacred liberties that are being = taken from=20 us one by one by more or less rapid encroachment. I believe in the = rule of=20 law. I stand firmly against the abrogation of NATURAL RIGHTS endowed = us by our=20 creator.

Sincerely,

George Lee McElroy

Cc: = Oregon=20 Department of Revenue
Oregon Department of Motor = Vehicles
Representative=20 Carl Wilson
Representative Jason Atkinson
Ray = Karczewski
Illinois=20 Valley News
Grants Pass Daily Courier
Josephine County Sheriff, = Dave=20 Daniel
Oregon Attorney General, Hardy Meyers
United States = Attorney=20 General, John Ashcroft

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Raymond Karczewski
Re: Here's your controlling = law Raymond=20 --- OR IS IT???
Thu Mar 29 18:29:40 2001

Re: Here's = your=20 controlling law Raymond --- OR IS IT???

Date: Thu, 29 Mar = 2001=20 23:54:45 GMT

From: Immature and irresponsible (unknown) =

unk:=20 You're incoherent

unk: Why do you think only drivers of = commercial=20 vehicles need demonstrate driving competence? Are other drivers any = less=20 dangerous? Why? And what are your legal references to support any of = your=20 claims? I see nothing in your posts to support your argument in = logic or=20 law.

rk: Then you are not only an ignoramus but a blind one = at that!=20
In the strict Letter of the Word environment which pervades the = the=20 legislative/judicial aspects of government, do not Oregon Revised = Statutes =A7=20 807.080 (1999) fall within the Maxim
Res Ipsa Loquitor, i.e., "It = Speaks=20 for Itself."?

rk: If you would like to read it ONCE MORE and = see what=20 I mean, HERE IT IS=20 = AGAIN.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Oregon=20 Revised Statutes =A7 807.080 (1999)

807.080. Driver = competency testing=20 certificates; waiver of demonstration test for persons certified; = rules;=20 fees.

(1) The Department of Transportation, by rule, shall = provide=20 for the following in a manner consistent with this section: (a) The = issuance=20 of driver competency testing certificates. (b) The regulation of = persons=20 issued driver competency testing certificates.

(2) A person = issued a=20 driver competency testing certificate under this section may = certify, in a=20 manner established by the department, the competency of drivers to = safely=20 exercise driving privileges granted only under one or more of the = following:=20

(a) A Class A commercial driver license.

(b) A Class = B=20 commercial driver license.

(c) A Class C commercial driver = license.=20

(3) The department may waive an actual demonstration of = ability to=20 operate a motor vehicle under ORS 807.070 for an applicant who is = certified=20 by the holder of a driver competency testing certificate as = competent to=20 exercise the driving privileges in the class of license sought by = the=20 applicant.

(4) The rules adopted by the department under = this=20 section may include any of the following:

(a) The rules may = establish=20 reasonable fees for the issuance of a certificate or as part of any = program=20 of regulating certificate holders that is established by the=20 department.

(b) The department may make the certificate = renewable=20 upon any basis determined convenient by the department and may = include=20 provisions for cancellation, revocation or suspension of = certificates or for=20 probation of certificate holders.

(c) The department may = provide for=20 the issuance of certifications allowing the holder to certify = competency in=20 several classes or types of driving privileges or limiting the = classes or=20 types of driving privileges for which the holder may certify = competency.=20

(d) The department may establish the forms of certificates = to be=20 issued.

(e) The department may establish and require forms = that are=20 to be used by certificate holders in certifying = competency.

(f) The=20 department may establish any qualifications or requirements for = obtaining a=20 certificate that the department determines necessary to protect the=20 interests of persons seeking certification by certificate holders.=20

(g) The department may issue certificates to publicly owned = and=20 operated educational facilities to allow programs for certification = of=20 competency.

(h) The department may issue certificates to = employers=20 to allow the employers to establish programs primarily for the = certification=20 of employees' competency. The department may provide that programs=20 established under this paragraph may be operated without driver = training=20 school certificates under ORS 822.500 and without driver training = instructor=20 certificates under ORS 822.525.

(i) The department may = establish any=20 other provisions or requirements necessary to carry out the purposes = of this=20 section.

HISTORY: 1985 c.608 =A7 36; 1989 c.636 =A7 = 20

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Raymond Karczewski
Here's your controlling law = Raymond ---=20 OR IS IT???
Thu Mar 29 17:34:43 2001

Here's your = controlling=20 law Raymond --- OR IS IT???

unk: Here's your controlling law = Raymond=20

Re: DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL (Raymond Karczewski)=20

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 22:02:55 GMT

From: Maybe = you'd like=20 to actually read it? (unknown)

unk: Here is the legislation = duly=20 enacted by representatives of the people. You'll notice, if you take = the=20 trouble to actually read the controlling law here, that teh purspoe = of the=20 license is to protect public safety, a compelling governmental = interest that=20 is upheld by appellate review.

rk: You will also notice that = such=20 legislation SPECIFICALLY applies ONLY TO "drivers" and commercially = "driven"=20 motor Vehicles, (check out legal definition of "driver" and "motor = vehicle")=20 AND NOT to Travellers and their private automobiles used in = noncommercial=20 activities.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oregon = Revised=20 Statutes =A7 807.080 (1999)

807.080. Driver competency = testing=20 certificates; waiver of demonstration test for persons certified; = rules;=20 fees.

(1) The Department of Transportation, by rule, shall = provide=20 for the following in a manner consistent with this section: (a) The = issuance=20 of driver competency testing certificates. (b) The regulation of = persons=20 issued driver competency testing certificates.

(2) A person = issued a=20 driver competency testing certificate under this section may = certify, in a=20 manner established by the department, the competency of drivers to = safely=20 exercise driving privileges granted only under one or more of the = following:=20

(a) A Class A commercial driver license.

(b) A Class = B=20 commercial driver license.

(c) A Class C commercial driver = license.=20

(3) The department may waive an actual demonstration of = ability to=20 operate a motor vehicle under ORS 807.070
for an applicant who is = certified by the holder of a driver competency testing certificate = as=20 competent to exercise the driving privileges in the class of license = sought=20 by the applicant.

(4) The rules adopted by the department = under this=20 section may include any of the following:

(a) The rules may = establish=20 reasonable fees for the issuance of a certificate or as part of any = program=20 of regulating certificate holders that is established by the=20 department.

(b) The department may make the certificate = renewable=20 upon any basis determined convenient by the department and may = include=20 provisions for cancellation, revocation or suspension of = certificates or for=20 probation of certificate holders.

(c) The department may = provide for=20 the issuance of certifications allowing the holder to certify = competency in=20 several classes or types of driving privileges or limiting the = classes or=20 types of driving privileges for which the holder may certify = competency.=20

(d) The department may establish the forms of certificates = to be=20 issued.

(e) The department may establish and require forms = that are=20 to be used by certificate holders in certifying = competency.

(f) The=20 department may establish any qualifications or requirements for = obtaining a=20 certificate that the department determines necessary to protect the=20 interests of persons seeking certification by certificate holders.=20

(g) The department may issue certificates to publicly owned = and=20 operated educational facilities to allow programs for certification = of=20 competency.

(h) The department may issue certificates to = employers=20 to allow the employers to establish programs primarily for the = certification=20 of employees' competency. The department may provide that programs=20 established under this paragraph may be operated without driver = training=20 school certificates under ORS 822.500 and without driver training = instructor=20 certificates under ORS 822.525.

(i) The department may = establish any=20 other provisions or requirements necessary to carry out the purposes = of this=20 section.

HISTORY: 1985 c.608 =A7 36; 1989 c.636 =A7 20

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Rev. Dr. J.D. Hooker
reply
Thu Mar 29 15:44:33 = 2001

This is just my own opinion, & anyone's free to=20 disagree!!!
The Amish folks don't get drivers licenses, & = they use=20 the roadways!! BUT--they don't operate lethally dangerous iron motor = vehicles either! In most states you can also drive a farm tractor on = public=20 roadways without any sort of license! They also don't have the = EXPENSE of=20 fuel, oil, tires, tune-ups & so forth! IF you're going to = operate a car=20 or truck, I'd recommend taking the trouble to get a license. If you = don't=20 want to, then why not trade in your car for a horse& buggy, or = for a=20 John Deere?

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Right to Travel Vs. Drivers License
http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/right2travel.shtml<= /A>

Armey Exposes Traffic-Light = Spying
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/traffic-light.htm=

Driver Licensing vs. the Right to = Travel
http://web.archive.org/web/20010221144001/http:/user.icx.= net/~drherb/licensing.html

Wood County Texas Courts'
Violation of = Soverign=20 Citizen's, Constitutional Right's
http://web.archive.org/web/20010221144001/http:/user.icx.= net/~drherb/licensing.html

COMMON LAW VEHICULAR JUDICIAL = NOTICE
CONSTITUTIONAL=20 DRIVERS LICENSE
http://justiceprose.8m.com/carl/carl41.html<= /P>
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS=20
C2-96-1116
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/9702/c2= 961116.htm=20

The Sword of Commerce
http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20010213.htm

Driver's License is a Contract
between = you and the=20 Motor Vehicle Department
http://www.svpvril.com/drilic.html

THE AMERICAN HALLUCINATION
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/halluc.htm

The Right to Travel
vs.
Driver's = License=20 Scam
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/drivers-license-scam.htm

American=20 Patriot Friends Network

"...a network of net=20 workers..."

APFN IS NOT A BUSINESS
APFN IS = SUPPORTED BY=20 "FREE WILL" GIFT/DONATIONS
Without Justice, there is = JUST_US!
http://www.apfn.org/ =

APFN Sitemap

APFN Message = Board

APFN Contents=20 Page

APFN Home=20 Page

E-Mail:=20 APFN@apfn.org

Last = updated=20 = 12/04/2010

+8

You!

=20 Add Photos & = Videos =20

Top Opinion

dink January 27, 2011 = 22:17:42

+4
There are millions of americans that don't = own vehicles=20 and millions of illegal immigrants that don't have driver's licenses = and=20 insurance. You get into a wreck with an unisured driver and your = insurance=20 goes up and they recieve a ticket that they never pay and just keep on = driving.

>> See = Replies

Sort By

Most Raves

Least Raves

Oldest

Newest

=20 text size
Opinions

Amanda L February 02, 2011=20 20:34:52

+2

TRAVEL
The term "travel" is a significant term = and is=20 defined as:

"The term 'travel' and 'traveler' are usually=20 construed in their broad and general sense...so as to include all = those who=20 rightfully use the highways viatically (when being reimbursed for = expenses)=20 and who have occasion to pass over them for the purpose of business,=20 convenience, or pleasure." [emphasis added] 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, = Sect.427, p.717.
"Traveler One who passes from place to place, = whether for=20 pleasure, instruction, business, or health." Locket vs. State, 47 Ala. = 45;=20 Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 3309.

"Travel: To = journey or to=20 pass through or over; as a country district, road, etc. To go from one = place=20 to another, whether on foot, or horseback, or in any conveyance as a = train, an=20 automobile, carriage, ship, or aircraft; Make a journey." Century = Dictionary,=20 p.2034.

Therefore, the term "travel" or "traveler" refers to = one who=20 uses a conveyance to go from one place to another, and included all = those who=20 use the highways as a matter of Right.

Notice that in all = these=20 definitions the phrase "for hire" never occurs. This term "travel" or=20 "traveler" implies, by definition, one who uses the road as a means to = move=20 from one place to another.

Therefore, one who uses the road in = the=20 ord...

TRAVEL
The term "travel" is a significant term = and is=20 defined as:

"The term 'travel' and 'traveler' are usually=20 construed in their broad and general sense...so as to include all = those who=20 rightfully use the highways viatically (when being reimbursed for = expenses)=20 and who have occasion to pass over them for the purpose of business,=20 convenience, or pleasure." [emphasis added] 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, = Sect.427, p.717.
"Traveler One who passes from place to place, = whether for=20 pleasure, instruction, business, or health." Locket vs. State, 47 Ala. = 45;=20 Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 3309.

"Travel: To = journey or to=20 pass through or over; as a country district, road, etc. To go from one = place=20 to another, whether on foot, or horseback, or in any conveyance as a = train, an=20 automobile, carriage, ship, or aircraft; Make a journey." Century = Dictionary,=20 p.2034.

Therefore, the term "travel" or "traveler" refers to = one who=20 uses a conveyance to go from one place to another, and included all = those who=20 use the highways as a matter of Right.

Notice that in all = these=20 definitions the phrase "for hire" never occurs. This term "travel" or=20 "traveler" implies, by definition, one who uses the road as a means to = move=20 from one place to another.

Therefore, one who uses the road in = the=20 ordinary course of life and business for the purpose of travel and=20 transportation is a traveler.

DRIVER
The term "driver" = in=20 contradistinction to "traveler" is defined as:

"Driver One = employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle..." = Bovier's=20 Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 940.
Notice that this definition = includes one=20 who is "employed" in conducting a vehicle. It should be self-evident = that this=20 person could not be "travelling" on a journey, but is using the road = as a=20 place of business.

OPERATOR
Today we assume that a = "traveler"=20 is a "driver," and a "driver" is an "operator." However, this is not = the case.=20

"It will be observed from the language of the ordinance = that a=20 distinction is to be drawn between the terms 'operator' and 'driver'; = the=20 'operator' of the service car being the person who is licensed to have = the car=20 on the streets in the business of carrying passengers for hire; while = the=20 'driver' is the one who actually drives the car. However, in the = actual=20 prosecution of business, it was possible for the same person to be = both=20 'operator' and 'driver.'" Newbill vs. Union Indemnity Co., 60 SE.2d = 658.=20
To further clarify the definition of an "operator" the court = observed that=20 this was a vehicle "for hire" and that it was in the business of = carrying=20 passengers.

This definition would seem to describe a person = who is=20 using the road as a place of business, or in other words, a person = engaged in=20 the "privilege" of using the road for gain.

This definition, = then, is=20 a further clarification of the distinction mentioned earlier, and = therefore:=20

Travelling upon and transporting one's property upon the = public roads=20 as a matter of Right meets the definition of a traveler.

Using = the=20 road as a place of business as a matter of privilege meets the = definition of a=20 driver or an operator or both.
(more)

reply

Amanda L to Amanda L = February 02, 2011 = 20:36:57

+2
"If ever a judge understood the public's = right to use=20 the public roads, it was Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of the = State of=20 Washington. Justice Tolman stated:

"Complete freedom of = the=20 highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have = forgotten the=20 days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like = this,=20 arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, = if,=20 through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see = the=20 most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or = less=20 rapid encroachment." Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 = Wash 133,=20 147.
The words of Justice Tolman ring most prophetically in the = ears of=20 Citizens throughout the country today as the use of the public roads = has been=20 monopolized by the very entity which has been empowered to stand guard = over=20 our freedoms, i.e., that of state government. " - written by Glen = Bronstein of=20 Spokand, Washington

reply

Amanda L to Amanda L = February 02, 2011 = 20:55:19

+3

AUTOMOBILE AND MOTOR VEHICLE
There is a clear = distinction=20 between an automobile and a motor vehicle. An automobile has been = defined as:=20

"The word 'automobile' connotes a pleasure vehicle = designed for=20 the transportation of persons on highways." American Mutual Liability = Ins. Co.=20 vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200.
While the distinction is = made=20 clear between the two as the courts have stated:

"A motor = vehicle=20 or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile = stage,=20 used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is = received."=20 International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120.
The term = 'motor=20 vehicle' is different and broader than the word 'automobile.'"; City = of Dayton=20 vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232.

The = distinction is=20 made very clear in Title 18 USC 31:

"Motor vehicle" means = every=20 description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical = power and=20 used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of=20 passengers, or passengers and property.

"Used for commercial = purposes"=20 means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, = charge or=20 other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any = business, or other undertaking intended for profit.

Clearly,=20 a...

AUTOMOBILE AND MOTOR VEHICLE
There is a clear = distinction=20 between an automobile and a motor vehicle. An automobile has been = defined as:=20

"The word 'automobile' connotes a pleasure vehicle = designed for=20 the transportation of persons on highways." American Mutual Liability = Ins. Co.=20 vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200.
While the distinction is = made=20 clear between the two as the courts have stated:

"A motor = vehicle=20 or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile = stage,=20 used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is = received."=20 International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120.
The term = 'motor=20 vehicle' is different and broader than the word 'automobile.'"; City = of Dayton=20 vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232.

The = distinction is=20 made very clear in Title 18 USC 31:

"Motor vehicle" means = every=20 description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical = power and=20 used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of=20 passengers, or passengers and property.

"Used for commercial = purposes"=20 means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, = charge or=20 other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any = business, or other undertaking intended for profit.

Clearly, = an=20 automobile is private property in use for private purposes, while a = motor=20 vehicle is a machine which may be used upon the highways for trade, = commerce,=20 or hire.
(more)

reply

jlmeal January 31, 2011 = 00:33:09

Another quick note on the subject.
Driving is = what a person=20 (someone under a contract) does with a "motor vehicle" that no longer = has an=20 original Manufacturer's Statement of Origin (MSO)... Which means that = whomever=20 has it, bought it from the MFG... Once the MSO is turned into a a Cert = of=20 Title the product becomes a motor vehicle and is required to be = "driven" by a=20 "person" under contract ) ie. the Driver License.

Of course = the law=20 states that you cannot give up your right to travel by ANY MEANS YOU = CHOOSE=20 unless you do so "willingly, knowlingly, and without being tricked or = under=20 durress, etc"

Therein lies the argument. Do you want that = social=20 security which made you a US citizen rather than a so-called sovereign = State=20 Citizen? Keep in mind folks.... Once you become free and IF the cops = were stop=20 towing your vehicle and arresting you, there is always that chance you = could=20 have an accident and injure a child or cripple the family bread = winner.=20

Could you live with that? And the big question is... are you = avoiding=20 a license because you are a drunk with multiple DUIs or a weed smoking = hippie?=20 Or simply do not want to be hassled by law enforcement.

Those = here who=20 believe traveling by a car or motorcycle you build while you do not = have=20 license is a privvie ARE FLAT WRONG.. It ...

Another quick note on the subject.
Driving is = what a=20 person (someone under a contract) does with a "motor vehicle" that no = longer=20 has an original Manufacturer's Statement of Origin (MSO)... Which = means that=20 whomever has it, bought it from the MFG... Once the MSO is turned into = a a=20 Cert of Title the product becomes a motor vehicle and is required to = be=20 "driven" by a "person" under contract ) ie. the Driver License. =

Of=20 course the law states that you cannot give up your right to travel by = ANY=20 MEANS YOU CHOOSE unless you do so "willingly, knowlingly, and without = being=20 tricked or under durress, etc"

Therein lies the argument. Do = you want=20 that social security which made you a US citizen rather than a = so-called=20 sovereign State Citizen? Keep in mind folks.... Once you become free = and IF=20 the cops were stop towing your vehicle and arresting you, there is = always that=20 chance you could have an accident and injure a child or cripple the = family=20 bread winner.

Could you live with that? And the big question = is... are=20 you avoiding a license because you are a drunk with multiple DUIs or a = weed=20 smoking hippie? Or simply do not want to be hassled by law = enforcement.=20

Those here who believe traveling by a car or motorcycle you = build=20 while you do not have license is a privvie ARE FLAT WRONG.. It is a = Natural=20 Born American's right to travel however they so choose with the = exclusions I=20 mentioned above. The trick is we live in these united States of = America with=20 UN-a-LIEN-able rights rather than within the US with inalienable = rights.=20

I have a license and I am insured only because I have been hit = (broadsided) without either and the licensed driver was in the wrong = and they=20 walked away without paying my medical or damages because I was not = playing the=20 'game'.
(more)

reply

Pieter Joubert January 30, 2011=20 08:14:45

Travel on foot, bicycle and horse does not = requier any=20 permit or licence so, it is only motorized transport that has that=20 restriction. Right to travel is thus not restricted in any way, only = the=20 chosen mode of transport

reply

Pieter Joubert January 29, 2011=20 09:13:47

In general laws are introduced for a reason = by=20 representatives of the people and by a majority decision. =

Competancy=20 test of persons to drive a motorvehicle was introduced 100 years ago = to curb=20 rising road deaths.

As automobile-related fatalities soared in = North=20 America, public outcry provoked legislators to begin studying the = French and=20 German statutes as models.[2] On August 1, 1910, North America's first = driver's licensing law went into effect in the U.S. state of New York, = though=20 it initially applied only to professional chauffeurs.[3] In July 1913, = the=20 state of New Jersey became the first to require all drivers to pass a=20 mandatory examination before receiving a license.[4]

A = decision to=20 control firearm possession was enacted 100 years ago to curb the = violence and=20 prevent criminals from having free access to firearms.

The = National=20 Firearms Act ("NFA"), 73rd Congress, Sess. 2, ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236, = enacted=20 on 26 June 1934, currently codified as amended as 26 U.S.C. ch. 53, is = an Act=20 of Congress that, in general, imposes a statutory excise tax on the=20 manufacture and transfer of certain firearms and mandates the = registration of=20 those firearms. The Act was passed shortly after the repeal of = Prohibition.=20 The NFA is also referred to as Title II of the Federal firearms laws. = The Gun=20 Control Act of 1968 ("GCA") is Title I.

reply

Matt January 29, 2011=20 08:35:43

These articles seem like they are written by = Jared=20 Loughner. If states don't require a license to drive, how are we to = tell who=20 is prohibited from driving ?

reply

Frank January 28, 2011 = 18:45:46

Want to drive get a drivers license simple as = that, it=20 is a privelege, not a right.

reply

Tom January 28, 2011 = 15:40:34

Diving is not a right, it is a = priviledge.

reply

paleale to Tom January 29, 2011=20 19:22:28 (edited)

I agree, Travel is a right. Driving is a = privilage. No=20 one can stop you from walking.

reply

autumn_1959 January 28, 2011=20 13:30:49

i got pulled over by a cop for a burned ut = tail light=20 which i had no idea at the time he asked to see my drivers license and = registration my son was 3 at the time and he asked why do you need her = drivers=20 license driver license dont drive at that time i found it funny but = then i=20 rwalized out of the mouths of babes it,s a priviledge to drive not a=20 right

reply

cynsity January 28, 2011 = 06:31:11

This is what is SOOOOO wrong in this country. = No one=20 any more knows the difference between a RIGHT and a PRIVELDGE.... = simple=20 litnes test here.... if its a right there must be fair judical due = process for=20 that right to be taken from an individual and no marker (such as age = or=20 testing/training) for them to gain it in the first place. =

Driving is=20 not a right, owning a car is not a right... travel is a right but only = travel=20 under your own powers. And even such travel is still not an absolute = right as=20 age is a barror to total free travel, a 5 year old can not go where he = pleases=20 when he pleases without police interference and a return from where he = came.=20 There are no absolute rigts for persons in societies, rights exist but = the=20 absolutness of them is forfitted for the good and protection of the = societies.=20

People need to start getting it in their heads that many = things they=20 think are rights are not at all only privledges. And many of those are = only=20 state level privledges not promissed by the federal government in any = way.=20 Privacy, voting, land ownership, banking all only privledges at the = state=20 level completly stoppible if the fed decides to suspend them for a = time or=20 even perminatly

reply

wtxwoman January 28, 2011=20 04:00:51

I would not want to drive on the public roads = if I=20 thought the majority of the other drivers didn't have some kind of = permit and=20 accident insurance. That's crazy thinking. Travel anywhere you want to = without=20 a license as long as you are a passenger. As for DUI stops, they = should have=20 them more often. Drunks should not DRIVE! They kill people when they = do!

reply

Thor to wtxwoman = January 28, 2011 = 17:33:19

Then I'd suggest you stal out of Southern = CA.

reply

wtxwoman to Thor January 28, 2011 = 17:41:38

I know what you mean. I've been there, done = that. It=20 wasn't fun at all. El Paso is the same way, especially on the weekend. = Every=20 store that has a sell gets mobbed by Mexicans who come across the = border in=20 droves to shop. The stores always look like a tornado hit them when it = is=20 over. I shop during the week.

reply

jubil8 BN-0 WAWU = January 28, 2011 = 03:33:59

+1
"Right to travel" does NOT =3D "right to = operate a motor=20 vehicle."

"Right to travel" would be walk, run, Fox Trot, = whatever, on=20 your own 2 feet. Period. Did the FF's have a RIGHT to own a horse so = they=20 could travel faster? No.

reply

none January 28, 2011 = 02:08:19

+2
No one has the right to drive unless you have = a license=20 in the state you reside. You also can't legally drive in most states = unless=20 you have proof of insurance. Anyone who has no license and proof of = insurance=20 should have the vehicle they are driving taken away from them at the = time of=20 the offence. Who gives a sh*t if it's some damn ILLEAL alien criminal = or=20 anyone else. You either do it right or you pay the price, tough sh*t. = Do it=20 right or don't do it.

reply

JohnDavidBurling January 28, 2011=20 01:15:29

+1
You don't have the RIGHT to operate an = automobile with=20 in any given states boarders. You have the right to travel with a = license but=20 beyond that you ahve to get a license if you want to drive yourself. = Cover=20 your rear and let the ones that break the law deal with the = repracutions if=20 there are any.

reply

wordpress January 28, 2011=20 00:53:15

You have a right to drive and a = responsibility to do it=20 responsibly.

reply

Dwight January 28, 2011 = 00:39:41

+1
North Carolina has so many ilegal drivers, = some of them=20 just plain illegal, there's no real point in getting a license. = Shucks, I=20 expect to see a Tau Cetian any time.

reply

jlmeal January 28, 2011 = 00:18:02 (edited) =

I have fought this for years and win = everytime.. The=20 key is that when you buy a vehicle and register it or even have a = "Certificate=20 of Title" meaning the state owns your vehicle, that makes you a = "driver" and=20 you are under their rules and regulations.
But to be honest, it = would cost=20 you everything IF you were to get into a wreck and not have insurance = to pay=20 for damages, not to mention the huge financial troubles you'd cause = the family=20 you wrecked into (IF that were to happen).
I would be happy to = send anyone=20 a copy of what I have used over the years, but the gov't does try to = tie it=20 together with the birth cert and school docs (as if a minor could = legally be=20 held responsible)... The title must be "conveyed" back to the state = and that=20 number used as a license plate. HOWEVER, this will NOT prevent police = power=20 from arresting you and towing your vehicle and making your life Hell = just=20 because they can. (ignore my typos)
jlmealATyahoo

reply

gregaj7 January 28, 2011 = 00:04:58

Been trying to do this here in C/S. Having = you own=20 plates (private trust) can get their attention. My "engine-powered = items" have=20 not been in the muni-corps system, since Nov of 2008, and I have my = own=20 private (notarized) ID.

reply

La January 27, 2011 = 23:30:42

+2
That's loverly and all, but statutory law = overrides=20 case law, and statutory law says that people need a licence to = drive.

reply

WGN January 27, 2011 = 23:16:33

+3
You have a point, but the other side to this = is quite=20 simple. Yes, you can travel. All well and good. But that does not mean = that=20 you have the right to not get a permit to drive. The two are quite = separate=20 and they are different. I can travel with another person and I do not = need a=20 drivers license. I can travel by horse and buggy, by bicycle, or walk = without=20 a license. No Constitutional rights abridged in those. The other part = of this=20 is the states right to grant permission, by way of testing for a = person to=20 Drive. To travel does not mean to drive. That part is where your = argument=20 falls apart. The state does have the right, and it is Constitutional, = to limit=20 whether a person can (has the ability so as to not injure another) = drive a=20 motor vehicle, not that a person can not travel.
The states = licensing of=20 drivers does not stop them from traveling over the roads, it just says = that=20 you need a license to Drive on them. Driving and traveling are not the = same,=20 although one may infer the other.

reply

Stan Kapusta January 27, 2011=20 22:53:19

+1
This is why we should get rid of the lawyers = and=20 replace them with common sense.
You don't have the authority to = tell an=20 Adult American where they can come and go unless it's
for security = reasons. Where is Shakespeare when you need him>

reply

dlsofsetx January 27, 2011=20 22:40:26

+2
I tnink there needs to be some regulation of=20 driving.Automobiles are too dangerous when driven by = incompetants.

reply

steven to dlsofsetx = January 27, 2011 = 23:14:12

+1
Certainly train and test people, but make = them pay the=20 state every few years? There has to be a middle point.

reply

dlsofsetx to = steven = January 27, 2011 = 23:17:04

+1
I agree with that.I also think drivers should = be=20 retested every so often.

reply

Mr. HooDz to = steven = January 28, 2011 = 01:27:54

Agreed. its a shame I have to give the DMV 30 = bills to=20 "renew" my license. Just another way for them to rob us.

reply

dink January 27, 2011 = 22:17:42

+4
There are millions of americans that don't = own vehicles=20 and millions of illegal immigrants that don't have driver's licenses = and=20 insurance. You get into a wreck with an unisured driver and your = insurance=20 goes up and they recieve a ticket that they never pay and just keep on = driving.

reply

steven to dink January 27, 2011=20 23:15:15

Law is law. But "law" is not law. = Color-of-law is=20 counterfeit.

reply

dink to steven January 28, 2011=20 21:47:34

I was a cop for 20 years in Texas alot of the = laws are=20 the law. The illgeal immigration law is Color -of-law and is = counterfeit and=20 has been since 1976.

reply

merlinskiss January 27, 2011=20 21:41:20

+2
While I personally feel driving and free = travel are a=20 right and not a privilege, I am not sure about all of this. If this is = true,=20 we should have many millions of traffic court ticket challenges going = on right=20 now. Can anyone tell me why this isn't happening? Sounds like the = perfect=20 defense.

reply

steven to merlins... = January 27, 2011 = 23:16:11

+1
Some have done so and won. I have a friend in = Arizona=20 whose aunt has fought and won on this issue.

reply

merlins... to = steven = January 27, 2011 = 23:25:10

Great. It's going to take a lot more. Maybe a = class=20 action lawsuit?

reply

newhon63 January 27, 2011=20 21:40:52

+1

I can only assume that someone brought up the High = speed=20 railway because that bonehead, Barrack Obama said we needed one in his = SOTU=20 address. Is it any coincidence that he wants to build a high speed = railway=20 because President HU MAKA RAN Sukiaki has one in his country? =

Problem=20 is Obama used up about 3 trillion dollars on this Stimilus package and = other=20 funds that no one below Bankers and auto industries got much of in the = last 2=20 years.
We don't have any more money, Freezing spending in it's = present=20 place will still have interest accrued to it each day that goes by. We = need to=20 cut spending. He says we needed jobs and to fix the economy. Well his = ideas=20 got us more in debt. But that's another story, isn't it?

To = drive a=20 car, it takes a certain amount of skill. You can't just allow anyone = to drive=20 on the road without the proper training. Hell, there are alot of = people I know=20 of that although they recieved training and have been driving for a = few=20 decades now they still don't have the hang of it. I think they should = do more=20 testing. I love and respect elderly people but when it comes time for = Grandpa=20 and Grandma to hand over the keys and the driver's license due to = reduced=20 reaction speeds and vision. They won't do it on their own. They should = be=20 subjected to a eye test and a road...

I can only assume that someone brought up the High = speed=20 railway because that bonehead, Barrack Obama said we needed one in his = SOTU=20 address. Is it any coincidence that he wants to build a high speed = railway=20 because President HU MAKA RAN Sukiaki has one in his country? =

Problem=20 is Obama used up about 3 trillion dollars on this Stimilus package and = other=20 funds that no one below Bankers and auto industries got much of in the = last 2=20 years.
We don't have any more money, Freezing spending in it's = present=20 place will still have interest accrued to it each day that goes by. We = need to=20 cut spending. He says we needed jobs and to fix the economy. Well his = ideas=20 got us more in debt. But that's another story, isn't it?

To = drive a=20 car, it takes a certain amount of skill. You can't just allow anyone = to drive=20 on the road without the proper training. Hell, there are alot of = people I know=20 of that although they recieved training and have been driving for a = few=20 decades now they still don't have the hang of it. I think they should = do more=20 testing. I love and respect elderly people but when it comes time for = Grandpa=20 and Grandma to hand over the keys and the driver's license due to = reduced=20 reaction speeds and vision. They won't do it on their own. They should = be=20 subjected to a eye test and a road test to ensure they still possess = these=20 necessary skills to operate a motor vehicle safely. For that matter I = have=20 seen some kids that are just learning to drive really worry me on the = road.=20 They are distracted and reckless. There is a reason for insurance as = well. So=20 when you total a guy's car and put his wife in the hospital you can't = just=20 say" Sorry" and that is it and you leave them with medical bills and = car=20 replacement costs.
Registration is so that you can prove = ownership. That I=20 can't just jump in your car and take it to Las vegas with buddies and = leave it=20 where I want and take the bus back home.

So This steve guy = that posted=20 all this stuff. Is he a lawyer? I didn't read it all either. I will = when I=20 want to get put to sleep. But it looks like it is saying that after = all this=20 time , we have been using Driver's Licenses and we don't have to . =
Someone=20 a long time ago also told me that American citizens are not subject to = the=20 jurisdiction of the courts because they have a flag in court that have = the=20 fringes around the edges of the flag and therefore their authority = over us can=20 not be recognized.
(more)

reply

steven to newhon63 = January 27, 2011 = 23:18:51

" I will when I want to get put to = sleep."
That=20 about says it all for some folks' willingness to research, doesn't = it?

reply

newhon63 to steven = January 31, 2011 = 07:13:13

The problem is who the hell could understand = it anyway?=20 I know You are going to tell me you are a lawyer or something to make = you far=20 more superior intelliectually to the rest of us losers that read = Sodahead.Or=20 you are going to tell me that it is not anyone else, but it is me, so = that you=20 can focus an insult directly to me.
But for all intents and = purposes it=20 means nothing to the rest of us. So translate it for the rest of us. = What you=20 are saying is we have been forced to obtain driver's licenses for = driving and=20 we have never had the legal obligation to do so. yes? And as an added = issue,=20 we were never legally obligated to obtain insurance or registration = for our=20 vehicles either, yes? So we should all just cut up our driver's = license and=20 other paperwork and just drive to our heart's content and there is = nothing law=20 enforcement can do about it.

reply

Beer30 January 27, 2011 = 21:38:57 (edited) =

+1
It's an AWFULLY long-winded article, Steven, = but it can=20 be reduced to two words ~~ Common Sense.

Citizens authorize = public=20 roads be built and maintained, just as it does sea lanes, air = corridors and=20 rail right-of-way. For the purposes of public safety and the general = welfare,=20 the State must insist on standards of competence among all users, and=20 'roadworthy' fitness among the various vehicles operated. We don't = want our=20 planes to crash. We don't want some rusty garbage scow sinking into = the middle=20 of the river. And we don't want some puking drunk on the road at = 3:00am.=20

That's why it issues operator permits to automobile drivers, = sea=20 captains, airline pilots and railroad engineers. That's why we mandate = brakes,=20 headlights, seat belts, motorcycle helmets, speed limits, airhorns, = control=20 towers, and safety stickers on your windshield.
It's designed so = the user=20 of our public systems, and his motorcar, can operate skillfully and = safely=20 without being a risk ~~ or a victim ~~ to everyone else.

reply

Wayne January 27, 2011 = 21:34:04

+1
Very interesting.

reply

1 2=20 Next=20 =BB Last=20 =BB

Hot Questions on SodaHead

= news=20
= Woman=20 Blinded by Acid Spares Attacker the Same Fate: Would You Have Done = the=20 Same?

On Sunday, an Iranian woman blinded in an acid attack seven years = ago=20 halted the "eye for an eye" punishment for her attacker. She told = CNN, "Such=20 revenge is not worth it."

45% voted No = Do=20 you agree?

Curfew=20 Keep Kids Safer in Chicago?

Does=20 Christie's Health Concern You?

Freaking=20 Out About Debt Ceiling Yet?

Walmart=20 Right to Kick Out Bikini Woman?
Lifestyle=20
Would=20 You Stay at an 'Airbnb'?

Hotel rooms are boring, sterile and just plain depressing. But = what if=20 you could stay in a fully-furnished house or apartment for the same = price,=20 or less?

48% voted Yes Do=20 you agree?

news=20
Should=20 the Taliban Be Allowed to Maintain a Facebook Profile?

First they wanted to live in caves and not let their people have = TVs. But=20 now the Taliban has not only a Twitter account, but a Facebook page = too.=20 Make up your mind.

46% voted No Do=20 you agree?

Weird News=20
Facebook=20 Adds 'I'm Expecting' Option: Creepy or Cool?

Individuals trying to decide how, when, and who to tell about = their=20 pregnancy now have another factor to consider. Should they use the=20 "Expected: Child" option on Facebook?

36% voted Cool Do=20 you agree?

More=20 Community More = Originals=20

=20

Slideshow
Who Should Jennifer Lopez = Date Next?=20

=20

Slideshow
Most Iconic Celeb = Hairstyle?=20

=20

Slideshow
Which Star Are You Most = Sick Of?=20

View more slideshows =BB =

=20

Login= =20

Register<= /A>=20

Ask

Ask a Question =

Create a Poll = Widget=20

Answer

Hot Questions =

Recent = Questions=20

Discover

Find People

Groups

Slideshows =

Hot = Topics Public = Opinion2012 = Electionmore =85 =

Topics: Public = Opinion2012 = ElectionQuotes of the = DayBarack ObamaCasey = AnthonyDebt CeilingWeird NewsMichele = Bachmannmore =85 =

SodaHead Site Links=20
Ask a = Question=20
Create a Poll = Widget=20
Hot Questions=20
Slideshows=20
News & = Politics=20 Opinions=20
Entertainment=20 Opinions=20
Living Opinions=20
Topics=20
Sitemap =

About SodaHead=20
About Us=20
Partners=20
Advertise with us=20
Poll Widget = Samples=20
SodaHead Legal=20
Terms=20
Privacy=20
Code of Conduct

SodaHead Tools=20
Ask a = Question=20
Create a Poll = Widget=20
Find Friends=20
Search SodaHead=20
Follow us on Twitter=20
Find us on=20 Facebook

SodaHead Help=20
Report = Abuse=20
Help=20
Contact Us=20
FAQs=20
SodaHead Swag=20
SodaH= ead=20 Store=20

=A9 2011=20 SodaHead.com All Rights Reserved

The right of travel vs. driver's 'license' revenue = ploy

Top Opinion

Sort By Most Raves Least Raves Oldest Newest =20 text size Opinions

= Woman=20 Blinded by Acid Spares Attacker the Same Fate: Would You Have Done = the=20 Same?

Would=20 You Stay at an 'Airbnb'?

Should=20 the Taliban Be Allowed to Maintain a Facebook Profile?

Facebook=20 Adds 'I'm Expecting' Option: Creepy or Cool?

Sort By

Most Raves

Least Raves

Oldest

Newest

=20 text size
Opinions