Court ruling transportation rights

[SemperFiUSMC]

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

I don't agree with your interpretation.

Then go to law school. When you're done we'll have an intelligent conversation. Take this guy with you.

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!!!

 

[rambone]

Maybe I can go to the same law school that taught you and Elena Kagan that government can dictate what people must eat.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Maybe I can go to the same law school that taught you and Elena Kagan that government can dictate what people must eat.

I seriously doubt it.

Re-read what I wrote. Here. I copied it below. I highlighted a few things to help with your reading comprehension. I've even thrown a few translations in.

Again. Law school is a great place to learn about the law (If you want to understand mechanic stuff go to mechanic school. If you want to understand how the law functions go to law school) 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. (10th Amendment) As goofy as it sounds (because it is really stupid), as long as it did not interfere with commerce (which it most likely would) strictly speaking a state could regulate what you could eat (because the state gets all the powers left over from the Constitution. Not just the ones we like. Or the one's that are smart. Did you forget I said it would be really stupid to do this?). What would hopefully happen is that any legislator voting for such a draconian and goofy law would be replaced (because the idea that anyone would pass such a law, while within Constitutional boundaries, is so vile that person should no longer be entrusted to apply their judgment to create our laws, because it is a bad, stupid idea. Seeing a trend yet?) at the first opportunity.

The ultimate government check and balance occurs every couple years at the ballot box. (Elections have consquences. One of those consequences is that enough of the wrong people elected can do really stupid things.)

Oh, and the difference between what I said and what Kegan said is that she believes the federal government is empowered by the Constitution to dictate what people must eat. I reject her analysis. On the other hand, a state could have the power, but there is most certainly a commerce clause issue that would prevent it from doing so. Oh yeah, and it would totally be stupid.

 

[eatsnopaste]

You have to be nuts! The next thing you will tell me is that the State or a local government body could regulate where I smoke or whether I could raise chickens in my back yard or...or....not mow my grass. That's crazy talk! They only have the power that THE PEOPLE give them..oh wait, we did give them that power..never mind.

 

[Duncan]

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.

Until people realize that the citizen is the Sovereign and that the government was created by man to serve the man we will continue to be slaves ... IE all the dumb Å$$ people that voted to put property taxes into the Indiana constitution in a way that it was never intended now solidifying it and setting up the acceptance so that it will take another 100 year or more to repel it .... but I digress ..
The rights vs. privileges misconception / programming is just one area that is exemplary of how people don't know what freedom is suppose to be .
Until they learn these things they will continue to be slaves and you and I are also slaves to the very government that we own .

" ... so do you really think that you are going to get your Constitution back with out a gunfight ? " Unknown Patriot

Thanks
Duncan

 

[machete]

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

So is the FBI academy or KGB training camp. Law school and cop academies only teach people a biased version of what you can use the law to get away with and how to craftily justify what youre doing against the law to make it appear legal...

If you want to learn what law really is,,,you become a philosopher... Id be happier with philosophy courts with philosophers as judges instead of the system of lawyers and judges (liars and schemers) we have today! Real law doesnt occur in legislatures or in constitutions...real law has always been there....

Inalienable rights...they dont spend much time on these in law schools or cop academies...

Oh, and the difference between what I said and what Kegan said is that she believes the federal government is empowered by the Constitution to dictate what people must eat. I reject her analysis. On the other hand, a state could have the power, but there is most certainly a commerce clause issue that would prevent it from doing so.

There is no commerce clause issue at play if the restriction can be proved to be entirely occurring inside the states boundaries. The SC has severely restricted the commerce clause in recent years as they dont want to see a clause consume the entire document... If the Founders wanted a clause to do that they could have just written a clause and saved the rest of the work...

you again think that the states get any power that the US Constitution didnt claim... Thats a wrong, wrong, wrong analysis... Just like the feds,,, the states have to get their own consent of the governed prior to doing any act... The US Constitution never said that it was creating powers of state governments over state citizens and there is nothing in the conventioneers notes that suggests that they thought they were also creating 12 state constitutions!!!

Then go to law school. When you're done we'll have an intelligent conversation. Take this guy with you.

Dont pick on me --- thats uncalled for. and dont insult that Rambone guy either... Hes easily one of the best writers on this forum.. He asked you a fair question based on natural law - which you reject and didnt want to answer - and you insult him...not cool...

 

[CarmelHP]

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.

It's a Virginia Supreme Court case, not the U.S. Supreme Court. My objection to the TSA is that it is as burdensome as it is ineffective and expensive. That's a practical objection rather than a Constitutional objection, though I could be persuaded that any search that requires you to either be irradiated or sexually molested is so inherently unreasonable as to overcome any legitimate government interest.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

So is the FBI academy or KGB training camp. Law school and cop academies only teach people a biased version of what you can use the law to get away with and how to craftily justify what youre doing against the law to make it appear legal...

Wow. Just wow. I don't remember any of those classes. So I can assume you never went to law school since you don't actually know what is taught there?

If you want to learn what law really is,,,you become a philosopher... Id be happier with philosophy courts with philosophers as judges instead of the system of lawyers and judges (liars and schemers) we have today! Real law doesnt occur in legislatures or in constitutions...real law has always been there....

America. A nation of laws. Not of men. Sounds like you may have turned left at Albuquerque.

Inalienable rights...they dont spend much time on these in law schools or cop academies...

See first retort.

There is no commerce clause issue at play if the restriction can be proved to be entirely occurring inside the states boundaries. The SC has severely restricted the commerce clause in recent years as they dont want to see a clause consume the entire document... If the Founders wanted a clause to do that they could have just written a clause and saved the rest of the work...

Wrong. If an act can be shown to affect interstate commerce that act can be regulated by the commerce clause. This is not my analysis. It is not my desire. I don't like it. However it is the current state of case law. Want it changed? Elect enough legislators to the House and Senate who will support amending the Constitution to eliminate these silly rulings. I'm all for it.

you again think that the states get any power that the US Constitution didnt claim... Thats a wrong, wrong, wrong analysis... Just like the feds,,, the states have to get their own consent of the governed prior to doing any act... The US Constitution never said that it was creating powers of state governments over state citizens and there is nothing in the conventioneers notes that suggests that they thought they were also creating 12 state constitutions!!!

I don't even know where to begin to respond to this. I think I'll just walk away from the statement.

You do realize the original states predate the Constitution, right?

Dont pick on me --- thats uncalled for. and dont insult that Rambone guy either... Hes easily one of the best writers on this forum.. He asked you a fair question based on natural law - which you reject and didnt want to answer - and you insult him...not cool...

Saying you should educate yourself about the subject you speak of is picking on you? Seriously?

There's a difference between what you want reality to be and what it actually is. In your case a big difference. That is not a slam or attack - please don't take it as such. But there is no foundation or validity to almost anything you said. Not that you don't have a right to think it. Just that you're wrong. That's not picking on you.

 

[machete]

There's a difference between what you want reality to be and what it actually is.

In your case,,,theres a huge difference between what the law actually is and what is practiced as the law. You can say driving is a privilige all you want but it doesnt make it The Law...

You are right in that we are a nation of laws - not men,,,

Unfortunately,,,men have ignored The Law and have passed so many statutes (not The Law) contrary to The Law,,,that we have reverted to being a nation of men, not laws...

Nation of Laws meant that one man cant just go around imposing his rule on another man - he must be restrained in his actions... Nation of Laws did NOT!!! mean we have a lot of statutes in books - thats the opposite of what they had in mind because the more the statutes the more the ability of one person or the government to impose momentary will on the another person or THE PEOPLE.

The more silly statutes that get passed,,,means we move farther away from being a nation of LAWS!!!

 

[cosermann]

I've long been an advocate of the idea that rights include the commonly available means to exercise those rights.

So, for example, the right to self-defense, includes the right to keep and bear arms. The right to move freely about ought to include the right to the common means of movement. Think about it. Why are cars, trucks, airplanes, etc. any different than horses, scooters w/49 cc engines, bicycles, skateboards, rollerblades, ice skates, etc?

If a right doesn't include the means to exercise that right, then ultimately we can only exercise our rights naked.

And thus those "rights" are rendered meaningless.

 

[MeltonLaw]

Wow, this really highlights the issue with people attempting to interpret the law without an inkling of training. "The more silly statutes that get passed means the further we move away from a nation of laws". That in and of itself makes no sense. Our government was created by us. It is a representative government. Thus our representatives are us. They pass laws so that we have an ordered republic instead of the chaos, mostly fiscally, that was found under the Articles of Confederation. To say that passing these laws causes us to move further away from being a nation of laws is nonsensicle. Also, you proved yourself wrong in your own analysis. If we did not have statutes or, in our case because we do not embrace the Neopoleonic Code type of legal system, common law then any man could impose his will on any other man. There simply would be no recourse. You can add as many misplaced commas and exclamation points as you want it does not make you correct. Further the case that you cited to was a Virginia Supreme Court case. For those amongst us who do not understand the problem with this is that it is binding in Virginia only. Most likely it has been limited or eviscerated in some manner in the previous 80 years. I simply did not want to spend the money to Shephardize the case prior to writing this.
It is great to wish that we were ruled by a philosopher king, the only problem with that is you have to scrap the whole system if the king becomes even slightly corrupted.

 

[machete]

Wow, this really highlights the issue with people attempting to interpret the law without an inkling of training. "The more silly statutes that get passed means the further we move away from a nation of laws". That in and of itself makes no sense.

Oh come on,,,it does just fine... You want to talk about training,,,do you have a PHD in philosophy????? Do you know what is meant by NATION OF LAWS????? The passage is from the british constitution, BTW... The King passed plenty of laws but John Adams still thought his government one of men and not laws......

you think you know that law,,,but you fail to see that The Law existed long before lawyers and governments ever came around...

Our government was created by us. It is a representative government. Thus our representatives are us. They pass laws so that we have an ordered republic instead of the chaos, mostly fiscally, that was found under the Articles of Confederation.

????? Were we not a nation of laws under the Articles of Confederation???? Is any country that doesnt have our constitution not a nation of laws??????

To say that passing these laws causes us to move further away from being a nation of laws is nonsensicle.

OK,,,show me the argument...dont just say it,,, And its nonsensical, smartypants....

Also, you proved yourself wrong in your own analysis. If we did not have statutes or, in our case because we do not embrace the Neopoleonic Code type of legal system, common law then any man could impose his will on any other man. There simply would be no recourse.

But nobody is arguing against all statutes,,,why do so many people think that if we knocked off even a few of these laws wed look like Somalia???? We have more statutes than any other country...we can afford to go on a legal diet...

About there being no recourse for wrongs that makes no sense at all,,,and there are a couple people I read here who discuss this subject very well...

You can add as many misplaced commas and exclamation points as you want it does not make you correct.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..............................

Further the case that you cited to was a Virginia Supreme Court case. For those amongst us who do not understand the problem with this is that it is binding in Virginia only.

The law knows no boundaries,,,and cannot be overruled by other courts,,,this is why lawyers usually have no clue what The Law really is......... They think they have the only game in town...

It is great to wish that we were ruled by a philosopher king, the only problem with that is you have to scrap the whole system if the king becomes even slightly corrupted.

COOL!!!! One person!!!!!! As opposed to what we have now where it would take years to undo this corrupt system....

But it makes lots of work for you,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[mrjarrell]

Ya know...I've seen two posters now, (in different threads) make the statement that implied, or just outight said, that only lawyers were capable of interpreting law and the Constitution. I'm becoming more convinced that Dick, in Shakespeare's Henry the Sixth was right. "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

 

[Garb]

SemperFiUSMC... if it makes you feel better... Obama went to law school.

 

[Duncan]

So is the FBI academy or KGB training camp. Law school and cop academies only teach people a biased version of what you can use the law to get away with and how to craftily justify what youre doing against the law to make it appear legal...

If you want to learn what law really is,,,you become a philosopher... Id be happier with philosophy courts with philosophers as judges instead of the system of lawyers and judges (liars and schemers) we have today! Real law doesnt occur in legislatures or in constitutions...real law has always been there....

Inalienable rights...they dont spend much time on these in law schools or cop academies...



There is no commerce clause issue at play if the restriction can be proved to be entirely occurring inside the states boundaries. The SC has severely restricted the commerce clause in recent years as they dont want to see a clause consume the entire document... If the Founders wanted a clause to do that they could have just written a clause and saved the rest of the work...

you again think that the states get any power that the US Constitution didnt claim... Thats a wrong, wrong, wrong analysis... Just like the feds,,, the states have to get their own consent of the governed prior to doing any act... The US Constitution never said that it was creating powers of state governments over state citizens and there is nothing in the conventioneers notes that suggests that they thought they were also creating 12 state constitutions!!!



Dont pick on me --- thats uncalled for. and dont insult that Rambone guy either... Hes easily one of the best writers on this forum.. He asked you a fair question based on natural law - which you reject and didnt want to answer - and you insult him...not cool...

Why should a person have to go to law school to learn or practice law .. Jefferson didn't
Duncan

 

[Duncan]

Wow, this really highlights the issue with people attempting to interpret the law without an inkling of training. "The more silly statutes that get passed means the further we move away from a nation of laws". That in and of itself makes no sense. Our government was created by us. It is a representative government. Thus our representatives are us. They pass laws so that we have an ordered republic instead of the chaos, mostly fiscally, that was found under the Articles of Confederation. To say that passing these laws causes us to move further away from being a nation of laws is nonsensicle. Also, you proved yourself wrong in your own analysis. If we did not have statutes or, in our case because we do not embrace the Neopoleonic Code type of legal system, common law then any man could impose his will on any other man. There simply would be no recourse. You can add as many misplaced commas and exclamation points as you want it does not make you correct. Further the case that you cited to was a Virginia Supreme Court case. For those amongst us who do not understand the problem with this is that it is binding in Virginia only. Most likely it has been limited or eviscerated in some manner in the previous 80 years. I simply did not want to spend the money to Shephardize the case prior to writing this.
It is great to wish that we were ruled by a philosopher king, the only problem with that is you have to scrap the whole system if the king becomes even slightly corrupted.

So you have to have training to interpret the law ?
Humm well I guess we should not have the fully informed jury thing in our state Constitution :

Indiana Code ./const/art1.html-./const/art1.html-./const/art1.html
Section 19. In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.

Logic dictate we need professional juries .
Thanks
Duncan

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

SemperFiUSMC... if it makes you feel better... Obama went to law school.

So did Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy. They are the only thing separating Obama from your property.

 

[hornadylnl]

If the law is to difficult for the common man to understand, then we as a nation are lost.

 

[Garb]

So did Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy. They are the only thing separating Obama from your property.

I get what you're saying, but the point is that going to law school doesn't automatically make you an expert in the law. It's the person, not the fact that they went to law school. I'm not bashing on you as a person or a lawyer, you've definitely put up a hell of a debate, but the idea that you must be a lawyer to interpret laws is completely ridiculous. That's like saying to work on a car I HAVE to be an ASE certified mechanic. Granted, there are some things that I don't know, but that doesn't mean I'm an illiterate when it comes to the law as you are implying.

 

[dross]

I don't believe SemperFi is saying you must be a lawyer to understand the law. I believe he's saying that if you are going to issue opinions on the law as if they were settled law, then you should base those opinions on the law, and not what you think. The law school jibe is making the point that you are giving an opinion, but not a legal one.