next question, authority to regulate private automibles?

[Barwick11]

What is the name of your state - Michigan

In every law dictionary I've ever seen, "motor vehicle" is defined as an automobile being used in commerce, which means it is subject to regulation by the government (because it can't regulate your private property unless it is somehow clothed in the public interest. For the government only has the powers that we the people give it, and we can't give it the power to do something we can't do, and I certainly can't tell you that you can't walk on the public sidewalk).

BUT, the Michigan Vehicle Code defines a Motor Vehicle as every *vehicle* (definition of vehicle to follow) that is self-propelled (excluding forklifts and some other stuff not required to be registered)...

At first appearance, it seems as if it defines "motor vehicle" as everything, including my private automobile. But we read on...

Vehicle is defined as Every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be *transported* (definition to follow) or drawn upon a highway, except devices moved exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks...

Transported is NOT defined in the Michigan Vehicle Code. In every law dictionary that I've ever seen, "transport" is a commercial term.

And if we take that literally, then the MVC is correct in defining a motor vehicle as only those vehicles involved in commerce.

But, the state of Michigan treats the Michigan Vehicle Code as if it applies to every single person's private automobile, which is a power that "we the people" canNOT give to the State of Michigan.

You see, a law that says "only people with shoes on can walk on the public sidewalk" is an illegal law, correct? Or "only people with a license to ride a horse can ride it on public roads". That's also an illegal law (although a law requiring someone to clean up after their horse is a LEGAL law). But then how is a law that says "nobody can use the public roads if they're operating something we call an 'automobile', unless they have a drivers license" a legal law?

I realize I'm not writing this in any coherent and clear manner, but bear with me. I don't ever remember seeing pictures of George Washington on a horse with a license plate hanging off its butt. But all of a sudden, these things called automobiles come out, and some lobbyist convinces the government that they're "dangerous" (as if horses aren't? Have you ever been around a spooked horse? There's no "off" button on a horse, nor is there any "brakes" to stop it, short of a bullet in the head of the horse maybe...) And now it's all of a sudden "legal" for the government to require a fee and training and registration and insurance, and arbitrary speed restrictions, and all sorts of other laws, just to operate a private automobile, because someone claimed it's dangerous?

They claim that drivers licenses ("driving" by the way is defined as a commercial term in every legal dictionary I've ever seen) are required for EVERYONE to use the roads, and that drivers licenses keep us safe from dangerous drivers.

Guilty until proven innocent right? So all the innocent people have to comply with a government regulation because they're presumed to be guilty until they can prove they are competent to operate a motor vehicle? Somewhere a perversion has taken place.

And so I ask, finally, where does government get the constitutional authority to prevent me from operating my private automobile NOT in commerce on the public roads (which everyone has the right to use, unless it is removed from them by due process of law) at 90 mph (or 180 mph) with NOBODY else around? Or, where do they get the authority to prevent us from going 90 mph with other traffic on the road, so long as we are not dangerously maneuvering in traffic and threatening others? 90 mph is not necessarily dangerous (unless you're cutting in and out of traffic sharply and being stupid), but it will most assuredly get you a "ticket" in every state in this country.

 

[Curt581]

And so I ask, finally, where does government get the constitutional authority to prevent me from operating my private automobile NOT in commerce on the public

Keep reading. You'll find it.

You seem to be hung up on the phrase "Used in Commerce", as if asserting that if a private vehicle is not used in commerce, it is therefore exempt from traffic law. It's not.

at 90 mph (or 180 mph) with NOBODY else around? Or, where do they get the authority to prevent us from going 90 mph with other traffic on the road, so long as we are not dangerously maneuvering in traffic and threatening others?

They get the authority from the Legislature.

90 mph is not necessarily dangerous

It's not the speed, it's the sudden stop.

90 mph is inherently dangerous because of inertia and momentum. A vehicle traveling at 90 mph which has an accident, has a much higher likelyhood that it will result in serious injury or death, than a vehicle traveling at 55 mph.

Basic physics.

but it will most assuredly get you a "ticket" in every state in this country.

Knowing that, why would you deliberately speed?

It basically comes down to this:

You're complaining that the government is telling you that you can't do something that you want to do.

Your arguement is: Who says so?

The answer is: We, the People do.

We elected representatives to make laws to keep public roadways safe. Those laws are designed for the common denominator. Average people with average driving skills.

If you fail to obey those laws, you face sanctions.

Pretty simple.

 

[Barwick11]

Keep reading. You'll find it.

You seem to be hung up on the phrase "Used in Commerce", as if asserting that if a private vehicle is not used in commerce, it is therefore exempt from traffic law. It's not.

They get the authority from the Legislature.

It's not the speed, it's the sudden stop.

90 mph is inherently dangerous because of inertia and momentum. A vehicle traveling at 90 mph which has an accident, has a much higher likelyhood that it will result in serious injury or death, than a vehicle traveling at 55 mph.

Basic physics.

Knowing that, why would you deliberately speed?

It basically comes down to this:

You're complaining that the government is telling you that you can't do something that you want to do.

Your arguement is: Who says so?

The answer is: We, the People do.

We elected representatives to make laws to keep public roadways safe. Those laws are designed for the common denominator. Average people with average driving skills.

If you fail to obey those laws, you face sanctions.

Pretty simple.

*sigh*... the legislature can write laws to say whatever the heck they want to say, that doesn't mean it's a constitutional law. They can make a law that says at 9:00 PM on the first Thursday of June, we all have to get on our roofs and dance like a chicken. That doesn't mean that's a legal law. "We the people" can even vote 99.9999% for that law, and it STILL isn't a law because this is not a democracy.

In much the same manner, 289 million out of 290 million people can demand that we "regulate" the public roads. But that doesn't mean it's a constitutionally legal law.

It doesn't matter what speed is safe or dangerous, the legislature, executive, or judicial branch was never given any authority to regulate private individuals using public property for private use, so long as those private individuals are not infringing upon the rights of another individual. As soon as they do infringe upon someone else's rights, they are subject to regulation through due process of law.

BUT, the government IS given the authority by the people to regulate anyone using the public roads for profit. That is why every single vehicle code that I've ever seen says the words motor vehicle, driving, in commerce, transporting, etc. All those words denote "commerce", which they are legally given the authority to regulate. But since we've got tens of thousands of laws, and the average joe thinks they're too complicated to learn, he doesn't know the difference between using his private automobile to take his family to church, and using it to carry lumber from Houston to El Paso. And so he believes he is subject to it (and for the most part, so do the cops who enforce those laws, after all, it's much easier to do their job if they can do it in a clear conscience, not knowing that some legislature has hoodwinked us all into thinking we're subject to their arbitrary regulation in the name of "public safety").

In short, government has never been given the power to regualte you and I, keeping us from using the public sidewalks, correct? They can't say to you and I "DON'T WALK DOWN THERE UNLESS YOU HAVE A LICENSE AND TAKE 10 STEPS PER 20 FEET". Unless I'm walking down the sidewalk punching people because I feel like it, then they can stop me. Likewise, they have never been given the authority to do the same with our public roads, unless I'm infringing upon the rights of others. And legislature canNOT deem that a certain speed is "infringing upon others rights".

 

[Barwick11]

anyone have any more info on this one? Related to my last post?

*sigh*... the legislature can write laws to say whatever the heck they want to say, that doesn't mean it's a constitutional law. They can make a law that says at 9:00 PM on the first Thursday of June, we all have to get on our roofs and dance like a chicken. That doesn't mean that's a legal law. "We the people" can even vote 99.9999% for that law, and it STILL isn't a law because this is not a democracy.

In much the same manner, 289 million out of 290 million people can demand that we "regulate" the public roads. But that doesn't mean it's a constitutionally legal law.

It doesn't matter what speed is safe or dangerous, the legislature, executive, or judicial branch was never given any authority to regulate private individuals using public property for private use, so long as those private individuals are not infringing upon the rights of another individual. As soon as they do infringe upon someone else's rights, they are subject to regulation through due process of law.

BUT, the government IS given the authority by the people to regulate anyone using the public roads for profit. That is why every single vehicle code that I've ever seen says the words motor vehicle, driving, in commerce, transporting, etc. All those words denote "commerce", which they are legally given the authority to regulate. But since we've got tens of thousands of laws, and the average joe thinks they're too complicated to learn, he doesn't know the difference between using his private automobile to take his family to church, and using it to carry lumber from Houston to El Paso. And so he believes he is subject to it (and for the most part, so do the cops who enforce those laws, after all, it's much easier to do their job if they can do it in a clear conscience, not knowing that some legislature has hoodwinked us all into thinking we're subject to their arbitrary regulation in the name of "public safety").

In short, government has never been given the power to regualte you and I, keeping us from using the public sidewalks, correct? They can't say to you and I "DON'T WALK DOWN THERE UNLESS YOU HAVE A LICENSE AND TAKE 10 STEPS PER 20 FEET". Unless I'm walking down the sidewalk punching people because I feel like it, then they can stop me. Likewise, they have never been given the authority to do the same with our public roads, unless I'm infringing upon the rights of others. And legislature canNOT deem that a certain speed is "infringing upon others rights".

 

[CdwJava]

Dear God! THIS argument pops up all the time! The same people that argue that the states cannot regulate automobiles often also argue that the courts have no jurisdiction as they are Admiralty courts, and that only the Sheriff can enforce laws and police departments are unconstitutional.

Barwick, I don't think anyone's going to play with this tired old song and dance.

If you think you have something, then pursue it in your state and get back to us. When you fail, you can commiserate with the dozens of others who have tried ths same arguments in all the states.

- Carl

 

[You Are Guilty]

Dear God! THIS argument pops up all the time! The same people that argue that the states cannot regulate automobiles often also argue that the courts have no jurisdiction as they are Admiralty courts, and that only the Sheriff can enforce laws and police departments are unconstitutional.

Barwick, I don't think anyone's going to play with this tired old song and dance.

If you think you have something, then pursue it in your state and get back to us. When you fail, you can commiserate with the dozens of others who have tried ths same arguments in all the states.

- Carl

Nonsense. I think he's onto something here. Following his logic, the government doesn't have the authority to collect taxes, either. I suggest the OP stop paying them immediately, and let us know how that turns out for you.

 

[Barwick11]

wow, two good intelligent responses showing where they have that authority. First of all, every single one of those cases have been decided correctly, they say "driving a motor vehicle requires license and is subject to MVC". If you look in the definition of "driving" and "motor vehicle" in the state those decisions are made, you will find that "driving" is "operating a motor vehicle in commerce" and "motor vehicle" is "a vehicle used in commerce".

If you find another case where they state it's legal to regulate "traveling in a private automobile, even when NOT in commerce" then you show me. Even if you could (which you probably can't), courts have been wrong before. Many times. Heck, just a few decades ago they ruled it's perfectly legal to murder an unborn human being, in direct violation of "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness".

Once again, regardless of what "the masses" think, what is the US? NOT a democracy. If "the masses" want to regulate "the rest of the masses", that doesn't make it legal.

 

[Castigator]

This is a joke right?

Ok, the US government has some certain authority, yada, yada... this is your argument in a nutshell, correct? The Federal govt. has no authority to regulate a motor vehicle? If not then I must have skimmed your responses too quickly.

The state gets it's apparent authority from the fact that you live in said state. If you live in MA (easy online look-up of their laws), you are a citizen of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and are thus subjuct to their laws (we'll skip the 'visiting' thing, I don't want to confuse you).

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/90-1.htm
Has the definitions used by the Commonwealth. You'll kindly note that the LAW (as opposed to some arbitrarily defined law dictionary) defines a Motor Vehicle thus:

""Motor vehicles'', all vehicles constructed and designed for propulsion by power other than muscular power including such vehicles when pulled or towed by another motor vehicle, except railroad and railway cars, vehicles operated by the system known as trolley motor or trackless trolley under chapter one hundred and sixty-three or section ten of chapter five hundred and forty-four of the acts of nineteen hundred and forty-seven, vehicles running only upon rails or tracks, vehicles used for other purposes than the transportation of property and incapable of being driven at a speed exceeding twelve miles per hour and which are used exclusively for the building, repair and maintenance of highways or designed especially for use elsewhere than on the traveled part of ways, wheelchairs owned and operated by invalids and vehicles which are operated or guided by a person on foot; provided, however, that the exception for trackless trolleys provided herein shall not apply to sections seventeen, twenty-one, twenty-four, twenty-four I, twenty-five and twenty-six. The definition of "Motor vehicles'' shall not include motorized bicycles. In doubtful cases, the registrar may determine whether or not any particular vehicle is a motor vehicle as herein defined. If he determines that it should be so classified, he may require that it be registered under this chapter, but such determination shall not be admissible as evidence in any action at law arising out of the use or operation of such vehicle previous to such determination."

You may note that the term 'commerce' did not readily appear anywhere within that definition.

Now then, you may still have some inherent push to stipulate that they still have no authority somehow, so I'll just quickly post another link... http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/40-21.htm which is one of the laws regulating the by-laws of towns. You may notice that they are given these allowances in this section "as they may judge most conducive to their welfare, which shall be binding upon all inhabitants thereof and all persons within their limits", which would play to your exception of public interest. The inferences can easily be made after that example, however, you may want to go back and rethink your basis of your argument on a 'dictionary' rather than the actual law.

With regard to the 'just because it's a law' spiel that you went on about, yes, a law is a law and is supposed to be obeyed. If there is a problem with the law then it can be repealed or challenged, both of which are allowed for in our governmental system, which is probably the closest you'll get in reality to a true absolute democracy (which is what you were alluding to).

To your pro-life shot in a public forum, I shall counter thus... While I may believe in the pro-life stance, I also believe that it is not my job to pass judgment... that job has been reserved for someone far greater than me... and I sincerely doubt that is you.