How seat belts made a mockery of the Constitution

Anyone who has ever been in a head-on collision in a car and survived (as I have) no doubt has a fond place in their heart for the seat belt law that made them wear one.

I know that when I was a young child, before these laws, wearing seat belts was not a habit in my family. We just never put them on. Then the laws got passed, we started wearing them until it became a simple habit. Had I not been in the habit, I may not have been wearing them on the day my car skidded across the line on a sharp curve on a rainy day and I could well have gone into, maybe through the windshield. As it is, I got out of it with just a bit of a bruise on my shoulder from the seat belt.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by pendracon

 

not ever

Really?

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".

From frazzle's "history of driving" link, you bet. But now I see my sin... ok, why don't you tell us which resources we're are allowed to use to support our arguments?? From what I gather from the OPs rant, the "topic" is the federal government's "unconstitutional" "extortion" of the States through its deal making capacity, supported by the Compact, Commerce, and Supremacy clauses. (So, how exactly is the exercise of that capacity "unconstitutional"??) As for whether it's "extortion":

"The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right."

Already, it's clear the OP doesn't know what he's talking about. So, how exactly is the fed forcefully taking away the State's property (or "the public's", or yours) when it withholds federal aid if the States don't agree to its terms?? Which clause of the Constitution says the federal government has to provide aid to the States at all?? As I see it, doing so is just a convenient way of getting its work done. Is the capacity "overused", "abused" even? Perhaps, but (analogy warning) don't blame the dealer for the addict's behavior. Support the Enumerated Powers Act, and maybe it'll start turning around. Yet, the Constitution "says" what the fed is supposed to spend money on, it doesn't say what it can't spend it on -- with exception to infringing on protected rights. That's what SCOTUS is for.

and when they conflict, my rights are absolute.

I don't dispute that. You still haven't explained why your "rights" extend to using public resources for your personal benefit "at will", including in a motor vehicle?

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]

I read the brief -- it's from 1995, and yet there's supposedly been only 3 "victories" using it:

"The entirety of what you find below is transcribed exactly from what was sent to me by a fellow liberty-minded person. It is itself a transcription of a brief, not a direct, per-character copy of the brief. This is unfortunate, but I'm trying to nail down some of the references, and especially some of the cases in which this particular brief was used. --Karl Kleinpaste, March 14, 1995.

The following has been used in at least three states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia) as a legal brief to support a demand for dismissal of charges of "driving without a license." It is the argument that was the reason for charges being dropped, or for a "win" in court against the argument that free people can have their right to travel regulated by their servants."

Like all such "liberty minded" briefs floating around the net, it's the "I got this from a friend of a friend, and he assures me it works" variety. The poster can't even be sure it's an authentic "transcription", though you seem to be, so where's your "win" using it????? Like most such briefs, its chock-full of citations from cases that have nothing to do with the "right to travel", or to drive without a fed/State mandated license. At best, that makes them merely "persuasive", not authoritative. For that reason, I doubt it's had even the modest "success" being claimed. So, it's been 17 years... where are the cases??? Citations, please, not wild stipulations. What was their "context" -- i.e. where did the "driving" occur -- and how were they adjudged (i.e. in the courts' words)? Is one of the 3 "victories" yours??.. got any "proof"? "Charges being dropped" doesn't prove a thing. Why were they dropped?? Perhaps the cost of trial wasn't worth the small fines, or perhaps the authorities decided to pursue criminal actions, rather than a civil ones and their being "dropped" had absolutely nothing to do with the "brief". Where's your evidence???

basic contract law invalidates the State promoted "requirement" to obtain a driver license for personal travel. what's with all the incessant rambling ??

Again, citations, evidence... where is it??? And you tell me, it's your rambling.

Originally posted by Honor93
in one word ... revenue and it's worked pretty darn good too.

Your point is??

Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 - where this conversation began is NOT the BoR.
nice try though.

Eclipsing the diversion before it happens? Obviously not nice enough, though you do seem to have a problem with understanding context.

the "right to travel" isn't even mentioned in the Constitution or the BoR, so where are you going with these questions ??

Question? What question?? I said "right to travel" is generally protected by the 9th Amendment... but... do you contend that the "right to travel" isn't one of those other rights "retained by the people"? You tell me then, what part of the Constitution does secure that right??

YOU brought Germany into this with another failed point about Benz.

Er, no. I pointed out that the linked to "driving history" starts with the first precedent of a driver being licensed, and why. In the end, you even agreed with it.

when you suggested our model was developed based on theirs.
[whether it was or not is irrelevant]

No, you asked a question and I answered. Of course, now that that answer is inconvenient to you, you want to dismiss it.

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.

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.

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.

And?? How is this impacting your right to "personal travel"?

even IF they are under the purview of the Fed and not private property, they are free to travel at will.

What are, the roads???

don't quite understand how you believe differently unless that's how it is across the pond.

That much is obvious, and I'm not "across the pond", so I wouldn't know.

government authority doesn't "arise" out of any such inanimate object or project.
American government authority is granted by the people, nothing else.

Governing authority begins with "the people", by their own consent to be governed. Regulatory authority begins with the "thing" being regulated, also by "consent of the people".

By yours! You "consent" to it when you engage in the regulated activity.

close but not quite unless you specify that regulated activity = commerce only.
driving is not the regulated activity ~~ commerce is.

No, using public property for personal "benefit" is the only regulated activity, "in whatever form".

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.

Again, who's infringing on your right to "personal travel", and how does that "right" supposedly include you operating a motor vehicle on public roads? Where is that in the Constitution?

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 ?

And?? What do these supposedly prove?

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. And I've also been a patient who has had dangerous drugs prescribed for myself, most of which I refused as they were only geared for treating symptoms, not causes and often came with serious side effects. But twice, (before I caught on) I didn't check out the medications and required medical intervention from taking them. Both are now off the market because I wasn't the only one who ran into problems with them. But as always, the lawyers came out on top and the injured people got screwed. Maybe that's because everyone involved was licensed ~ except the injured parties. 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.

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.

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.

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.

Short story. A guy once told me that he'd been busted for DWI (back in the old days), reckless driving and a whole slew of other charges all of which he managed to beat. So years later his new boss wanted a copy of his motor vehicle report for insurance purposes as he'd be driving company trucks and the report came back saying the only charge that had stuck from that incident was that he had been found guilty of "driving on a roadway laned for traffic." WHAT? Of course there was no penalty for that so he didn't even know it was on there until he picked up the report. None of the rest of us believed it either until he showed it to us in black and white. It really messed him up on the job for awhile while he was fighting DMV to get it expunged and it turned out they were pretty embarrassed over it. Never did find out why driving on a roadway laned for traffic could be construed as illegal, but it was a public document and a public road after all so I guess they can do that, too.

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.

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. Yep, there were 471 traffic fatalities in the city that year. It cited everything from horses panicked by vehicles, to kids playing in the street, to homocidal cab drivers and chauffeurs as some of the causes. But those few key words even took me to an ancestry site listing people who died in 1910 and there was one car accident shown, 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.
www.theatlanticcities.com...
freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com...

It was a really interesting jaunt into the past. Thanks for sending me.

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.

Is it? I implied that "sampling" (not "guesstimates"), is used as part of the statistical process. I gave no implication as to my personal feelings about it.

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...

I've seen a lot of people do disheartening things too, but that doesn't inspire me to stereotype an entire class of them.

There's no such thing as a licensed patient.

Does there have to be? The patient is there of their own volition -- take some personal responsibility.

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.

Where does this come from?? What does it have to do with the "reaction" you get for refusing?

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.

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?

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.

Ok. Just making sure.

Short story. A guy once told me...

More "anecdotal evidence". Here's the thing, words and phrases often have "specific meanings" defined for them in law, and when so defined, they do not carry the same meanings as "similar words and phrases in colloquial use". What does "laned for traffic" mean in that jurisdiction? Maybe it means something like "carpool traffic", and the person is driving alone. It's likely that the DMV "was embarrassed" over the wrongful charge, not its wording.

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.

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?

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...

I chose 1910 because that's what the next sentence cites for establishment of the first licensing law in the states. That might not be the year that got everyone clamoring about it. As for time-machining, unless you take into account other factors prevalent at the time, comparing numbers between then and now is pretty meaningless.

...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.

Did any of those causes of death pose an unintentional "risk" to non-participants in a public space, without "fault" of the non-participants? Did they pose environmental dangers in that public space? Create a commercial activity? Or, potentially cause damage to public property? And, did "the people" care about it, like they did with motor vehicle usage? I think that's where the misconception on licensing requirements, and the government's authority to impose them, is coming from. These matters are still not being factored in to the reasoning, despite providing links to sources supporting them (there's your "unchangeable "beliefs"). Neither, has any refutation to them been offered and supported, not even a supportable explanation as to why they don't apply to the matter. Not...one...cite, not...one...case... not even one!

It was a really interesting jaunt into the past. Thanks for sending me.

No problem, however I was facetious with your link posting and, for that, I apologize.

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.

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?

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.

reply to post by pendracon

yeah really ... how does a RESPONSE equate to "bringing it into the conversation"?
it's a little tough to "regard" a fresh idea.

never looked or commented on frazzle's link, i commented on yours ... "it seems so"
and the post i responded to wasn't originated by frazzle either.
seems you are having a bit of trouble following along.

choose you sources as you will, i do.
some are better than others but all are "sources".

from the OP ...

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.

so, if you don't understand how that is exemplary of extortion, then you have much to learn.

in short, without state $$, the feds have no funding.
considering the threat of withholding the property of the State in order to accept an unacceptable proposition is extortion. should you require further explanation, please direct your query to your instructors.

which clause grants Fed authority to withhold ANYTHING from the States?
which clause grants the Fed access to State funds to withhold in the first place?

IF you can answer either of the above, you might have a leg to stand upon, otherwise, you are fishing without a pole.

Which clause of the Constitution says the federal government has to provide aid to the States at all??

really ??? start with the PreAmble and work your way down, you'll find at least 3 direct references.

exactly -- "don't blame the dealer for the addicts behavior" translates to don't blame the States for the Federal addictions to crimial activities.

actually it does, see Amendment 10.
[those powers not delegated are RESERVED ...]

why would i need to explain a right?
truth is, i don't have to, it's a given ... as in a "right".
it's the same right exercised before motor vehicles, before government and before paved roadways.
so, if you believe you have a right to exist, please explain why or how that's a "right".

3 victories ?? no, 3 states.
(got any links for those 3 victories ??)

do you really think i would post or reference the verbatim copy ??
[those who are interested can find it easy enough]
it is public record or did you skip that part on purpose ??

i never implied it was a "transcription" so why infer such a thing?
i've not had to use it, as i surrendered my commercial driver license some time ago.

it doesn't have to but you keep thinking it does.
it addresses each of the "arguments" put forth by the State with relative decisions applying to each of the arguments presented.

you want those questions answered, use the computer at your fingertips.
i am not your secretary or researcher ... try doing your own homework.

i need not provide citations in an "opinion" piece.
especially when i agree with the OPs opinion.

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.

Fair enough. What did I take out of context?

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.

Fair enough, regarding your lexicon. I think "statisticians" love "sampling", and "political junkies" love statistics. Yes, say something often enough, and people who fail to think for themselves start believing it.

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.

No, I saw that. I just didn't see where that factored into your statement that "doctors don't use the PDR and only listen to salesman". Is that out of context?

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.

Oh, "fired" from your doctor as a patient. I see, so what do you do for a living? If it involves a "service", how do you react to "customers" who don't listen to your advice? Do you keep servicing them with it, anyway?? Why must a doctor keep you as a patient when you don't want to accept and follow his "advice" -- which, presumably, is why you're there?

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.

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".

Sure what the founding fathers said and did is topical (IMO).

Well, I've been repeatedly and vehemently "reminded" that it isn't, by others on this thread.

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.

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.

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.

SCOTUS and Congress. Oi vey. No further comment on that, other than to say I feel it's yet another blatant overstepping of the framers' intent.

As to your trivia, I actually did know that previously, but had never looked into why or tied it into constitutional clauses - thanks for clarifying that for me.

reply to post by pendracon

Your point is??

the answer to your question, did you forget you asked?

context? of what, your backwards thinking or the Constitution itself?

Question? What question??

these ...

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"?

which are ultimately, irrelevant to the topic.

your insistance that any Amendment or Article grants rights to the people is your greatest error. when and if you understand that misconception, perhaps you can begin to understand the rest.

please, show us where the 9th grants the people any rights at all ...

constitution.org...
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

** try to keep in mind that the Articles of the Constitution are prescriptive of governmental function, not people.

You tell me then, what part of the Constitution does secure that right??

the PreAmble, the 1st, the 4th, the 10th and probably others but those came to mind first.

from the PreAmble ... "and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"
do tell, which part of Liberty doesn't involve freedom to travel ??

" " , which part of "freedom of the press" doesn't involve freedom to travel ??

" " , which part of "peaceably assemble" doesn't involve freedom to travel ??

" " , which part of "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" doesn't involve freedom to travel ??

" " , which part of "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." doesn't include freedom to travel ??

agreed with it ?? you are confused.
i asked what Germany has to do with America and that's just one question you negated to answer.

what question ?? i don't recall asking you a question about the history of licenses ... can you link it please ??

again, i asked what did the Germany scheme have to do with the American one.
also, your interpretation that it was "necessary" is equally misleading.
Germany in 1888 was not a "republic, a democracy or ruled by parliament" ... it was, an empire under the rule of an Emperor / Wilhelm I, if i remember correctly.

hmmmm, now you're putting words in my mouth eh ??
food would be a better choice

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.

never said any such thing.
and no, licenses to operate on public roads for personal travel are not and should not be required.

licenses to operate commercially on public roads is the only valid Constitutional requirement as it involves commerce.

And?? How is this impacting your right to "personal travel"?

are you serious ??
by the threat of punishment if i do not follow the Federal mandated law, that doesn't even apply to me, while conducting personal travel.

by the expense to fight such a claim as imposed by an "officer of the law" regardless how wrong they may be.

by the aggravation of having my "personal travel" interrupted by some jackboot who has a quota to fill.

by the simple assumption based on the fraudulently promoted concept of requiring a license to operate any motor vehicle.
need more ??

What are, the roads???

not following your train of thought here at all.
care to clarify ??

well then, if you are an American, perhaps you need new classes cause if this is what they are teaching you, you'll have a lot of de-programming ahead.

Regulatory authority begins with the "thing" being regulated, also by "consent of the people".

and in this case, the ONLY thing being regulated (with validity) is commerce.
so, how is personal travel conducting commerce again ??

No, using public property for personal "benefit" is the only regulated activity, "in whatever form".

nice try but the government has no such authority. never has and it never will.
unless that personal benefit is of a commercial nature -- profit is still a "personal benefit", however, not all personal benefit = profit.

asked and answered

reply to post by pendracon

The law, e.g., isn't "murdering not allowed" -- that's already "commonly accepted" -- it's "this is what happens if you do"

apparently, murder is both legal and justified, especially when performed by agents of the government.
murder conducted in self-defense is also legal and justified.
so, how exactly does the "law against murder" really apply ??
still waiting for those officers who commit murder to be dealt equal punishment, any chance we'll ever see such?

ETA: since LEOs are killed more often in car accidents than any other method, why are they exempt from wearing seatbelts ??
i see pleny of them driving without ... maybe it's a personal choice but if so, shouldn't other officers be writing them tickets too ??

reply to post by pendracon

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".

If there were no laws would you automatically go out and commit crimes against others? That's doubtful, but aren't you speculating that without such laws others would do exactly that to you and go unpunished? What is your evidence for that besides your broad citation of "history"? In all of recorded history there have been laws and some very brutal punishments for those who broke them, and it never stopped crime. So if there were no laws on "the proper useage of seat belts" would someone be likely to use theirs to tie you up, kidnap you and hold you for ransom? And if someone really wanted to do that, is it your contention that a few words on a legal document would stop them? If they hung themselves with it, how would it harm you?

The old addage "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is just too difficult to litigate in court these days, even in traffic court, without a bunch of legal riders, exceptions and stipulations added to it. Likewise, the other one that goes, "your rights end where mine begin" is twisted like a pretzel, dissected and embellished by lawyers until no one actually knows what the law is.

What it boils down to is that all behavior in this untra modern, technologically advanced era must be modified and codified. All risk must be eliminated. All liberties must be waived in lieu of permits. And everyone must be punished for imaginary threats by equally imaginary evildoers. Sorry to say it but common law died a long time ago, its buried right along side common sense.

That's a lot of supposition about what the founders thought or expected.

If they hadn't acted on what they thought or expected, you might have a point.

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.

You didn't suggest it, I did. What is a license again? Um, its permission granted by someone in authority to do that which would otherwise be illegal. Why are particular actions or non actions deemed illegal if not to "protect" someone or something from someone or something else?

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).

According to the Federalist Papers, "establishing post-roads must, in every view, be a harmless power; and may, perhaps, by judicious management, become productive of great public conveniency." I see no reference to maintenance, although management could be construed to mean government quasi-ownership and control. On the other hand, the words harmless and conveniency stand out in the context of unalienable access by the public without restriction or restraint. Dunno, I suppose fascists would put the emphasis on management and libertarian types would cite harmless oversight. At least harmless is how it worked for about the first century of our existence. Until the lawyers worked it over really good.

reply to post by pendracon

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.

Well yes, but Jefferson certainly didn't require them to license, register or insure themselves and their boats, much less provide and require that seat belts that must be worn by the men driving the boats. Maybe he would have if he'd thought of it, though.

And as always, there's a huge backstory schools don't waste time teaching when that time can be better spent training children on obedience and compliance. And wouldn't you just guess it, the backstory of Lewis and Clark involves the mutual desire of central banksters and government to control everyone's lives.

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.

www.common-place.org...

"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."

en.wikipedia.org...

Sorry to take the thread so far off topic, but it really ticks me off when people blow off real history with a casual quip that totally disregards how we got to where we are today.