Billy
Not being able to afford a car is not a hardship of Choice, nor does this condition have anthing to do with the issue.
The Point, which seems to have eluded you, was that not only do you admit that this RF-Tag idea is a hardship, but also to point out the fact that the only method of avoiding this hardship of RF-Tags is to adopt what most would currently view as an even greater hardship, that of doing without a car. And, apparently, you get a certain thrill out of thinking these never ending hardships encroaching upon our Rights will eventually begin to prompt others to choose the hardship of no car as the lesser of the two hardships.
One need not choose the hardship of having no car in order to exercise.
Or, does not want to have their Rights taxed even further!
HOG WASH...!!! You have suggested we have a Right to "hoof it". Do you think that means the government would have to provide us with feet? No! It would not.
Our Right to Life does not obligate government to PROVIDE us with Life, but only to ALLOW us our Life.
Our Right to Speech does not obligate government to PROVIDE us with Speech, but only to ALLOW us our Speech.
Our Right to Property does not obligate government to PROVIDE us with Property, but only to ALLOW us our Property.
Our Right to a Pursuit of Happiness does not obligate government to PROVIDE us with a Pursuit of Happiness, but only to ALLOW us our Pursuit of Happiness.
Personal - "personal liberty"
Travel - "to remove from one place to another according to inclination"
Personal Travel - "to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty"
Public - "the territory of any state"
Right of Way - "from or through"
Public Right of Way - "from or through the territory of any state"
Therefore: 'Personal Travel on our Public Right of Ways'
Now, back to the quote from the US Supreme Court, where it says: "and the right, ordinarily, of free transit"
The word "ordinarily" is neatly contained between "and the right" and "of free transit", making it undeniable that it functions as a modifier to "the right" "of free transit".
And the Right. Which Right? The Right Of "free transit" (meaning unobstructed transit not a free car!), or our Right of Locomotion. It should be noted that the definitions of both Transit and Locomotion are basically the same, that being "an act or the power of moving from place to place".
As "Transit" and "Locomotion" are interchangable, I could have just as correctly said we have the Right of Transit Ordinarily used for Personal Travel on our Public Right of Ways. This means the same thing as if I'd used the word "Locomotion".
"and the right, ordinarily, of free transit"
means:
'The Right of Ordinary Transit' or 'The Right of Transit Ordinarly used for Personal Travel'
We have the Right of Locomotion Ordinarily used for Personal Travel on our Public Right of Ways.
No, that way, it would mean: "sometimes it is a Right not secured by the 14th Amendment and others provisions of the consbreastution."
Nowhere is our Right to Vote subjected to the qualifier "ordinarily", nor are our Rights to Life or Liberty subjected to any such qualifiers, yet any of these Rights may be denied of us by Due Process of Law. As this Due Process of Law is understood to apply to all Rights, the use of this word to to imply this would not only be inefficent, but to be implying this would be redundant as well.
Clearly, the word "ordinarily" in the quote "and the right, ordinarily, of free transit" is a modifer, or a qualifier, which is applied to signify the types of transit or locomotion it is refering to.
Hahahahaha!!! Man, you're streatching it! The word "free" is not to imply "without cost", but instead it is to imply "without obstruction" or "without encumbrances".
Having a Right to Life doesn't obligate government to provide me with a Life. Having a Right to Property doesn't obligate government to provide me with property. You are either badly deluded, or disingenious.
You are reading into the law something that is not there. You say it's my right to "hoof it", baby. Show me where either the US Supreme Court or the US Consbreastution recognizes our Right to "hoof it", as you're so fond of saying, baby.
Hahahahaha!! You would! You already appear to receive much pleasure in suggesting as a way of avoiding these personal impositions upon their lives that one must suffer the hardship of slow, laborus and inefficent travel. It stands to reason that it would only enhance your pleasure to think that they must also be subjected to taking the longer path.
I had it correct about you all along.
