Let's just let the people who believe the op believe it. They'll drive without a licence, get caught and get taught a lesson. Boom, that'll be their proof.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Versus It’s a crime to use a car, truck, van, motorcycle or anything else with an engine or motor that propels it to go anywhere for any reason. You have to have your employee’s permission to use your car to go to your place of worship, the grocery store, take your kids to school or pick them up even on a rainy day or even if they have a broken foot. You can work your ass off for a car but you can’t use it legally to go anywhere unless you have your employee’s permission and pay them an annual rent.
What are you talking about? "we have a republic if we can keep it" - Ben Franklin pledge allegiance to the flag of United States of America and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands Democracy is a form of communism
You were right snoop, don't let these guys do you like that, stand up, our supreme court is preserving the republic and the constitution, we do still have liberty as a common right, I've been beating these guys for hours they can't produce any evidence to the contrary, they can't even find a simple definition (driving) in any code, statute, or regulation
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/vagueness_doctrine Vagueness doctrine Definition 1) A constitutional rule that requires criminal laws to state explicitly and definitely what conduct is punishable. Criminal laws that violate this requirement are said to be void for vagueness. Vagueness doctrine rests on the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. By requiring fair notice of what is punishable and what is not, vagueness doctrine also helps prevent arbitrary enforcement of the laws. 2) Under vagueness doctrine, a statute is also void for vagueness if a legislature's delegation of authority to judges and/or administrators is so extensive that it would lead to arbitrary prosecutions. All still waiting for that definition from any legislators that define what "driving" is, I have looked and I know that no state or federal agency defines it, we are approaching void for vagueness doctrine, they are punishing some mysterious commercial activity no one can legally define
As a paralegal, i say good job citing US court opinions and precedent. Some should read these ruling for themselves instead of forming their own opinions. If society would always follow precedent, what a wonderful world it would be. "Stare Decisis"
Not gonna bother citing current cases cuz it's not worth my time or effort. I can't say I'm an expert in constitutional law as I hated it during law school but I've studied it and encountered it in practice enough. As an owner of a law firm and someone who's been practicing law for over a decade I can tell you that you're a fool for citing a ton of old and outdated case law and suggesting that it's somehow valid. Sure, the court definitely said all of those things when they decided those cases. "When" is the operative word there. They also said things like blacks and whites can't go to the same school or ride the same busses. There's a million cases you can find and cite that say crazy things that contradict current law. That's the point, case law changes with each new decision. It used to be that you didn't need a license and it used to be that an African American couldn't sit in your seat and it used to be that [fill in the blank]. But it's not anymore. Don't cite outdated case law and act like its the gods honest truth. It's not....it's outdated and overturned.
Thank you for your input, people jump to conclusion because they believe what they are told, they have no basis in fact and refuse any position, I'm showing them links to US code at Cornell University and they just can't make the connection "motor vehicle" is for commercial use, what does the department of "motor vehicle" regulate? Commerce, they want to justify an argument without bringing any evidence to support their position, and resort to name calling.
Good that's great you think 1971 is prehistoric, you have access to lexis nexus, wex law, you can shepardise these cases, you can find any legislator in any state or federal agency that defines what "driving" is, let's see some facts, because your not saying anything
omg why will no one just read the entirety of Thompson v.Smith 154 SE 579 ? it isn't even that long of decision (as far as supreme court decisions go). it clearly does not say what the op claims (that is that 'no license is required') the actual text is correct, but that is only a small section has been lifted from it out of context. if there is one thing that is genuinely driving me crazy about all this is that no one has bothered to read the actual sources cited. why is everyone so lazy? seriously. it is driving me nuts.
No attorney or lawyer knows the law because they are only taught contact law, if they had to learn all 35,000,000 statutes, codes, regulations, by-laws, ordinances, contracts, treaties, government code, citizen handbook, as well as contract law, trust law, constitutional law, banking law, commercial law, uniform commercial code, tax law, real estate law, state law, federal law, martial law, civil law, criminal law, law of the land, maritime law, admiralty law, let's just agree no one would ever graduate so ignorance of the law is no excuse, what does that even mean?, is every lay person on the planet required to know everything what every cop, judge, attorney, or even the legislators DON'T know?
Don't you see, you can reference anything be it true or not, if it takes 2 seconds to verify, no one will do it, no one will prove anything, all just brainwashed name calling and jumping to conclusions, please share your link to American jurisprudence because it's not online neither is the judges book (encyclopedia) corpus juris secondum.
Get your facts straight. I'd suggest looking through law courses on university/college websites and handbooks. Please, where do you even get this from? :lol: I haven't been posting on this thread yet but this is beyond stupid. They're required to teach a core number of topics including criminal law, civil law constitutional law etc.