Re: lol the police have no insurance, they have a bond that cost about $12 per year and anyone can get one, and your theory that "no license, shouldn't have been there" shows us how far your head is in the sand, the Supreme Court rulings I've provided are settled, from this century, and stand as truth no license is required to travel it's a common right.
K. 1st let me say that I did read those. 2nd I took a course on the Supreme Court in college, and probably understand constitutional law better than you do. 3rd the first red flag that you are a moron or a troll is that the first case is from the 1930s 4th instead of continuing to prove how big of a moron you are, why not just do a quick search on "Supreme Court drivers license" and read up on what a huge sucker you are for believing something so obviously misleading as the old discredited article you read.
so you are suggesting there is conflicting laws here please show me the law you are referencing, because the constitution and the supreme court saying it's not required, show me the law please
ok good we have an expert in constitution here, maybe you can show me where in any state the word "driving" is defined by the legislature, and please explain what is liberty? You completely missed the cases from the 1950's cherry picked some information you don't believe is relevant and ran with it, show me the law that trumps the preamble
Welp. Ive taken criminal justice as well in college. I guess thats my reasoning, and no. No conflicting laws. Explain Added: I hope you know theres 51 supreme courts
Is just a reference you need to do your homework, look up and read the cases referenced and see for yourself maybe I'm lying maybe I'm not, that's for you to find out
I'm not going to sit and argue with someone who is either a moron or a troll. Sorry. Just not in the mood to waste my time. If you REALLY believe this crap, go do the Google search I suggested and read up on the facts.
ok well cops take criminal law and that explains why you reply like you do, those who benefit from any societal mechanism rarely wish to understand that mechanism especially if it gives them an apparent power, control, or authority over thier fellow man and by understanding that mechanism would diminish or remove that apparent power, control, or authority... They simply don't want to know
@OP Are you aware of the reason why they require people to get things like licenses its to protect people. basiclly you hav thberight to do anything AS long as it doesnt break The rights of othee which is what licenses help with same with insurance js
I found the article by typing "driving doesnt require license?" Lol. That copy n paste of the first visible article, doe
No. I'm was arguing that you don't understand what you are talking about and think you do because someone put up an article a year ago that was a gross misinterpretation of court law, the constitution, and the relationship between state and federal law. But go on, this is still amusing me.
driving is a profession and a license is required because you're using the roads to make a profit, bus driver, taxi driver, pizza delivery driver, cattle driver, limo driver, they all have one thing in common, that's for job and I'm doing that job they put extra stress on the roads and therefore a tax is required ie: license plate, and drivers license, there is no job title that includes driving to work license, license to visit grandma, license to travel to the beach, license to go to church, no one replying has even read the post lol
"The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege" Upon public streets and highways. Highways were originally built for the military/ purposes only. No where does it say the right to drive without license. Gg Omg. Bruh the whole article states that you dont need a license to use the highway, not that you dont need a license to drive... smh The **highway** was originally off limits and only for military purposes. You could only use it with specific licenses. Jeez
Because everyone knows that it is a public safety issue and all the nonsense you keep spouting is nonsense...
you failed to answer you have lost by default, your silence is a tacit agreement, that 1 you do not know the definition of liberty 2 you have never seen a law that requires license to exercise liberty 3 the constitution and supreme court rulings stand
What did I lose? Why did I lose? Because I refuse to play along with your delusions? This isn't something that is worth going all out on to "disprove". I can barely even motivate myself to mock you. Only a fool would believe that article is an accurate depiction of STATE law.