Right to Travel - Page 2 - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old April 28th, 2010, 08:31 PM   #21
Medic8
You call, we haul.
 
Medic8's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-08-05
Location: Southgate, MI
Posts: 1,495
iTrader: (4)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yota Bill View Post
More along these lines, but on a slightly different subject?

Have any legal money on hand? I doubt it.

In Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 and Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, the Constitution adopts silver and gold coin exclusively as the money of the United States.

In Article I, Section 8, Clause 2 and Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, the Constitution prohibits explicitly or implicitly the emission of any form of what was called in those days "bills of credit". Today we would call that paper money.

Now the standard in this system is the dollar, and, if you know nothing else about the monetary system of the United States constitutionally, learn what a dollar is. A dollar is a silver coin containing 371-1/4 grains of silver. That word is mentioned twice in the Constitution: in Article I, Section 9 and in the Seventh Amendment, guaranteeing the right to jury trial.

In the system that the founding fathers devised, the legal value of all the silver coinage must be proportional to the weight of silver they contain, and the legal value of all the gold coinage must be proportional to the weight of gold that the coins contain in relationship to the exchange value between silver and gold at the prevailing free market exchange rate.

All silver and gold coins may be legal tender for the values of silver and gold they actually contain, and Congress has the authority to, as the Constitution says, regulate the value according to these principles.

Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 also disables the states from imposing on unwilling creditors anything but gold and silver coin as a tender in payment of debts — which, of course, reflects the inherent disability of Congress to declare anything other than gold and silver coin a legal tender

quotes from: http://www.conservativeusa.org/vieir100.htm

It doesnt take much to realize that the founding fathers knew corrupt people would eventually be in high places in this country, or people with less then adequate understanding. They did not want a country that issued paper (representational) money, or notes, backed by gold, which they could then control the value of, by either printing more money or selling off the gold.
Apparently, Lincoln disagreed.
I'm following you on most everything else, but this isn't quite the truth, at least not any more. I won't "straw man" your other argument, but just so you know, the "Gold Standard" as you mentioned in this particular section, was abolished in 1933 by FDR.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...-gold-standard
Medic8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old April 28th, 2010, 08:44 PM   #22
Yota Bill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 08-24-08
Location: Morrice, Mi
Posts: 3,229
iTrader: (11)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fastrt6dakota View Post
I'm following you on most everything else, but this isn't quite the truth, at least not any more. I won't "straw man" your other argument, but just so you know, the "Gold Standard" as you mentioned in this particular section, was abolished in 1933 by FDR.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...-gold-standard
but was that action constitutional?

Quote:
In Article I, Section 8, Clause 2 and Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, the Constitution prohibits explicitly or implicitly the emission of any form of what was called in those days "bills of credit". Today we would call that paper money.
Quote:
Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 also disables the states from imposing on unwilling creditors anything but gold and silver coin as a tender in payment of debts — which, of course, reflects the inherent disability of Congress to declare anything other than gold and silver coin a legal tender
Yota Bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2010, 02:24 AM   #23
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,579
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

I do not see anything in the Constitution regarding the right to travel, although it could be included in those implied in the 9th amendment. The 10th amendment clearly gives the states the right to enact law that it sees fit. I do not see the requirement to have a drivers license as an infringement of the right to travel. You can still travel by other means.

I see this as an example of a situation where one persons rights interfere with another an so laws must be made to draw the line. You have the right to travel, but you do not have the right to put other people in danger. In order to balance your right to use the roads with your responsibility to not put other in danger I think it is reasonable to require you to prove that you possess the necessary skills and knowledge to safely operate a motor vehicle. To ensure that the vehicles on the road meet the minimum requirement to be safely operated at high speeds on public roads I think that a system of registering and licensing is reasonable.

There are other example of laws that limit rights. Consider the right to free speech. If you mounted loud speakers on you car and drive around in the middle yelling about whatever you felt like, after a while the police will come out and make you stop. It that an infringement on you right to free speech? Yes, but it is don't to protect other peoples right to some peace and quite.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2010, 06:37 AM   #24
Yota Bill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 08-24-08
Location: Morrice, Mi
Posts: 3,229
iTrader: (11)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. If that "liberty" is to be regulated, it must be pursuant to the law-making functions of the Congress. . . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values.
Justice William O. Douglas, Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958)

As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.


on the subject of money, I will concede to that, after reading this:

The ability of the government to print paper money is certainly not an enumerated right. Yet we all use U.S. dollar bills everyday. How is this possible?

An original draft of the Constitution expressly permitted the government not only to borrow money, as Article 1, Section 8, Clause 2 notes, but also to "emit bills." In Madison's Notes from August 16, 1787, the subject of paper money was debated at some length. Gouverneur Morris warned that if paper money was allowed, "The Monied interest will oppose the plan of Government." John Mercer thought it unwise to "deny [the Government] discretion on this point." But others thought paper money was a deal-killer. George Read likened the words, if included, to the "mark of the Beast," and John Langdon said he'd rather reject the entire plan than include the words. On a 9-2 vote, the words were struck. So how is it possible for us to pay for anything with paper money today? Shouldn't all currency be coins with inherent value, like silver and gold?

Gold and silver are not panaceas. Gold and silver coins have issues of their own, and the evils of paper money were outweighed by the evils of manipulation of purity and weights, not to mention convenience. By the Civil War, "greenbacks" were issued by the government and used in all manner of commerce. Not everyone liked this, and legal conflict ensued. The Supreme Court eventually had to rule on the question. In Knox v Lee, 79 U.S. 457 (1871), the Court ruled that paper money was not unconstitutional: "The Constitution nowhere declares that nothing shall be money unless made of metal." The Court argued that the Congress can manipulate the value of precious metals to the point where it can be rendered as inherently worthless as paper (the Congress could enact a law that says that 10-dollar silver coins weigh 400 grains in one year and 500 grains the next, effectively devaluing the silver). The Court even noted the arguments of the Framers against "emitting bills," but wrote that the Framers, one, could not anticipate all governmental needs, and, two, they allowed the Congress to do what was necessary and proper to carry out its powers. In this case, that includes printing paper money.

So, said the Court, even though paper money is not expressly permitted by the Constitution, it is also not expressly forbidden, and in spite of the extra-constitutional opinions of some of the Framers, the ability to print paper money is a necessary and proper power of the federal government.
Yota Bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2010, 07:52 AM   #25
kp99xj
Senior Member
 
kp99xj's Avatar
 
Join Date: 02-20-09
Location: Marietta, Ga
Posts: 354
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

With regard to the right to travel without all the normal credentials, what is the purpose of having a license, plates, and insurance if they are not required? Not to say this is incorrect, I just am curious since I have never heard this argument before. How would the system even differentiate between a 10yr old driving illegally without a license and a 40yr old driving without one? Are these standards not in place to ensure all of our saftey on the road from untrained or unworthy drivers?
kp99xj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2010, 08:14 AM   #26
mikesova
My 4x4 is a Subaru.
 
mikesova's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Gladwin, MI
Posts: 7,874
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to mikesova
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
I do not see anything in the Constitution regarding the right to travel, although it could be included in those implied in the 9th amendment. The 10th amendment clearly gives the states the right to enact law that it sees fit. I do not see the requirement to have a drivers license as an infringement of the right to travel. You can still travel by other means.

I see this as an example of a situation where one persons rights interfere with another an so laws must be made to draw the line. You have the right to travel, but you do not have the right to put other people in danger. In order to balance your right to use the roads with your responsibility to not put other in danger I think it is reasonable to require you to prove that you possess the necessary skills and knowledge to safely operate a motor vehicle. To ensure that the vehicles on the road meet the minimum requirement to be safely operated at high speeds on public roads I think that a system of registering and licensing is reasonable.

There are other example of laws that limit rights. Consider the right to free speech. If you mounted loud speakers on you car and drive around in the middle yelling about whatever you felt like, after a while the police will come out and make you stop. It that an infringement on you right to free speech? Yes, but it is don't to protect other peoples right to some peace and quite.
whoa, Bruce, don't even mess around with common sense in this thread.

These guys are on to something, I heard that the income tax is unconstitutional.

Yota-Bill would you happen to consider yourself a member of the Freeman movement?
mikesova is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2010, 08:20 AM   #27
Nuggets
I fix stuff!
 
Nuggets's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-15-06
Location: Bay City, MI
Posts: 13,455
iTrader: (13)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

I excersized my right to travel without a license or plates yesterday. I rode my bicycle.
Nuggets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2010, 08:27 AM   #28
mikesova
My 4x4 is a Subaru.
 
mikesova's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Gladwin, MI
Posts: 7,874
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to mikesova
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuggets View Post
I excersized my right to travel without a license or plates yesterday. I rode my bicycle.
me too! I also used my two legs to get from my house to my garage.
mikesova is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2010, 08:56 AM   #29
Renegade II
Coil springs are for pens
 
Renegade II's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05-01-06
Location: Frankenmuth, Mi.
Posts: 3,326
iTrader: (13)
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuggets View Post
I excersized my right to travel without a license or plates yesterday. I rode my bicycle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesova View Post
me too! I also used my two legs to get from my house to my garage.

Patriotic men of action, I salute you!

Renegade II is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2010, 10:41 AM   #30
mikesova
My 4x4 is a Subaru.
 
mikesova's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Gladwin, MI
Posts: 7,874
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to mikesova
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renegade II View Post
Patriotic men of action, I salute you!

It's a tough job, but somebody's got to do it.
mikesova is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2010, 03:33 PM   #31
jeepitupyo
MMM Shrimp Slushy
 
jeepitupyo's Avatar
 
Join Date: 01-23-06
Location: Flint 48507
Posts: 1,979
iTrader: (25)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to jeepitupyo
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesova View Post
whoa, Bruce, don't even mess around with common sense in this thread.

These guys are on to something, I heard that the income tax is unconstitutional.

Yota-Bill would you happen to consider yourself a member of the Freeman movement?
I just saw Yota Bill make mention of this in a couple other threads and he said that it should be discussed in it's own thread. I made it cause I was curious that's all. I neither accept or reject the thinking behind it.

It would be nice to not have to spend so much on insurance and plates every year. Especially for my Jeep since I don't drive it very often.
__________________
05 Silverado Crew Z71
00 XJ BDS Long Arms 35's
Beelby & Sons Towing
St. Pierre Inc. Machining and Welding
jeepitupyo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2010, 05:37 PM   #32
Yota Bill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 08-24-08
Location: Morrice, Mi
Posts: 3,229
iTrader: (11)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesova View Post
whoa, Bruce, don't even mess around with common sense in this thread.

These guys are on to something, I heard that the income tax is unconstitutional.

Yota-Bill would you happen to consider yourself a member of the Freeman movement?
not even close


I'm simply relaying information here, I have not said that I was for or against licensing people to drive...if this was all just a joke, then why have so many judges ruled on this, and upheld it?
Yota Bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2010, 04:02 AM   #33
Blksnshn69
Senior Member
 
Blksnshn69's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04-15-08
Location: Muskegon Michigan
Posts: 401
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

I'm not against licensing or any of that. But I am against the outrageous prices. $87 for a stupid tab for my 16 yr old truck. Huge insurance rates even though I have never had an accident in the 13 years I've been driving.

I recieved two tickets a year or so back for not having a tab or insurance on my car. Not because I'm a "Freeman" but because I couldn't afford it because I was getting 12 -15 hours of work every week and food and shelter are alot more important than registration. I'm still trying to get that all taken care of.
The whole problem is the unnecesaraly high taxation on these things. I would like to thank all the liberal douches out there for voting in these F'n hippies that tax us to death. I'm so very happy Granholm's done. I don't ever want to see that mole again.
Blksnshn69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2010, 06:11 AM   #34
redleg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 08-01-07
Location: Luther/ Lansing/ Howell
Posts: 486
iTrader: (11)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

The constitution also protects you from illegal search and seizure. The supreme court has ruled for certain situations where safety and preservation of evidence outweigh the individuals protection from intrusion. That's just one example and I bet much of the licensing and regisration would fit in here. I'd be willing to bet a lot of those sources are listing information that serves their purpose and probably ommitting rulings that out date them. I don't disagree that there are currently excessive and prhibitive fees, but you can't throw somebody behind the wheel without training to a standard.

As far as minors being licensed. The parent is the contract holder. The governement can only pull the license for prescribed reasons. The parent can pull it anytime for any reason.
redleg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2010, 03:22 PM   #35
PavementPounder
I am the law.
 
PavementPounder's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Birmingham, Michigan 48009
Posts: 29,824
iTrader: (224)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kp99xj View Post
With regard to the right to travel without all the normal credentials, what is the purpose of having a license, plates, and insurance if they are not required?
Except for the insurance, they were created for the sole purpose of taxation. Licenses and registrations were never intended to be the forms of identification or tools of personal control/punishment that they are today.
PavementPounder is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:48 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright 2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.35829 seconds with 65 queries