Posted on 02/08/2002 2:09:07 PM PST by mindprism.com
The reality is that we have created our legal world through case law. If this is stirred up a Mao Tse Tung will come along sooner or later and pull up all the property markers. Best to leave this one alone.
I understand it perfectly. What is important is not the energies behind the two pieces of metal relative to each other, it is the balace of personal and public interests and the effectiveness of the means that the public employs to guard thier safety versus the infringement on individual liberty.
Which is more inherently dangerous, a gun or an automobile?
By what justification may a state deny my automobile safety certification because I will not ID myself? (Hint: I am ALWAYS the guy behind the wheel, all the state needs to know is that I am the individual that it has certified)
My toeprint satisfies that.
No, in your example there is proper justification for doing so (Amendment 8) and reasoning that is fairly self-evident.
Since you bring it up, what corresponding justifications are given to override these traffic cases?
Even so, I want you to address my privacy rights concerns, if the situation (balance of interests) can change due to increased use and speed of vehicles, then it needs to be reviewed in light of the states selling and attempting to sell DMV info, as well as allowing private companies to compile nationwide mugshot databases from DMV records. This latter had to be stopped a lawsuit.
By providing personal information to the state I am risking such things being (suprise!) allowed in the future. There is no means for me to force the state to destroy my DMV info after my license has expired (AFAIK).
The US congress has required federal databasing of our medical records against the will of a substancial majority. This, along with the cases above, show a malice on part of the government with regard to privacy rights and justify my reassertion of them.
Government does not protect rights, that is not its function, rights must be asserted by the belligerent.
The individual Rights gnaranteed by our Constitution can be compromised or ignored by our government. For example, in US. vs.Johnson (76 Fed Supp. 538), Federal District Court Judge James Alger Fee ruled that,"The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a FIGHTING clause. It's benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted npon by a BELLIGERENT claimant in person." McAlister vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671; Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am.Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio App. 171, 175 N.E. 876. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. . . . He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus."
Please provide a citation of evidence to back your claim...
Yellow fringe, to be precise.
States have their own bills of rights.
I claim you have run out of reasoned argument and now resort to ad hominem.
I may own a car without license, can you claim that with a gun? What does that say about their relative dangers?
The automobile is not inherently dangerous. MOORE v RODDIE, 106 Wn. 518; COHEN v MEADOR, 89 SE 867; BLAIR v BROADMORE, 93 SE 632.
You also don't need a license to own a car, just to drive one on the public roads and highways.
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.