Court ruling transportation rights

[The Meach]

I recently got into an argument with a group of Tea partiers about my RIGHT to transportation. They tried to tell me that driving and flying are privileges not rights. And then they kept pushing that belief until i whipped out this little gem. For your reading pleasure.

"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty.... It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon for the usual and ordinary purposos of life and business. It is not a mere privilge, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which the city may permit or prohibit at will.

Key emphasis added. Indisputable wisdom recorded in Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579, 1929.


Why do we forget stuff like this? Drivers licenses, police checkpoints, TSA agents groping you in airports. Its all a violation of our rights. It depresses me that even after i showed them this they still tried to agrue against it. They went on about how we need to keep this country and our communities safe, I thought about bringing up Ben Frainklin. But i just shook my head and walked away.

 

[mrjarrell]

Excellent find, Meach! Now maybe all those privilege pushers will take a deep breath and reassess their nonsensical positions.

 

[The Meach]

Excellent find, Meach! Noe maybe all those privilege pushers will take a deep breath and reassess their nonsensical positions.

I just find it interesting that we tend to ignore the supreme court when they rule, unless its something the other two branches want or agree with.

 

[Bondhead88]

excellent find, although I wouldn't be too hard on the Tea Part people. Everybody everywhere are trying to reestablish rights that have drifted into the subconsciousness of society.

The Tea party will have uneducated people in it's midst just like any other group. Take your time don't get frustrated sometime it takes people a while longer to understand the same truth you already have a grasp on.

 

[indykid]

Great find!!! I knew there was a ruling somewhere.

 

[rambone]

Good find. If using roads I pay for is not my right then perhaps the government doesn't have the right to their cut of my paycheck.

Also I don't think roads has much to do with the Tea Party message so you will find people of both opinions in their ranks. They are as diverse as the members of INGO, which is to say they are quite diverse.

 

[ATF Consumer]

Can we have a transportation [strike]walk[/strike] drive to educate the public of their rights...

I kill myself sometimes.

 

[ATF Consumer]

I see most everything I do as a right... privileges are normally handed out by an entity that has control over us.

 

[singlesix]

Good find in light of what is happening today. Rep'd

 

[JUMBO]

Reps for the meach

 

[TiminMishawaka]

Meach,
Do you have the full text of this decision? Everything I find on this seems like all it's talking about is highways and prohibits cities from issuing driver's licenses, not states. Thanks.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Since when does a 90 year ruling of the VIRGINIA Court of Appeals precident setting anywhere other than VIRGINIA? Did I wake up and somehow miss the news that VIRGINIA invaded Indiana? Do you think this counts because VIRGINIA was the capital of the Confederacy?

If you don't know how to read, interpret and understand the law THEN DON'T!

This is a commonly cited case to try to beat traffic tickets. It never works.

Google. Let it be your friend.

 

[nawainwright]

maybe he only flies out of virginia

 

[Garb]

Since when does a 90 year ruling of the VIRGINIA Court of Appeals precident setting anywhere other than VIRGINIA? Did I wake up and somehow miss the news that VIRGINIA invaded Indiana? Do you think this counts because VIRGINIA was the capital of the Confederacy?

If you don't know how to read, interpret and understand the law THEN DON'T!

This is a commonly cited case to try to beat traffic tickets. It never works.

Google. Let it be your friend.

It may not apply to us here in Indiana, but it should. You are awful adamant about this whole idea that the government has a right to regulate transportation because it isn't in the Constitution. Guess what else isn't in the Constitution? Income tax. Drugs. Sex. Drinking chocolate milkshakes. Burying your own crap in your back yard. Yelling the f-word when you smack your finger with a hammer. The list goes on. The Constitution does not specifically grant the federal OR state government the right to regulate this issue, so they simply don't have the right to stick their nose in it. Period.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

It may not apply to us here in Indiana, but it should. You are awful adamant about this whole idea that the government has a right to regulate transportation because it isn't in the Constitution. Guess what else isn't in the Constitution? Income tax. Drugs. Sex. Drinking chocolate milkshakes. Burying your own crap in your back yard. Yelling the f-word when you smack your finger with a hammer. The list goes on. The Constitution does not specifically grant the federal OR state government the right to regulate this issue, so they simply don't have the right to stick their nose in it. Period.

I really don't mean to burst your Constitutional bubble, but the federal Constitution is silent on driver's license issues. It doesn't prohibit the state's from regulating them. Therefore under the 10th Amendment it is a state function to regulate driving, if the state so chooses.

Law school is a great place to learn about the law and it's application.

 

[Garb]

the federal Constitution is silent on driver's license issues. It doesn't prohibit the state's from regulating them. Therefore under the 10th Amendment it is a state function to regulate driving, if the state so chooses.

Then in that case, what doesn't the state have the right to regulate? Firearms and free speech? That leaves us with very little imo. Again, drinking chocolate milkshakes are not protected in the Constitution, are you suggesting that states have the power to regulate what kind of food you eat? I see where you're coming from on the state rights issue, but it has become a money issue, not a safety issue, although many will claim that it is about safety.

 

[machete]

drinking chocolate milkshakes are not protected in the Constitution, are you suggesting that states have the power to regulate what kind of food you eat?

Man,,,is that a GREAT response!!!

Governments only have powers given to them by the PEOPLE! Governments arent allowed to do anything they want as long as theres nothing in a state or US constitution telling them they cant,,, They first have to get,,,a permission by the PEOPLE to do something!!! If the government cant point to an express constitutional authority, then they shouldnt be doing it,,,

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Then in that case, what doesn't the state have the right to regulate? Firearms and free speech? That leaves us with very little imo. Again, drinking chocolate milkshakes are not protected in the Constitution, are you suggesting that states have the power to regulate what kind of food you eat? I see where you're coming from on the state rights issue, but it has become a money issue, not a safety issue, although many will claim that it is about safety.

Again. Law school is a great place to learn about the law and its application.

States have the powers granted them in the Constitution, which are any powers not specifically delegated to the federal government or denied the States. As goofy as it sounds, as long as it did not interfere with commerce (which it most likely would) strictly speaking a state could regulate what you could eat. What would hopefully happen is that any legislator voting for such a draconian and goofy law would be replaced at the first opportunity.

The ultimate government check and balance occurs every couple years at the ballot box.

 

[rambone]

As goofy as it sounds, as long as it did not interfere with commerce (which it most likely would) strictly speaking a state could regulate what you could eat.

How could that not interfere with an individual's right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness?

I don't agree with your interpretation.

 

[machete]

States have the powers granted them in the Constitution, which are any powers not specifically delegated to the federal government or denied the States.

That is,,,

JUST.

NOT.

TRUE!!!!!!

Like the feds and all governments states only have the powers given to them by the PEOPLE!!! Just because a power is not specifically delegated to the federal government or denied to a State doesnt mean a state gets to exercise it... The PEOPLE must first give the state permission.

A state cant tell me to wear boxers over briefs...

Above all no state or federal government can exercise a power that violates NATURAL LAW!!!