- NEW!
by Seeya says Dont Ever Give Up on April 19th, 2009
If you google driver v. travler you may find out alot a license is not required to transport your self or you property for personal use upon the public roads. US Supreme Court Case's Shapiro v. Thompson 398 US 618
Kent v Dulles 357US116,125 just 2 here there are more to back it up, some by state supreme courts
A small Kentucky church has chosen to ban marriages and even some worship services for interracial couples. Is this legal?
by calicorey on December 1st, 2011
| 6 people like this
If the sign says 55, but they won't stop you unless you're going 70, what is the speed limit? Is it what the sign says, or the cop?
by excon on November 30th, 2011
| 5 people like this
Shortly, cameras will decide who gets a ticket and who doesn't. If the sign says 55, at what speed should the camera spit out a ticket?
by excon on November 30th, 2011
| 2 people like this
Is it legal to park your own helicopter in your backyard?
by shaungawler on December 29th, 2011
| 3 people like this
Is it illegal to shoot a dead person?
by Ombliss22 on November 15th, 2011
| 3 people like this
You're reading If your license is suspended for a dui and you go through a checkpoint during that time, can the officers search your car without your consent and then put you in jail even if they did not find anything in your car?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
Can you cite a case that actually supports your proposition?
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on June 22nd, 2009
there is no one case, but numerous case that back it up, do some more research on your own as I have for over a year.
by Seeya says Dont Ever Give Up on June 23rd, 2009
I feel bad that you have wasted your time for a year doing research, so I am going to give you free legal advice. The cases you cite have nothing to do with the legality of a license. America is structured as a federalist system. Each state is its own sovereign and can pass any laws it likes. The only exception to this is when the Constitution or a federal law preempt the state law.
...
The line of cases you seem to be relying on are cases that interpret the Constitutions requirement that a state not favor its own citizens. It is true that a state cannot require non-residents to get a license, while residents are exempt. But nothing prevents a state from requiting everyone to have a license to drive.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on June 23rd, 2009
I will get back to you on individual citizens rights, the states do not have the rights they think they do! and much more, as you are a get along go along, I would not recommend you. I won my case! and I am not an attorney! jurisdition is what is important and indivdual rights, not the states, as they only controll comercial activities. the state controlls the education of our youth and conditions them to believe the law is the law, It is called color of law, and when a citizens right has been violated by it, no officer of the court is immune to USC title 18 chapter 13, 241, 242. the state is using the UCC in error.
by Seeya says Dont Ever Give Up on June 23rd, 2009
Huh? Your comment is not coherent, so I cannot give any meaningful response. Well, other to say that your first sentence (i.e. “the states do not have the rights they think they do”) is simply wrong. The U.S. Constitution gives most of the power to the states. You should start your analysis by reading the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on June 23rd, 2009
9th amendement read it, the states do not have more rights then the citizens, 10 th says state or people. typcal of higher education, do not think outside the box they were put in.
by Seeya says Dont Ever Give Up on June 23rd, 2009
First, you are misreading the 9th Amendment. The 9th has nothing to do with states power, nor does it say citizens have more rights than states. Second, you are entitled to your opinion, but again, your opinion is wrong. I am a licensed attorney, and am simply giving you this information toe expand your understanding. If you choose to ignore it, that is your choice. But going through life with a misunderstanding of the structure of our government is just going to bred frustration.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on June 23rd, 2009
I am not misreading any thing you are twisting, what is. 9th is unenumerated rights 10th is those rights not reserved to the federal go to the state or the pepole. You missed the point I made in that I won my case againt the state. So wake up and understand that not all is what it's seems. I understand the structure of the goverment. The Judge stuttered when I began my presentation, the state shut up, kept up pretense, so as not to lose money, because I opened the can of worms, that keeps the state in controll and not the citizen. So you keep violating your oath of office.
by Seeya says Dont Ever Give Up on June 23rd, 2009
US v Minker,350 US 179, at page 187
"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunninly coerced into waiving thier rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased) this is what I mean by conditioning. what law school did you go to and who were your professors? They need to reevaluelate.
by Seeya says Dont Ever Give Up on June 23rd, 2009
Owens v. City of Independence, 445 US 621, 100 s. Ct. 1398
Maine v. Thiboutot,448 US 1, 100 S. Ct. 2502
Hafer v. Melo, 502 US 21
Officers of the Court have no immunity, when violating a constitional right, from liability, for they are deemed to know the law.
by Seeya says Dont Ever Give Up on June 23rd, 2009
Your comments are too incomprehensible. What do those cases haev to do with the topic at hand?
...
The 9th Amendment does not enumerate any rights. Rather, it was simply added to ensure that the addition of the Bill of Rights would not lead to expanded federal power by implication. The 10th served a similar purpose.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on June 24th, 2009
The reason this country is in the problems it is because of lawyers like you! Shakespere had it right! I notice that you ignored my case law. If I were you I would go to some liberal country, where you can bully the citizens or the indentured citizens, (slaves) you have yet to reveal where you graduated from and who your law proffessor were. So I must assume you are an imposter!
by Seeya says Dont Ever Give Up on June 24th, 2009
Again, you are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is wrong. I did not ignore your case law. The cases you cited have nothing to do with the topic at hand. For example, U.S. v. Minker was a a case that resolved a conflict among the circuits in regards to subpoena power in INS cases. What does that have to do with the topic at hand?
...
I engage in this forum to provide competent legal advice to people who otherwise would have no way to get such advice. I am continuing to engage you because you have fundamental misconceptions that I could clear up for you. If you want to provide a coherent argument, I would be more than happy to engage you in a discussion on the merits of your viewpoint. On the other hand, if you want to continue to make weak ad hominem attacks, then I will simply stop responding.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on June 24th, 2009
just because a case has nothing to do with the issue at hand it sheds light on other issue's again you have failed to back up the law school you graduated from! or who your proffesors were. You have no crediability with out it. I am much more coherent then you appear to be. your analist of the amendments do not jive with what I was taught! thurther you appear to trust legislation over civil rights. You do not recognize that you have been conditioned to believe that the law is the law which is not the case. And I will not teach you. You assume that as a layman I do not understand what is and isn't.
by Seeya says Dont Ever Give Up on June 25th, 2009
are you a defense or a state attorney? it makes a difference! you have yet to prove to me that you are what you say you are.
by Seeya says Dont Ever Give Up on June 25th, 2009
what is the difference between a right and a liberty and a priviledge, do you really believe that a jury would not understand. defintion of a license: a permisssion to do something that would otherwise be illegal. who pays for and own the roads? the citizen, comercial use requires a licence not private use.
by Seeya says Dont Ever Give Up on June 25th, 2009
when you respond answer what law school you attended, rough years and proffessors at said law school.
by Seeya says Dont Ever Give Up on June 25th, 2009
1. "The right of the citizen to travel upon public highways and to transport his/her property thereon, either by carriage or automobile, is not a mere privilege which a City/State may prohibit at will, but a common right which he/she has under the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579.
2. "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental right which the public and individuals cannot be rightfully deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 337 IIL200,169 NE 22, 66 ALR 834. Ligare v. Chicago 139 III. 46, 28 NE 934. Booney v. dark, 214 SW 607; 25 A M JUR (I'1) Highways, Sec. 163.
by Seeya says Dont Ever Give Up on June 25th, 2009
3 For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed on one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights." Sheer v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.
4 "The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dullcs 357 U.S. 116, 125.
5. "Where rights are secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436, 125
by Seeya says Dont Ever Give Up on June 25th, 2009
6. "The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. U.S. 230 F 2nd 486, 489.
7. "Under our system of government upon the individuality and intelligence of the citizen, the state" does not claim to control him/her, except as his/her conduct to others, leaving him/her the sole judge as to all that affects himself/herself." Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60.
8. It is reasonable to assume that these judicial decisions are straight and to the point, that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people.
by Seeya says Dont Ever Give Up on June 25th, 2009
9. There is no question that a citation/ticket issued by a police officer, for no driver's license, current vehicle registration, or mandatory insurance, etc., which carries a fine or jail time, is a penalty ? and is, indeed, "converting a right into a crime."
10. A corporate entity, whether it be a city, state, or U.S. Government, cannot testify as an injured party, thus cannot be cross-examined. As an individual one can speak for a corporation, but cannot be an injured party - as a living person of record. In Propria Persona;
by Seeya says Dont Ever Give Up on June 25th, 2009
Huh? I would suggest you re-read Thompson v. Smith. In Thompson, the court held that the license could be revoked. The court stated:
...
"The power of a city to control and regulate the use of its streets is a continuing power to be exercised as often and whenever the city may think proper. The issuance and revocation of such permits by a city is merely a means of exercising the police power of the state delegated to the city to regulate the use of the public highways in the interest of the public safety and welfare. The Constitution of Virginia expressly provides that the exercise of the police power of the State shall never be abridged. Va. Const. § 159."
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on June 25th, 2009
Applies to commercial use of the roads, since the public owns the roads. So long as the roads are used for private use and not for finacial gain. You as an officer of the court must protect the citzens rights, not the states or cities rights, you do not get to pick what is a right! the citzen does. you only pick out one case and do not attack all hmmm... you still have not said where you went to law school or named a proffessor. It leads me to believe that you may not be who you claim to be!
by Seeya says Dont Ever Give Up on June 25th, 2009
Mich. v Duke 266 US 576, 69, 449
State police power extends only to immediate threats to public saftey, health and welfare. do the cross on the states yourself.
Mulger v.Kansas 123 US 623, 659-60
" Our system of goverment, based upon the individualty and intelligence of the Citizen, the state does not claim to control him, except as his conduct to others, leaving him the sole judge as to all that only affects himself."
by Seeya says Dont Ever Give Up on June 25th, 2009