jaybird
I've posted a US Supreme Court ruling as evidence of the existence of this Right, making the laws you posted UnConsbreastutional. Posting a UnConsbreastutional Law as evidence that Law is valid is Circular Argumentation, and invalid evidence.
And, as far as examples of this actually working, all you need do is pose a scenario, and I will post an example of how this will actually work. (buttuming your scenario doesn't include a need for licensing).
Driving is a Right 2559You posted a Supreme Court ruling stating that we all have the right to travel freely. Beyond that, you've added your own interpretation of how that somehow translates into no need for...
Let me get you started:
S1: Presume you witness someone Recklessly Endangering others by their Driving.
Driving is a Right 2560jaybird What I posted is a Supreme Court ruling stating that we have the Right of Transit Ordinarily exercised for...
Driving is a Right 2561But it doesn't say that anywhere in your quote. Theft is against the law. Licensing drivers is required by law. You can't pick the ones you will and won't abide...
X1: You stop the individual. If you know them personally, you issue them a summons to court on the charges. If you don't know them personally, you request they provide you with an offical ID (NOT Drivers License). If they do, you use that information to issue them a summons to court on the charges. If they do not, you take the person into custody to be held for court on the charges.
You got another? Post it, and I will provide you with a working example (Without the need for Driver Licensing).
The Laws you speak of are EXACTLY what my evidence shows to be UnConsbreastutional, and therefore invalid. And, do not presume to speak for "the rest of the public". You can ONLY speak for yourself.
I have provided evidence that our US Supreme Court has Recognized our Right of Transit Ordinarily exercised for Personal Travel on our Public Highways. Either you discredit that evidence (with something other than the Laws it makes UnConsbreastutional), or you accept the fact that Licensing Laws are Unconsbreastutional. No other way around it. Well, I suppose you could just ignore fact, and begin to spit insults at me, but I would hope you wouldn't.
The issue is our Right of Transit Ordinarily exercised for Personal Travel on our Public Highways. Do you recognize our Right of Transit Ordinarily exercised on our Public Highways? If you do, you MUST accept the fact Licensing Laws are UnConsbreastutional. No other ways around it.
Frankly jaybird, your statement here is hypocritical oxymoronic emotional nonsense. You can not protect a Right by denying that Right. You can not exercise a Right of Free Transit by converting that Right into a privilege. That is Oxymoronic. You speak as if it is a Privilege when the subject is other than yourself, then you speak as if it is a Right when the subject is yourself. That is Hypocracy. And, you CAN NOT make sure somebody won't intrude on your Rights. That is emotional nonsense.
Driving is a Right 2562jaybird "and the right, ordinarily, of free transit" Irrelevant. You suggested that something done everyday is okay. Theft occurs every day. Doesn't...
As for the security of your Rights, you can only make sure those who DO intrude on your Rights are duly prosecuted. Everybody else is to be presumed Innocent.
Yes, it IS ALL about Rights. And, I consider Rights primary above all else, including Law and Life. And, I am here to prove Driver Licensing Laws are in Violation of our Right of Free Transit Ordinarily exercised for Personal Travel on our Public Highways.
Our Public Highways are intended as implements of Liberty. But, with this LIE that Driving is a Privilege, the more our Public Highways are made unuseable by anything but the Automobile, the MORE this LIE makes us all prisoners of privilege behind bars of blacktop.
