Hightech_Hobo
Expert Expediter
... and you guys are probably right....this thread does belong in the Soap Box now....
...exciting reading tho....LOL
...exciting reading tho....LOL
Michigan illegally harassing CVs?
- Thread starter AMonger
- Start date
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Better off in what way ?
We are better off in some ways, worse off in others ....
The real question that needs to be asked is:
Are the things that we have gained worth that which we have sacrificed ?
"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way - in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only." - Charles Dickens, A Tale Of Two Cities
The evidence for both is all around - one only has to be willing to look and see things as they actually are .....
But of course, that itself is one of the most difficult things to do - to see things as they actually are, not as one hopes they would be ...
Some would prefer to delude themselves .... and say it is either all good .... or all bad .... of course, neither is the exact truth of the situation ....
I would never assume that was true in all cases for a moment ... although I wouldn't argue that it is not true for the vast majority ...
As man evolves from the savagery of barbarism to what purports to be a civilized society (one of laws, not of men), it is not unreasonable to assume that things were once worse than they are at present.
However, the above should never be used to excuse criminal conduct, and the miscarriage of justice, on the part of law enforcement authorities.
Yeah, right ........ you remember that .... say about the time you sit down to file your income taxes in a couple of months....
Think about the fact that some nameless, faceless bureaucrat may well, at some point after you've done the deed, pull up your form and go thru what ought to be some of the most intimate details of your life ....
Funny thing happened here in my local community a couple years back ..... we got some grant funding from the Feds for "Homeland Security" .... now keep in mind this is a sleepy little place, fairly rural in nature .... really no targets of any value that a terrorist would be interested in ....
The community fathers (mostly a bunch of idiots) decided, in their wisdom, that they should use some of these funds to install audio/visual monitoring equipment in the entryway to the police station - just in case Haji showed up, and as he entered, announced his intent to blow the place up - so they could all run out the back door.
This was all kept very quiet - "need to know" basis only ..... "security" and all that ... but the mayor and trustees were aware of it - afterall - they were the ones that decided to do it (in closed session apparently)
Now it just so happens that the police station is housed in a combined police/city administration building (a nice new shiney one paid for with our tax dollars) - and there's a single common entryway ....
So anytime a citizen wants to enter that building they have to pass thru that entryway ....
The local city fathers, or at least certain of them, being the entirely altruistic folks that they are, recently decided that entry into said building was to be controlled ... they didn't want any riff-raff citizens - who might pose a terrorist threat
- being able to just walk in off the street ..... (the bunker mentality)Our local city council meetings happen to held in that building .... mebbe you can see where this is going ...
Now, with access to the building being controlled, us common folks - who used to show up a little early and walk into the old building, sit down and peaceably converse with other fellow residents - now we have to stand outside in a rather small and cramped entryway (works fantastic in inclement weather - provided you don't mind standing in the rain or cold, six months out of the year) .... until the royalty inside is ready and decides to open the locked gates into the meeting room ....
Guess what use that monitoring system was actually put to ?
Yup, certain of the local government members - the ones pushing issues that they knew to have outspoken opposition or were controversial - decided that it might be a good idea to eavesdrop on the folks standing there, so's they could pick up a little intel on what they might be up against .... even so far as intentionally starting meetings late so as to delay entry to the building ....
Made quite a stink in the local community when it was discovered and exposed in the local paper .....
Seems folks aren't too fond of having governmental apparatchiks listen in on their conversations ... particularly with equipment that they themselves have paid for ....
Sorry, but I ain't buyin' it ....
While don't disagree about damage done in the latter, I would submit that if you think that there isn't damage done when governmental authorities act outside common decency, and the letter of the law, you're wearing rose-colored glasses ....
I wouldn't assume that no cares about it ....
I have no idea as to the actual truth or veracity of whether what was mentioned in the OP is occurring or not .... I haven't personally experienced it myself ....... could just be a rogue officer (or officers) ..... not like that doesn't ever happen ...
Regardless, it really wouldn't surprise me if it were either .... (no reflection on the great state of Michigan intended)
Has it been so long ago, that we've already forgotten Captain Ken "The Goober" Urquhart's little campaign up there in Minnesota ?
If anyone's memory is really all that short you might want to review the coverage of the Federal trial (OOIDA vs Minnesota State Patrol) to get up to speed:
Landline Magazine
And I would suggest you read all of the coverage - because it shows the degree arrogance on the part of police, even at the highest ranks, when it comes to the rights of individual citizens:
On Tuesday afternoon, U.S. District Judge Donovan W. Frank added his opinion on the unprofessionalism of the state patrol – specifically some of their inspectors asking truckers questions and the state patrol’s use of a picture of a disheveled Saddam Hussein in training material as an example of what an unkempt trucker might look like.
“Because some of those questions really would offend most people’s sense of reasonableness. They are off the chart. I don’t know where they came from,” said Judge Frank. “I’m kind of curious about how anybody would think – ever, asking about sex partners, pornographic … With some of these questions, I’ve never actually heard of in 30 plus years of hearing hundreds of these cases at the state level. … There was something that went seriously wrong here.”
Judge Frank said if he had not seen it, he likely would not have believed it.
“It’s way out of bounds. … The fact that someone hasn’t been disciplined and reprimanded, the Saddam Hussein, if anybody in the highway patrol isn’t completely outraged that such a reference – at best it’s unprofessional, at worst it’s rank racism – it’s shocking to me when I saw that.”
The judge was referring to a PowerPoint presentation used by the state patrol that included a slide outlining points of the “driver interview” and focused on the driver’s appearance. The PowerPoint slide included a picture of Saddam Hussein shortly after his capture and a list of items to note on fatigue inspection reports, including bloodshot eyes, watery eyes, yawns and droopy eyelids.
Although he pointed out that this would “not send this case one way or another,” he was “truly shocked.”
Hmmm ..... not sure I'm following you here
... is the sentence construction correct ?The salient point here, in regards to this issue, would be that many (most ?) states probably have laws which affect vehicles which are domiciled, or registered, in that particular state ..... and do not apply to vehicles registered in another state ... even when the latter are operated in the first state being referred to.
You need to be a little more clear and less obtuse with the points you are trying to make (unless it's your intention to be unclear
)While it may not be covered explicitly in the Constitution, it ought to be quite clear to most anyone that there is a difference between an LEO and a citizen .....
I would assume that in all most all cases, LEO's are citizens, but obviously not all citizens are LEO's ....
At any rate, I'm really not sure of the point you're trying to make ..... or how it could possibly relevant to the issue at hand ....
Care to elaborate ?
Last edited:
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Amonger,
I want my laws in this state enforced. If that means telling van drivers who are registering their vehicles here to have proper signs and means of securing freight safely while making money in a commercial operation, then it my right and the right of the people of this state that are being trampled when those laws are ignored.
If that means that they are supposed to have the proper license plate on their vhielce and don't and get a fine for it, then that is right in my book.
I will support any cop asking the questions to make sure the laws are followed. If they abuse my support by digging into other areas, that is a matter for me and my state.
If someone is so d*mn cheep that they can't get a sign or put up a bulkhead, then they deserve a hell of a big fine because that is the law.
If someone is too arrogant to observe the law, then he/she does not need to be on the road - driving is a privilege, not a right.
If someone from outside comes in and breaks the law but is not bound to that law, then that is a different situation and I will not complain.
BUT you and others have used blanket statements about your rights being abused when you can't differentiate what is abuse and what is not. YOU assume that being held in handcuffs is a violation but it isn't and you assume that there is not a safety protocol or another form of control to actually decipher facts during the investigation so the LEO's part of Justice is properly handed out. This is what every citizen should be concerned about - Justice.
Again there is absolutely no proof in what Michigan is doing, there is no proof that the state or the MSP has sanctioned pulling over specific vehicles for any reason outside of drug enforcement, and if they are, then to me they are doing their job because I pay their wages and I expect them to enforce the laws.
I want my laws in this state enforced. If that means telling van drivers who are registering their vehicles here to have proper signs and means of securing freight safely while making money in a commercial operation, then it my right and the right of the people of this state that are being trampled when those laws are ignored.
If that means that they are supposed to have the proper license plate on their vhielce and don't and get a fine for it, then that is right in my book.
I will support any cop asking the questions to make sure the laws are followed. If they abuse my support by digging into other areas, that is a matter for me and my state.
If someone is so d*mn cheep that they can't get a sign or put up a bulkhead, then they deserve a hell of a big fine because that is the law.
If someone is too arrogant to observe the law, then he/she does not need to be on the road - driving is a privilege, not a right.
If someone from outside comes in and breaks the law but is not bound to that law, then that is a different situation and I will not complain.
BUT you and others have used blanket statements about your rights being abused when you can't differentiate what is abuse and what is not. YOU assume that being held in handcuffs is a violation but it isn't and you assume that there is not a safety protocol or another form of control to actually decipher facts during the investigation so the LEO's part of Justice is properly handed out. This is what every citizen should be concerned about - Justice.
Again there is absolutely no proof in what Michigan is doing, there is no proof that the state or the MSP has sanctioned pulling over specific vehicles for any reason outside of drug enforcement, and if they are, then to me they are doing their job because I pay their wages and I expect them to enforce the laws.
I don't think anyone has said anything any different. Because the vast majority of cargo vans are not, in fact, used for personal purposes, but are, in fact, used for commercial purposes, it's not unreasonable to suspect (or even <gasp> to assume) that a cargo van driving down the road is a commercial vehicle. In the state of Michigan those cargo vans which are used for commercial purposes are to have lettering on the doors, and if one whizzes by without lettering, it can arise suspicion. True enough, the cop should ensure that you have Michigan plates on the vehicle before pulling you over, and believe it or don't, most of them do just that.
Unfortunately, cops are people, too, and people sometimes make mistakes. If you're in a cargo van with out of state plates and you get pulled over in Michigan for no door lettering, and it quickly gets resolved and you're on your way, I don't think your Bill of Rights rights have been trashed in Greek tragedy fashion worthy of a Constitutional law suit and choking up the Blogosphere whining about the pandemic of out-of-control cops.
No, sorry, I worded that one very badly. Oftentimes a rented U-Haul will weigh more than 10,000 pounds, and in those cases you have to put the carrier's DOT numbers on the doors. If you rent a U-Haul van or some other less-than 10,001 pound vehicle, it's not necessary to do the numbers. Insurance still applies, tho, but the carrier will usually handle that pretty quickly.
No, that's exactly how I'm applying it. The shire reeves are duly authorized by society to arrest those who walk around at night, even if those who walk around at night don't want to be arrested because they think they are the boss of the shire reeves. The day sleepers still have to respect the authority that society has given to the sheriff.
No argument there.
That depends on how cooperative the suspect is, though. If the person of higher rank is being belligerent, combative and resisting arrest, the rules of courtesy change a bit.
But that's just it, Michigan cops aren't stopping "every cargo van without lettering." They stop a very small percentage of them, and an even smaller percentage of out of state vans. While stopping an out of state van is a violation of the rules, it's a mistake that can be cleared up rather quickly. It's not the end of the world as we know it, nor the end of the Bill of Rights.
Over the years I've done a lot of tech support. When you read a newsgroup or BBS or Web page that's the tech support portal, you read almost nothing other than problems with the product. If you're not careful, you'll begin to think that the product is defective,a POS, and they're all bad. Go visit some sites that don't feature examples of bad cops once in a while. You'll be shocked.
I can tell you of an incident where I was literally asked for my papers by a border guard while I was standing there in the Flying J parking lot in Laredo minding my own business, engaged in conversation with a fellow expediter. Dood first asked for my Green Card, and then my driver's license. OMG. You cannot imagine how pіssed off I was. I never showed him either. I didn't even go back to the van because I didn't want him to know which one was mine, and where he could have then asked me for my driver's license. I instead went into the restaurant and sat there for an hour until he and the other three guards left the J.
Obviously, something had happened and they were looking for someone, but still. They can't just walk up to you and ask for an ID without a reason, and they gave no reason whatsoever to me. The incident sure put border guards in an unfavorable light as far as I was concerned, but it was just the one incident and I've seen no reason to brand all of them with the same iron. I made a call, followed up with a letter, and got a letter of apology from US Customs and Border Protection. It was a mistake. Granted, a big one, but just a mistake. And certainly not the norm.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
...and the rights of out-of-state drivers that are trampled when they're enforced against those to whom those laws aren't applicable, like CVs registered elsewhere, which was the scenario in the OP.
No, it's a matter for those whose rights may be violated. It's your DUTY as a Michigander to reign in your rogue cops, a rogue being any official who exceeds his authority.
Again, only for those whose CVs are registered there. And it might not be a matter of being cheap. It may be that the owner considers his identity to be nobody else's business. Funny, we decriminalize prenatal infanticide and call it privacy, yet we object to privacy elsewhere. Do you?
False.
If they're not subject to that law, then they can't break it.
His safety (or feeling of safety) be ****ed. The Bill of Rights doesn't protect his feelings. It does, however, say this:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
If he's too afraid to do his job without violating rights, perhaps he's in the wrong line of work. I don't care if he unsnaps his holster and keeps his hand on his gun. That's not prohibited. Violating the sanctity of my person is.
The cop knew law enforcement is a dangerous profession when he signed up. If he's not up to it, as R. Lee Ermey puts it in the Geico commercial, "MAYBE WE SHOULD CHUG ON OVER TO NAMBY PAMBY LAND WHERE MAYBE WE CAN FIND SOME SELF-CONFIDENCE FOR YOU, YA JACKWAGON!"
Alternately, I hear Taco Bell is hiring.
Remember, the Bill of Rights was put in place to protect us from them, so they can't disregard it to protect themselves from a paranoia about us.
Justice doesn't exist apart from individual rights. If a government agent violates individual rights, justice demands that he be criminally prosecuted for it. I'm not saying an inadvertent error should put him in the graybar hotel; honest mistakes happen. But when a pattern emerges...
Your demands don't negate the Bill of Rights. If they have probable cause or reasonable and articulable, particularized suspicion to pull a particular vehicle over, then go for it. Absent that, hands off, copper.
I've heard it said that when tyranny exists, on some level the people chose it. When you and bobwg genuflect to law enforcement so hard you bump your head and forget the Bill of Rights, you're choosing it, unfortunately for all of us.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
Fortunately, the founding fathers didn't give a whit about assumptions and demanded probable cause, from which the edges have been worn off by courts to produce reasonable suspicion, but reasonable suspicion that must still be articulable and particularized. And when a cop reasons that, because most CVs are operated commercially, then that one that just went by probably is, too, so I'll stop him, then it's no longer particularized. Hunches and assumptions don't amount to anything. The Bill of Rights does...or did...it's supposed to.
If a cop pulls over a van for the lettering issue, somehow mistaking the non-blue plate for a blue Michigan plate, and approaches the window and says, "I see you're registered elsewhere. My mistake, sorry to have bothered you," and goes away like a good boy, making a memo to himself to get his eyes checked, I'm not too upset about it. If it goes farther, that's where the problem arises. And that was the scenario in the OP--that at least a couple of out-of-staters got cited for the door sign regulation.
Of course, they didn't have the concept of probable cause to deal with, nor a Bill of Rights, or constitutionally limited government with only the enumerated powers. Someone was walking at night and sleepe-ing during the day, that was all they needed. Fortunately, western concept of rights has grown since then, and the sheriff's powers and limitations are spelled out a little clearer. But if the scenario I laid out in the beginning is correct, maybe that news hasn't made it to Michigan yet.
If it's rectified immediately and I'm on my way after an apology, no problem, but what do you want to bet that it goes beyond that? The cop isn't going to admit his error so readily. He'll say I was weaving or something, and he'll want my license, registration, proof of insurance, mother's maiden name, blood type, where I was last Thursday between the hours of 8 and 10, last 10 bill of lading, a hair sample, a cheek swab, the receipt for the shirt I'm wearing, the dog's vaccination papers, and maybe even a stool sample. Cops are curious people. Or nosy.
You shouldn't have told that. Now bobwg thinks you're a terrorist and hate cops.
driving is a privilege, not a right.
The following is from page 5 of the Michigan Driver's Manual:
Introduction
What Every Driver Must Know contains information about
operating a motor vehicle safely on Michigan roads. Although
this publication includes information about many Michigan traffic
laws, it is not meant as a legal document or as a substitute for the
Michigan Vehicle Code. Information in this publication is subject
to change.
The Michigan Department of State Information Center
telephone number and other helpful resources are printed on
the back cover.
Please remember that driving is a privilege and not a right.
Drivers must drive responsibly and safely, obey traffic laws, and
never drink and drive. Finally, buckle up and make sure all
passengers do too. It is the law!
The following is from page 5 of the Michigan Driver's Manual:
Introduction
What Every Driver Must Know contains information about
operating a motor vehicle safely on Michigan roads. Although
this publication includes information about many Michigan traffic
laws, it is not meant as a legal document or as a substitute for the
Michigan Vehicle Code. Information in this publication is subject
to change.
The Michigan Department of State Information Center
telephone number and other helpful resources are printed on
the back cover.
Please remember that driving is a privilege and not a right.
Drivers must drive responsibly and safely, obey traffic laws, and
never drink and drive. Finally, buckle up and make sure all
passengers do too. It is the law!
bobwg
Expert Expediter
That is correct privilege not a right
Thank You Moot....driving IS a privilege....
Find me one reference that driving is a right....a state drivers license is the property of the issuing state..and maybe revoked
Find me one reference that driving is a right....a state drivers license is the property of the issuing state..and maybe revoked
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
A state SAYING it's a privilege doesn't make it a privilege.
Are there other privileges? What else would be a privilege similar to the so-called privilege of driving?
Look, I realize you've been told all your life that driving is a privilege, and you've bought into it without thinking about it critically. But to call it a privilege turns on its head the nature of our government. We are the ones that authorize or withhold privileges from government, not the other way around.
so driving tests would be out of the question as well? because driving is a right and the government should put up no barriers to it...??
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
One? Sorry, can't do that. I can, however, find you several (and btw, these first ones come from an affidavit from a case in Michigan, a case that was won by the one asserting that driving is a right):
Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125
Ligare v. Chicago, 28 N.E. 934; See: Boone v. Clark, 214 S. W. 607;
American Jurisprudence 1st Ed., Highways 163 6.2 A Citizen 's "RIGHT" to travel upon public highways includes the right to use usual conveyances of time, including horse-drawn carriage, or automobile, for ordinary purposes of life and business. See: Thompson v. Smith (Chief of Police), 154 S. E. 579, 580
The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the public roadways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a "COMMON RIGHT" which he has under the "RIGHT" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. See: Thompson v. Smith, supra.
Hadfield v. Lundin, 98 Wn. 657; 168 P. 516;
In this connection, it is well to keep in mind that, while the public has an absolute "RIGHT" to the use of the streets for their primary purpose, which is for travel, the use of the streets from the purpose of parking automobiles is a privilege, and not a "RIGHT"; and the privilege must be accepted with such reasonable burdens as the city may place as conditions to the exercise of that privilege. See: Gardner v. City of Brunswick, 28 S.E.2d 135
The Constitution for the United States of America, Amendment 9:
16.1.1 The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Undoubtedly the "RIGHT" of locomotion, the "RIGHT" to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the "RIGHT," ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a "RIGHT" secured by the Fourteenth Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution. See: Williams v. Fears, 343 U.S. 270, 274
Here's a Canadian reference for OVM: Driving is a RIGHT, not a privilege
Driving is not a Privilege. Driving is a Right. 3957
Driving is not a Privilege. Driving is a Right. 3958
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Amazing. Utterly amazing.
OK So I have a right to drive, that means I have a right to get drunk, fire off a weapon and drive a truck at the same time. Also the feds do not have a right to regulate intrastate commerce by any means, tax fuel and the feds do not have a right to tax me for social programs I or my state does not want to participate in, Right?
Insurance is another thing, why am I forced to buy insurance when that's my right to buy it or not to buy it?
It is all there in all those cases you cited.
The Federal Courts have taken upon themselves to trash our rights through a number of cases citing the Constitution and other statutes which in affect have limited our rights to straighten up any mess these people have made of it. They even pushed hard for amendments that further limit the entire system to their advantage, the 17 amendment is one, the 23rd and 26th are others. These are very important for one to understand the real rights of the citizen.
How about immigration, a state should have the same right as the feds when regulating the travel of a foreigner but not a citizen within their borders, right? By using the model that the states are sovereign in their own right (remember God to the people to the city/county/state to the feds idea), wouldn't their right to defend themselves against invasion and regulate their state by their own means be also constitutional?
Did you ever read starship troopers?
By the way, Kent v Dulles is about the state department refusing to issue a passport on the ground that the persons - Mr. Kent - was going to go to england and refused based on his affiliation with a communist organization. The funny thing it that if this was held to be a ruling that actually counted with travel, then the use of security at airports, a no fly list and requiring people to show ID when they board a plane is all unconstitutional.
OH before I forget, my right to fly any plane I want, even though I don't have training to fly it, means any refusal means that they have trampled my rights, right?
OK So I have a right to drive, that means I have a right to get drunk, fire off a weapon and drive a truck at the same time. Also the feds do not have a right to regulate intrastate commerce by any means, tax fuel and the feds do not have a right to tax me for social programs I or my state does not want to participate in, Right?
Insurance is another thing, why am I forced to buy insurance when that's my right to buy it or not to buy it?
It is all there in all those cases you cited.
The Federal Courts have taken upon themselves to trash our rights through a number of cases citing the Constitution and other statutes which in affect have limited our rights to straighten up any mess these people have made of it. They even pushed hard for amendments that further limit the entire system to their advantage, the 17 amendment is one, the 23rd and 26th are others. These are very important for one to understand the real rights of the citizen.
How about immigration, a state should have the same right as the feds when regulating the travel of a foreigner but not a citizen within their borders, right? By using the model that the states are sovereign in their own right (remember God to the people to the city/county/state to the feds idea), wouldn't their right to defend themselves against invasion and regulate their state by their own means be also constitutional?
Did you ever read starship troopers?
By the way, Kent v Dulles is about the state department refusing to issue a passport on the ground that the persons - Mr. Kent - was going to go to england and refused based on his affiliation with a communist organization. The funny thing it that if this was held to be a ruling that actually counted with travel, then the use of security at airports, a no fly list and requiring people to show ID when they board a plane is all unconstitutional.
OH before I forget, my right to fly any plane I want, even though I don't have training to fly it, means any refusal means that they have trampled my rights, right?
Last edited:
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
How much time do you have to sort through all those issues? It would take a lot of time.
I don't have a problem with saying that there are issues that exist now that the founding fathers couldn't POSSIBLY have foreseen or allowed for, like your example of flying a plane, or a standing army, which, unfortunately, we can't do without due to the complexity of modern weapons. So, yes, we have to feel our way through them.
But the examples of driving a car were "felt through" in more modern times, not by the founding fathers.
I don't know how to hash this out here, but does anybody have a problem calling driving a "qualified right," i.e. mandatory training and after that--I don't know the term for this--a right that an individual definitely has and can't be touched by the State unless one proves by one's actions that, through due process, it must be taken from him?
But driving is not a birth right nor given with citizenship....you can't just walk in and say give me a drivers license..it is my right....
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
I agree - with some qualifications.
The only reason that States have been able to get away with saying it is a privilege is because they all make that claim with the populace understanding or assuming that it is a privilege that shall not be unreasonably withheld, and will be granted - provided that any individual wishing to do so meets some basic qualifications for licensing, most of which are centered around safe vehicle operation, so as to not pose a hazard to others, and deprive them of their Life, or Liberty, or their ability to Pursue Happiness.
To that extent, the premise that this right is a "privilege" is an understood compact between the citizenry and the governing entity, that once one meets some reasonable minimum qualifications, the privilege shall be granted.
At the point where any current State government tried to maintain that driving is a privilege that they are free to grant or withhold arbitrarily, for any reason they see fit ...... they would have a full scale revolt on their hands.
In our system of governance, the authority and ability to govern is derived entirely from the consent of the governed - a fact that is very worthwhile to remember.
To understand what the above has to do with the legitimacy of any government, read the following:
Consent Of The Governed
The results of the Rassmussen poll at the end of the above article about whether the U.S. Government actually has the consent of the governed, is quite interesting ..... and quite telling .....
Last edited:
greg334
Veteran Expediter
I have the time, and I also have access to a legal library and cases.
The problem is like this, we live in a society that is dysfunctional by being a human society. People, by the very nature of their existence are unique and don't follow uniformed concepts or ideas or have the same thought patterns. This was proven in the 1930's under Hitler who tried to shape a world that only fit their ideals and plans - which failed.
When we as a society decide to allow something and place limits on it, then we do so not to control the individual who does do right, but those who don't do right. What I meant in my post is simply that we as a society can't count on the few to police the many so to ensure that the rights of everyone are respected. This pretty much means that we put in place laws through our representatives to limit ourselves so not to harm to ourselves.
Because we actually do operate under the model that we are the government, and truly that our system is setup so our 'rights' are defined as God given, we can change laws as a society sees fit, which this includes evolving or devolving. We are no where near a democracy which is a great thing, if that was the case we would not have any rights.
When you speak of rights, you may not get that our of the 10 parts of the bill of rights, the last one is the foundation for the other 9. This is the one where we derive our control of the federal government from, not the first or second or whatever but the 10th.
This says that what we don't allow our states to have, the feds can have with our permission. It essentially was trashed with the 17th amendment that was proposed at a time when there was an idea that the constitution didn't support Democracy. But nevertheless, the very nature of that part is reflected in the concept that God gave the people the rights, they give the rights to the state who in turn gives it to the feds - nothing in between.
Who really ****ed it up was Lincoln, he forced the war to be a war to preserve a union that was dissolved, not a war based on slavery or an attack against the US but based on the idea that the feds were more important than the sovereign individual. He single handily screw the entire system up and handed us the idea that rights are granted to the people.
After Lincoln, the courts themselves have overstep their boundaries and allowed things to be decided that circumvent the 10th amendment and our rights. They haven't upheld anything with many of these cased but limited them more by allowing a definition of the rights to take place. Our safeguard was the Constitution with the protections that could be used to prevent things, it's called checks and balances. Like impeachment of judges or the executive and legislative branch telling the judicial branch some cases are off limits - which the latter was screwed up by Wilson and FDR.
The people are more fooled by this concept that the courts have a final say so. There are two good examples that happened within the last few months, the California constitutional amendment being trashed by the feds and the don't ask, don't tell being struck down. The courts actually have no business adjudicating these two cases, one is because of the 10th amendment and the other is because only congress and the president has the right to control the military.
But I digress.
The issue of laws and people following the laws are very important. NO matter who is given the task of making sure they are followed, they have a very hard job to do. It isn't that your right has been trampled but those who are innocent need to be protected. If this means that you are asked to give proof that you are trained to drive, then there is a purpose and we as citizens are the ones who allowed all of it to happen. We as citizens have a strict obligation to help or even be involved by calling someone to take corrective measures when something is wrong or a crime is committed but we don't as a whole society.
Oh and by the way, we did away with the blue plate, we have one that looks like other states. I wish they would go back to the requirement that every state has to use a distinct plate with unique color pattern..
***I just saw Rlent's post *** opps I took the long way around the barn ***
The problem is like this, we live in a society that is dysfunctional by being a human society. People, by the very nature of their existence are unique and don't follow uniformed concepts or ideas or have the same thought patterns. This was proven in the 1930's under Hitler who tried to shape a world that only fit their ideals and plans - which failed.
When we as a society decide to allow something and place limits on it, then we do so not to control the individual who does do right, but those who don't do right. What I meant in my post is simply that we as a society can't count on the few to police the many so to ensure that the rights of everyone are respected. This pretty much means that we put in place laws through our representatives to limit ourselves so not to harm to ourselves.
Because we actually do operate under the model that we are the government, and truly that our system is setup so our 'rights' are defined as God given, we can change laws as a society sees fit, which this includes evolving or devolving. We are no where near a democracy which is a great thing, if that was the case we would not have any rights.
When you speak of rights, you may not get that our of the 10 parts of the bill of rights, the last one is the foundation for the other 9. This is the one where we derive our control of the federal government from, not the first or second or whatever but the 10th.
This says that what we don't allow our states to have, the feds can have with our permission. It essentially was trashed with the 17th amendment that was proposed at a time when there was an idea that the constitution didn't support Democracy. But nevertheless, the very nature of that part is reflected in the concept that God gave the people the rights, they give the rights to the state who in turn gives it to the feds - nothing in between.
Who really ****ed it up was Lincoln, he forced the war to be a war to preserve a union that was dissolved, not a war based on slavery or an attack against the US but based on the idea that the feds were more important than the sovereign individual. He single handily screw the entire system up and handed us the idea that rights are granted to the people.
After Lincoln, the courts themselves have overstep their boundaries and allowed things to be decided that circumvent the 10th amendment and our rights. They haven't upheld anything with many of these cased but limited them more by allowing a definition of the rights to take place. Our safeguard was the Constitution with the protections that could be used to prevent things, it's called checks and balances. Like impeachment of judges or the executive and legislative branch telling the judicial branch some cases are off limits - which the latter was screwed up by Wilson and FDR.
The people are more fooled by this concept that the courts have a final say so. There are two good examples that happened within the last few months, the California constitutional amendment being trashed by the feds and the don't ask, don't tell being struck down. The courts actually have no business adjudicating these two cases, one is because of the 10th amendment and the other is because only congress and the president has the right to control the military.
But I digress.
The issue of laws and people following the laws are very important. NO matter who is given the task of making sure they are followed, they have a very hard job to do. It isn't that your right has been trampled but those who are innocent need to be protected. If this means that you are asked to give proof that you are trained to drive, then there is a purpose and we as citizens are the ones who allowed all of it to happen. We as citizens have a strict obligation to help or even be involved by calling someone to take corrective measures when something is wrong or a crime is committed but we don't as a whole society.
Oh and by the way, we did away with the blue plate, we have one that looks like other states. I wish they would go back to the requirement that every state has to use a distinct plate with unique color pattern..
***I just saw Rlent's post *** opps I took the long way around the barn ***
Actually, it is particularized, just the same as it would be for a 16-foot straight truck without letting driving by. The primary purpose of straight trucks and cargo vans is for commercial purposes. Those used for personal purposes are, absolutely, the exception to the rule. You may think that it is unreasonable to assume that an un-lettered, Michigan-plated cargo van is breaking the law, but it's both reasonable and logical, just the same.
You keep saying that, but, but, but, yet the original poster of the original post made no mention whatsoever that the cargo vans being stopped were out of state cargo vans, nor what they were cited for. Not one word. Then the original poster, in his initial reply in the thread (post #5), clarified things somewhat in admitting that he didn't even know what the exact violation was for these allegedly pulled-over cargo vans. After that, the original poster went on essentially a downward wacko tirade about how the police violated the rights of these phantom cargo vans which were pulled over for reasons unknown and how the Bill of Rights are systematically and routinely trashed by the police. Seems to me that the original post is pretty simple, and shouldn't be so easily confused about it's content. It might explain the confusion on other issues, tho.
For example, the confusion and misinterpretation of the difference between the privilege of driving and the right to use the streets and travel upon the highways once the privilege of driving has been secured. Traveling is a right, but driving is not. If you have secured the privilege to drive, then you have the right to drive in your travels, but you don't have a right to drive merely because you have a right to travel. All of the cases you cited were dealt with freedom of travel and the right of the public to use public roads, not about the right to drive unfettered and without qualification.
I do agree wholeheartedly with you that driving is more of a "qualified right" than it is a privilege. We require qualification to ensure people are qualified to safely operate a motor vehicle in public. But other than that, people have the right to drive. It used to be an outright right, same as riding a horse, then someone started requiring a license to drive. But since the 1950's, the automobile has become ubiquitous and a normal and necessary mode of transportation for many people. For that reason, as long as people can demonstrate a minimum competency in the safe operation of a vehicle, the privilege is granted for the right to drive. Once you've obtained the privilege of the right to drive (sounds weird, I know), then that right cannot be taken away arbitrarily (like not paying child support) unless it is proven that you cannot or will not operate the vehicle in a safe and prudent manner (DUI or physically unable).