It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by pendracon
not ever
Originally posted by Honor93
ETA once more --> regarding Benz, 1888 and a European licensing scheme ... what does that have to do with the American one ??
... you brought Benz and the European model into this conversation.
i merely responded and attempted to keep you on the path of "topic".
and when they conflict, my rights are absolute.
my supporting posts are earlier in this thread should you care to look.
the source of publication is irrelevant, the brief and its contents are relevant.
[including the fact that such has been upheld in 3 states and counting]
basic contract law invalidates the State promoted "requirement" to obtain a driver license for personal travel. what's with all the incessant rambling ??
Originally posted by Honor93
in one word ... revenue and it's worked pretty darn good too.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 - where this conversation began is NOT the BoR.
nice try though.
the "right to travel" isn't even mentioned in the Constitution or the BoR, so where are you going with these questions ??
YOU brought Germany into this with another failed point about Benz.
when you suggested our model was developed based on theirs.
[whether it was or not is irrelevant]
how it is applied is the problem.
i never indicated that i had a problem with some licensing, just what is promoted as required for personal travel.
it is not the State that is requiring seatbelts, it's the Fed.
it is not the State that is regulating seatbelts (at the factory), it's the Fed.
and on State Roadways, on private property and from a stance on "safety" that hasn't proven true.
even IF they are under the purview of the Fed and not private property, they are free to travel at will.
don't quite understand how you believe differently unless that's how it is across the pond.
government authority doesn't "arise" out of any such inanimate object or project.
American government authority is granted by the people, nothing else.
close but not quite unless you specify that regulated activity = commerce only.
By yours! You "consent" to it when you engage in the regulated activity.
driving is not the regulated activity ~~ commerce is.
since personal travel does not involve either the mails or commerce, neither license or seatbelt can be required as it is a direct infringement of an unalienable right.
what supporting facts ??
Interstate commerce is regulated by the Fed, not driving.
Interstate commerce is regulated by the Fed, not seatbelts
Interstate commerce is regulated by the Fed, not behavior
Licensing is directed to activities of commerce and to generate revenue, not driving or safety or to measure ability. what more do you need ?
Originally posted by pendracon
I largely agree, though I don't believe statistics are "absolute". What makes you assume I do? I believe terms like "sampling" and "tolerance" factor in there somewhere.
Yes, I'm aware of the practice of "kickbacks". Though, I'm not sure why you think that means doctors don't use the PDR or know whether a particular drug is "safe"?
Do you make your decisions based on such criteria??
Why do you assume I pop "manufactured chemical substances" into my mouth? Ok, "busted"... I sometimes "pop" Motrin for my carpal tunnel, and Excedrine for the occasional headache (and regular coffee use for my caffeine addiction... does that count?). Are they safe? For me, I generally believe so. Am I "directed" to take them? No.
I didn't realize that we've established my sensible and responsibleness, but "thanks". As for the rest, I'm not sure why you assume I think those things. I've only stated my belief that the government has the authority to regulate use of "public roads" and from where some of that authority comes. Despite multiple diversions and out of context quotes, I've so far not seen any counter-arguments that actually refute that belief. But, as "Honor93" graciously pointed out, it's probably just that I'm too ignorant to notice one.
Maybe because, by 1910:
"As automobile-related fatalities soared in North America, public outcry provoked legislators to begin studying the French and German statutes as models.[3]"
Originally posted by frazzle
Originally posted by pendracon
I largely agree, though I don't believe statistics are "absolute". What makes you assume I do? I believe terms like "sampling" and "tolerance" factor in there somewhere.
Well I guess that's the difference between you and me. If someone tries to restrict my behavior or to "restrain" me in any way based on statistics, I want cold hard statistics and then allow me to make my decisions based on FACTS, not guesstimates or samplings.
Yes, I'm aware of the practice of "kickbacks". Though, I'm not sure why you think that means doctors don't use the PDR or know whether a particular drug is "safe"?
Because I've worked for doctors and in hospitals. I've seen dedication, but I've also seen recklessness and carelessness. I've seen disinterest and exhaustion...
There's no such thing as a licensed patient.
Do you make your decisions based on such criteria??
However I make my decisions doesn't affect a doctor's personal health one iota so its not his decision to make.
But yeah, I have been literally "fired" for refusing to accept a doctor's advice because I now DO check out their snake oil before filling a script. Well, at this stage of the game I don't even bother making the appointment, the health food store is closer, nothing there has any serious side effects and their products aren't as expensive.
Where did I assume that you take ANY chemical substances, I was speaking in general because so many people blindly trust their doctor to know what's safe and what is not. After all, he's highly trained and licensed.
Short story. A guy once told me...
As for counter arguments to the need for licenses or seat belts or anything else they can dream up, when a belief is strongly held, no argument or proof is ever going to be enough to counter that belief. Government is like unto a god for some people. Faith. Infalibility. Trust. How could anybody know that? Because you've said so, repeatedly.
Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by pendracon
Maybe because, by 1910:
"As automobile-related fatalities soared in North America, public outcry provoked legislators to begin studying the French and German statutes as models.[3]"
Man, I love claims like this because I just naturally have to go looking for confirmation and these little computer gizmos are such handy time travel machines. There isn't anything from the past you can't discover given the right incentive.
So I looked for 1910 motor vehicle fatalities and figured New York City would be a good place to start...
...but the other stuff people died from back then is flat amazing. Everything from matches to skating to bob sleds would have been licensed and restricted using causes of death for legislation. Even mud would be licensed.
It was a really interesting jaunt into the past. Thanks for sending me.
Originally posted by pendracon
I've seen a lot of people do disheartening things too, but that doesn't inspire me to stereotype an entire class of them.
I see, so were you actually "fired" for refusing a doctor's advice? "Fired" from what? On what "grounds", really? Why was "refusing a doctor's advice" a "firing" offense?
You get no disagreement from me, except to your implication that this somehow applies to me. So, your "belief" then, is that "beliefs" are unchangeable? When did I ever say "government is God", or is to be absolutely trusted, or some such nonesense?? I'm pretty sure you are putting words into my mouth this time. I know that, because my personal feeling is that I'd be perfectly happy with no government, so long as I could trust everyone else to mind their own business, act responsibly, and just leave me and mine alone. Sadly, I don't "believe" that is the case, and neither did the founders. That's not really the "topic", though, is it?
so, if you don't understand how that is exemplary of extortion, then you have much to learn.
In the early 80's the Seat Belt law was put to vote in Michigan, and it was defeated overwhelmingly. Then the Federal Branch told the elected officials to either vote again and pass it, or lose any and all monies entitled to it for the repair, maintenance, and construction of roads. So they re-voted and passed the law the Federal Branch demanded. This is nothing short of extortion.
really ??? start with the PreAmble and work your way down, you'll find at least 3 direct references.
Which clause of the Constitution says the federal government has to provide aid to the States at all??
Originally posted by frazzle
Originally posted by pendracon
You complain about other posters taking your words out of context when you are probably the best example of that. Soundbytes.
In my lexicon, sampling equals guesstimates. Political junkies love "sampling" because the numbers can be so easily swayed to fit the desired outcome. Finding believers is just as easy if the guesstimates are repeated often enough.
I've seen a lot of people do disheartening things too, but that doesn't inspire me to stereotype an entire class of them.
Did I not say I have also seen dedication? Do you need a sampling of the pros and cons? Oh wait, that would be anecdotal, too.
I see, so were you actually "fired" for refusing a doctor's advice? "Fired" from what? On what "grounds", really? Why was "refusing a doctor's advice" a "firing" offense?
Yeah and they even have a fancy term for it ~ non-compliance. en.wikipedia.org...(medicine) And as you can see, it most commonly refers to patients who refuse to take the recommended drugs. Insurance companies use non compliance to deny coverage and doctors use it to "fire" recalcitrant patients.
There you go again, flat out stating that YOU want to be left alone but that others cannot be trusted to mind their own business and act responsibly so the implication is strong that everyone else needs to be controlled or they won't be responsible enough to leave you and yours alone. Sounds pretty arrogant to me.
Sure what the founding fathers said and did is topical (IMO).
If they had felt that the public had no inherent right to use the post roads freely, they would have required everyone to carry licenses/permission slips and pay for insurance coverage when traveling upon those roads by horse and wagon to "protect" them from a runaway team of horses ~ or an attack by wild Indians. And of course there was also a lot of river travel in those days, so they really missed the boat (pun intended) on the opportunity to demand Lewis and Clark first pay up on each and every one of their hired boatmen AND their boats before setting off to discover the west.
Originally posted by pendracon
Originally posted by Praetorius
Did SCOTUS *really* read that much power over the highway system into those six words? Wow.
It depends on which case, but ultimately, it seems so.
Here's a bit of trivia, not conclusively supportive, but illustrative... to what does highway/interstate distance signs measure? A: The named town's main branch of the post office. Sounds postal claus-ey to me.
the answer to your question, did you forget you asked?
Your point is??
these ...
Question? What question??
which are ultimately, irrelevant to the topic.
So, who owns the land you don't own, or that your "neighbors" don't own? Who maintains it? Before any of it was "appropriated" by the government for "public use", how do you suppose people prevented trespassing disputes with their neighbors? Neighborly grants of "permission"? Maybe. "Private roads"? Probably, with those eventually merging with "public ones". Perhaps you feel it's those "appropriations" that somehow secure your "right" to continue using the appropriated land "at will"?
** try to keep in mind that the Articles of the Constitution are prescriptive of governmental function, not people.
constitution.org...
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
the PreAmble, the 1st, the 4th, the 10th and probably others but those came to mind first.
You tell me then, what part of the Constitution does secure that right??
never said any such thing.
Oh, maybe now we're getting somewhere... you don't need a license for "personal travel", but you do need one to drive on public roads.
are you serious ??
And?? How is this impacting your right to "personal travel"?
not following your train of thought here at all.
What are, the roads???
and in this case, the ONLY thing being regulated (with validity) is commerce.
Regulatory authority begins with the "thing" being regulated, also by "consent of the people".
nice try but the government has no such authority. never has and it never will.
No, using public property for personal "benefit" is the only regulated activity, "in whatever form".
apparently, murder is both legal and justified, especially when performed by agents of the government.
The law, e.g., isn't "murdering not allowed" -- that's already "commonly accepted" -- it's "this is what happens if you do"
Does it? So, if there were no laws, there would be no crime?? I doubt that, and history certainly doesn't support you -- but perhaps "history" is "arrogant", too (or maybe the next response will be something like "history can't be trusted because bad men wrote it")? I also imagine the perpetrators would not be "punished" for it and, therefore, not dissuaded from repeating it. But, if that's what you're implying then why have laws at all? Because some nefarious conspirators then or now wants to put you down?? Isn't that contradictory? Tort laws are founded in common law. The law, e.g., isn't "murdering not allowed" -- that's already "commonly accepted" -- it's "this is what happens if you do". Though, I guess the next response will be "we aint talkin' about tort laws".
That's a lot of supposition about what the founders thought or expected.
I simply meant the Declaration that governments are instituted to the secure the rights of the governed. Secure them from what, then (if it's not "abuses and usurpations" by evil persons)? There you go again, asserting that licenses are supposedly some form of "protection" or "insurance", or meant to provide such. If that's out of context, I never suggested such a thing.
As for "post roads", there was some early confusion over what that meant. That, I believe, has a lot to do with who initially maintained them. Perhaps the revenues of those jurisdictions (commonwealths), were already sufficient to do so (the Miss too??). "Wagons" and "horses" are not the same thing as "motor vehicles" (I doubt such were even contemplated at the time).
As for Lewis and Clark, what did Jefferson charge them with doing? As I understand it, it was to explore and map the lands newly acquired through the Louisiana Purchase.
When Nicholas Biddle became president of the Bank of the United States in 1823, the only business he had ever run was his wife’s family estate, and his sole experience in banking consisted of a two-year term on the bank’s board of directors. His national reputation derived rather from his work as editor of the leading American literary journal, author of the standard history of the Lewis and Clark expedition.
"Their (the expedition) objectives were both scientific and commercial – to study the area's plants, animal life, and geography, and to learn how the region could be exploited economically."[1]
"To establish trade and U.S. sovereignty over the native peoples along the River Missouri."
"Jefferson had the expedition declare "sovereignty" and demonstrate their military strength to ensure native tribes would be subordinate to the US, as European colonizers did elsewhere. Upon the completion of the expedition the maps that were produced allowed the further discovery and settlement of this vast territory in the years that soon followed."[49][50]
"In 1807 Patrick Gass published an account of the journey.[51] Paul Allen edited a two-volume history of the Lewis and Clark expedition that was published in 1814, in Philadelphia, but without mention of the actual author, banker Nicholas Biddle.[52][53] Even then, all of the report was not completely made public until more recently."