Posted on 05/24/2005 5:40:38 AM PDT by tahiti
On Monday, the Illinois State Police and Illinois Department of Transportation announced the start of their largest-ever enforcement campaign, which will target unrestrained motorists in more than 3,000 "enforcement zones" set up statewide.
(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...
LOL! That would be great!
U.S. Supreme Court EDWARDS v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 (1941)
"the right of free movement is a right of national citizenship stands on firm historical ground. If a state tax on that movement, as in the Crandall case, is invalid, a fortiori a state statute which obstructs or in substance prevents that movement must fall."
"It might thus withhold from large segments of our people that mobility which is basic to any guarantee of freedom of opportunity. The result would be a substantial dilution of the rights of national citizenship, a serious impairment of the principles of equality. Since the state statute here challenged involves such consequences, it runs afoul of the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
Now a "right" can be regulated when the exertion of right by one person will infringe on the right of another person.
That is why speed limit and traffic control laws are constitutional.
But no one else's right is impugned, denied, disparaged, or diminished if one citizen wishes to wear a seat belt or not while exerciseing their right to travel and movement in their automobile.
If the citizens wish to pay for the medical benefits of injured citizens not wearing a seat belt, then that is poor public policy and it is not resolved by denying and disparaging rights "retained by the people."
Nanny State P.C. B.S. If I were a Cop with a brain, I'd get the Blue Flu those days.
So, breaking the law is okay?
Ditto in Florida. "Click-it of Ticket"
/jasper
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, if I may speak holistically.
I hate seat belts, especially the shoulder harnesses. Almost all of them come around my neck and throat and I can't adjust them. If there was an accident, I'd be strangled or decapitated.
I am so tired of government telling us what to do. If I choose not to wear a seatbelt, it should be my choice to make. If I die in an accident and am not wearing a seatbelt, then everyone should say, too bad and be done with it. Why does government feel the constant need to dictate what's best for us?
And no, 'liberty' doesn't mean you can drive unregulated nor does driving fall under the pursuit of happiness.
Mama (may I call you mama?), an "inalienable right"? That's absurd and you know it (or you're pulling my chain). Under your argument there's no reason to deny an Illegal alien a DL. In fact, under your argument, you or they don't even need one.
As to the roads being 'public property', uh not exactly. All Interstates 'belong' to the Federal gubmint, along with all 'US' highways and the state routes belong to the state and the county roads to the county, etc, etc, etc. Your logic here treats roads like public parks, which by the way ALSO have regulations as in; This Park Closes At Dusk. And you can't get more 'public' than a Park. Libraries are also 'public' and they have rules and regulations too (I think?).
Bottom line - again - Driving is a privilege GRANTED to those who qualify, by the laws of the various states. And for that matter so is the purchase of a car/truck/van/suv/motorcycle/scooter i.e.; anything with an engine or motor. It's that Commerce Clause thingy in the U.S. Constitution.
I assure you I would be VERY pleased to find the Declaration interpreted as defining constitutional intent. But YOU might want to get a refund on that GED. Your history teacher was drunk!
Certainly, Hon :)
Under your argument there's no reason to deny an Illegal alien a DL.
Why do you think the authorities release an illegal with either NO or MULTIPLE licenses if they have no other *documentation*? (like an expired visa, etc.)
What IS the *legal* definition of license:
license
1) n. governmental permission to perform a particular act (like getting married), conduct a particular business or occupation, operate machinery or vehicles after proving ability to do so safely or use property for a certain purpose.
______________________________________________
Could you please explain how/why a FREE people must get the governments 'permission' to move their property from one location to another?
(Please don't even try the public safety argument. Nowhere does government have the authority to save us from ourselves)
All Interstates 'belong' to the Federal gubmint, along with all 'US' highways and the state routes belong to the state and the county roads to the county, etc, etc, etc.
Where do the feds, city, states, etc, etc, GET their money?
From the people! There is NO SUCH THING as 'government money'
It's that Commerce Clause thingy in the U.S. Constitution.
Is it? Really?
Article 1 Section 8 clause 3:
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
"Among the states" means JUST that... The political entities a.k.a.'States".
NOT the physical, geographical land mass.
This is a common Constitutional misconception...the Framers created a legally binding contract that we refer to as the Constitution
Like ALL legally binding contracts, it MUST contain full disclosure, or ALL the *terms* of the contract.
The federal government's power is not EXPANDED by the Constitution, but RESTRICTED by it;
Article 1 Section 8, clause 16;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;
_____________________________________________________
They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please ... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.
Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on National Bank, 1791
"The constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
--Patrick Henry
"When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the Center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."
– Thomas Jefferson
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 17, 1782
_____________________________________________________
STILL skeptical?
---------------------------------------------------------
In 1794, during debate on a bill that would appropriate $15,000 for French refugees from San Domingo, James Madison, then a representative from Virginia said:
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
---------------------------------------------------------
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
Thomas Jefferson
---------------------------------------------------------
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
Norton ~vs~ Shelby County, 118 US 425 p. 442.
---------------------------------------------------------
"When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda ~vs~ Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.
---------------------------------------------------------
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, not merely from the date of the decision branding it?"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
6 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177, late 2d, Sec 256.
---------------------------------------------------------
If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave.
John Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772
_____________________________________________________
I've been researching this for years, and the more I discover exactly HOW government has screwed Americans out of their birthright of FREEDOM.....well, it just turns my stomach!
Read the commerce clause and tell me, in plain English, what you think it means.
To me, it looks like it means the states will not interfere with interstate commerce, and the FedGov is empowered to enforce that ban. Let me know where, in the actual words of the commerce clause you see authorization to regulate anything that might, in theory, someday cross a state line.
No, the feds have the authority to regulate commerce 'among the states'
Such as if the State of Kansas bought pineapples from the State of Hawaii.
Please see post #35...(although I really didn't intent for it to be so lengthy!)
LOL!
This goes to show that solving violent crimes does not bring $$ into the treasury.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.