If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The Right of Locomotion
The US Supreme Court has recognized our Right of Locomotion:
"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 14th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270 (1900) - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...&invol=270#274 Examine this carefully. This is YOUR Right. You NEED to Understand EXACTLY WHAT is your Right. Note: "and the right, ordinarly" Which Right? "of locomotion", "to remove from one place to another", "of personal liberty", "of free transit". AKA: Personal Travel. How? "ordinarly". Where? "from or through the territory of any state". AKA: Public Property. We have the Right of Locomotion Ordinarly used for Personal Travel on Public Property. Even expressed in this form, from experience debating this issue, there will be those who still don't understand what their Right is. Let me rephrase it. On any particular stretch of Public Property, you have a Right to use WHATEVER Locomotion is Ordinarly used on that stretch. On Public Sidewalks, the Locomotion Ordinarly used is Walking, and we have a Right to Walk on Public Sidewalks. On Public Biketrails, the Locomotion Ordinarly used is Bikes, and we have a Right to Bike on Public Biketrails. What is the Locomotion Ordinarly used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways? It is, of course, the Automobile. On Public Highways, the Locomotion Ordinarly used is the Auto, and we have a Right to use Autos on Public Highways. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"proffsl" > wrote in message oups.com... snip whine If wishes were fishes, you sure would have a nice dinner, huh? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
If wishes were fishes, I'd have nothing, as I only have facts.
If facts were stacked, you'd be flat. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Is it really so difficult to shake off the harness? Clearly, in a knee
jerk fashon, you fealt the need to try to humiliate me. But, for who's benefit, for what purpose, and in who's eyes? I present you with evidence of my claim, you offer no counter evidence of any sort, then come off with some cutesy limerick! Are you under the impression you proved anything to anybody, other than the ability to plagerize cutesy limericks? You have lived in this harness for so long, you are afraid to live without it, you are afraid to consider living without it, and to avoid doing that, you are afraid to even admit the harness exists! And, in your case, plagiarizing cutesy limericks is a defense mechanism, protecting you from unwanted thought and observations. You probably wouldn't dare follow it, but this is a link to a site where the 1937 Detroit Michigan Driver's Handbook is shown. At the time of the publishing of this handbook, "driving" was still openly admitted by Cities and States as a Right. http://www.us-highways.com/trtdr00.htm Let's try another approach at this. Surely you would have to admit our Constitution recognizes our Personal Right to Liberty. And, surely you would have to admit that this implies a Personal Right to Travel on Public Highways, Roads, Paths, and other Public Right of Ways. If you can't admit even this, then I can only think you humiliate yourself. Assuming you admit we have the Personal Right to Travel on our Public Highways, in what manner should we Travel on them other than the Ordinary (the usual) manner of Travel on them? Should we be limited to only extraordinary manners of Travel on them, which in turn may be, and are in many places, prohibited because they obstruct the ordinary manner of Travel? And, how can you have a Right to something extraordinary which can be prohibited because it obstructs the ordinary? You can't! If there must be a choice between the Ordinary manner of Travel and a certain extraordinary manner of Travel, the Right must always go with the Ordinary manner of Travel. If you have the Right to Travel on Public Highways, Roads, Paths and other Public Right of Ways, then you have the Right to Travel on Public Highways, and you have the Right to Travel on Public Roads, and you have the Right to Travel on Public Paths, and you have the Right to Travel on other Public Right of Ways. If you have the Right to Travel on Public Highways, then, formost, you have the Right to Travel on them in the manner Ordinarly used on them. The Ordinary manner yesterday was the Ordinary manner yesterday. The Ordinary manner today is the Ordinary manner today. The Ordinary manner tomorrow will be the Ordinary manner tomorrow. We have the Right to the Ordinary manner of Travel used on any particular stretch of Public Highway, Road, Path or other Public Right of Way at any particular time. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"proffsl" > wrote in message
oups.com... > Is it really so difficult to shake off the harness? Clearly, in a knee > jerk fashon, you fealt the need to try to humiliate me. But, for who's > benefit, for what purpose, and in who's eyes? I present you with > evidence of my claim, you offer no counter evidence of any sort, then > come off with some cutesy limerick! Are you under the impression you > proved anything to anybody, other than the ability to plagerize cutesy > limericks? > [snip...] Isn't this now the third time you've posted this right-to-drive stuff, which effectively makes it Usenet spam? The right of locomotion means--literally--the right to move oneself. One can freely do that with their own legs, as well as any wheeled/non-motor vehicle of their choice (e.g., bicycle, skateboard, inline roller-skates)... subject to any additional restrictions about wheeled/non-motored vehicles in their respective area. However, when extended to a multi-ton motor vehicle that can injure or kill oneself and/or others if not properly controlled--driving is properly left as a privilege rather than an unalienable right. As it is now, enough so-called licensed drivers--where the license is supposed to indicate proficiency in the knowledge of the laws of driving and competent behind-the-wheel control of the motor vehicle--make enough driving errors and intentional violations of various laws of driving that there are multiple collisions reported on an hourly basis. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
proffsl wrote: > The US Supreme Court has recognized our Right of Locomotion: The remainder was snipped. Not this again...gawd! I thought this horse was beaten dead into the ground the last time you mentioned this nonsense. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
> > The right of locomotion means--literally--the right to move oneself. Give this person a cigar! You are correct! And, among all the various manners of locomotion possible, the US Supreme Court has specifically recognized as a Right only the certain types of locomotion "ordinarily" used on any given stretch of Public Right of Way. "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 14th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270 (1900) - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...&invol=270#274 And, if other extraordinary manners of locomotion obstruct with the locomotion ordinarily used on a particular stretch of Public Right of Way, that extraordinary manner of locomotion may rightfully be prohibited on that particular stretch of Public Right of Way. > One can freely do that with their own legs, as well as any wheeled/non-motor > vehicle of their choice (e.g., bicycle, skateboard, inline roller-skates)... You are, in fact, quite mistaken. Walking, bicycling, skateboarding and inline roller-skating are rather extraordinary manners of locomotion used on our Public Highways, which can be, and indeed often are, rightfully prohibited because they obstruct with the locomotion ordinarily used on Public Highways, each upon which we have a Right ONLY to the locomotion ordinarily used on it. Nowhere is walking, bicycling, skateboarding or inline roller-skating specifically recognized as a Right on Public Highways! I find it quite peculiar that you would assert that these rather extraordinary manners of locomotion on Public Highways are a Right when there not specifically recognized, but would deny the Right of Locomotion Ordinarily used on Public Highways when it IS specifically recognized. The US Supreme Court has specifically recognized ONLY the Locomotion Ordinarily used on any particular stretch of Public Right of Way. Today, that Ordinary Locomotion on Public Highways is, of course, the motor vehicle. But, you deny the use of a motor vehicle on Public Highways is a Right, because the use of a "motor vehicle" on Public Highways isn't specifically recognized as a Right, and despite the fact that the Locomotion Ordinarily used on Public Right of Ways IS specifically recognized. > subject to any additional restrictions about wheeled/non-motored > vehicles in their respective area. Something which is a Right is not subject to restriction nor prohibition. Walking on Public Highways can be prohibited because it obstructs the locomotion ordinarily used there, that being the motor vehicle. Motor Vehicles on Public Sidewalks can be prohibited because they obstruct the locomotion ordinarily used there, that being walking. But, on both Public Highways and Public Sidewalks, the locomotion ordinarily used there is a recognized Right and therefore CAN NOT be prohibited. We have a Right to use Public Highways, Roads, Sidewalks, Paths, and other Public Right of Ways. And, on each, we have the Right to use the Locomotion Ordinarily used on that particular Public Right of Way. We have the Right to use Public Highways, and the locomotion ordinarily used on Public Highways at the time, regardless if that Public Highway runs parallel with other Public Right of Ways or not. We have the Right to use Public Sidewalks, and the locomotion ordinarly used on Public Sidewalks at the time, regardless if that Public Sidewalk runs parallel with other Public Right of Ways or not. We have the Right to use Public Right of Ways, and the locomotion ordinarly used on those particular Public Right of Ways at the time, regardless if that Public Right of Way runs parallel with other Public Right of Ways or not. > However, when extended to a multi-ton motor vehicle that can injure or > kill oneself and/or others if not properly controlled--driving is properly left > as a privilege rather than an unalienable right. Another reason a particular manner of locomotion may be prohibited is if it poses an unacceptable level of danger or risk to the Rights of others. If, as it would appear, you would claim the motor vehicle poses an unacceptable level of danger or risk to the Rights of others, it must be outright prohibited for EVERYONE. One CAN NOT obtain a license to Endanger the lives or property of others. But, clearly, as the motor vehicle IS the locomotion ordinarily used on Public Highways, the level of danger they pose must be acceptable. Otherwise, if it weren't, it wouldn't be the locomotion ordinarly used. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
John S. wrote:
> Proffsl wrote: > > > > The US Supreme Court has recognized our Right of Locomotion: > > The remainder was snipped. > > Not this again...gawd! I thought this horse was beaten dead into > the ground the last time you mentioned this nonsense. Beating a horse to death, and debating an issue are two entirely different things. You refuse to debate the issue, but insist on beating dead horses. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
John S. wrote:
> Proffsl wrote: > > > > The US Supreme Court has recognized our Right of Locomotion: > > The remainder was snipped. > > Not this again...gawd! I thought this horse was beaten dead into the > ground the last time you mentioned this nonsense. Ironic that the issue is about our Right of Locomotion, and that you would wish to beat that horse dead into the ground. You smite our Rights. I smite you. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
> Proffsl wrote: > > > > Is it really so difficult to shake off the harness? Clearly, in a knee > > jerk fashon, you fealt the need to try to humiliate me. But, for who's > > benefit, for what purpose, and in who's eyes? I present you with > > evidence of my claim, you offer no counter evidence of any sort, then > > come off with some cutesy limerick! Are you under the impression you > > proved anything to anybody, other than the ability to plagerize cutesy > > limericks? > > Isn't this now the third time you've posted this right-to-drive stuff, No. It's more like the tenth time I posted this Right-OF-LOCOMOTION stuff, and it won't be the last. > which effectively makes it Usenet spam? What you call "spam", I call my soap box and my Right of Speech. Another Right you might not be aware of. What I consider SPAM is when people respond to issues, with no intention of discussing the issue. You've opened up dialog concerning the issue, weak as it might have been. I consider this issue to be of pivotal importance in many ways. Especially so now since there intentions to attach the National ID Abomination to Driver Licenses. I demand our Government abide strictly by the Constitution. I would think you should too. Are you afraid to find out? Are you afraid it will put you up against something bigger than you? Are you afraid you;ll feel foolish for allowing yourself to be fooled all your life? Are you afraid of the truth? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Right of Locomotion | proffsl | Driving | 0 | July 13th 05 04:15 AM |
The Right to Drive Safely | proffsl | Driving | 16 | July 7th 05 05:52 PM |
Right of Locomotion Ordinarly used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways | proffsl | Driving | 21 | June 24th 05 01:49 PM |
We have the Right to Drive Safely | proffsl | Driving | 4 | June 12th 05 11:22 AM |