Is this Constitutional? (brainwashing, county, money, states)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh dear, another sheep with backward logic. This is not about supporting drunk driving, but about forced extraction of blood against one's will, which if is universally accepted as legitimate, means you have no rights of any type or form. If authorities can strap you down and take your blood against your will ... they can do anything to you .... strap you down and inject you with something .... strap you down and perform a cavity search on you .... nothing is off the table, when authorities can forcibly extract body fluids from you.
Americans 2013 .... the most depraved, sycophantic, spineless and brainless group in history.
I agree with GuyNTexas on this one and ya'll know I'm a flaming liberal on most things.
One thing DOES often lead to another and I certainly don't like where this could go. I'm a Mom; rarely drink at ALL; and even I see something wrong with this picture.
TRANSPORTATION CODE**CHAPTER 521. DRIVER'S LICENSES AND CERTIFICATES
TRANSPORTATION CODE
TITLE 7. VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC
SUBTITLE B. DRIVER'S LICENSES AND PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION CARDS
CHAPTER 521. DRIVER'S LICENSES AND CERTIFICATES
SUBCHAPTER B. GENERAL LICENSE REQUIREMENTS
Sec. 521.021. LICENSE REQUIRED. A person, other than a person expressly exempted under this chapter, may not operate a motor vehicle on a highway in this state unless the person holds a driver's license issued under this chapter.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
This is not reality. It is something else.
No, this "something else" is you presenting prima fascia evidence of either the deliberate use of deceptive statutory language creating a "color of law" fraud, or deliberate criminal conduct on the part of the Texas Legislature and the Courts.
The deceptive angle is of course there .. evidenced by the contrasting Texas Administrative Code pertaining to "driver license" requirements which state:
TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
RULE §15.1 Who Must Be Licensed
All persons, except those expressly exempt by law, who live in Texas and operate a motor vehicle upon a public street or highway must have a valid driver license.
You may take special note, the underlined portion: "All persons, EXCEPT THOSE EXPRESSLY EXEMPT BY LAW ..." does not define what those "exemptions" are, nor who they apply to. But that question has been settled long ago by the Supreme Court. American citizens possess a fundamental and natural right to travel , therefore are exempt from seeking permission to travel. Unlike the texas Statutes to which you presented which state: A person, other than a person expressly exempted under this chapter .... .. the Administrative Code simply says "except those exempted by law". The deception is, all non-commercial activity which constitutes personal travel IS EXEMPTED BY LAW, but they just decided to conveniently leave that part out.
The clear fact at the heart of this matter is, no state law, or county law, or municipal law, code or statute is valid IF it represents a violation of constitutionally protected rights, as per United States Constitution:
Article 6
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary not one word withstanding."
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."
This is what the constitution says about any law or act of legislation by either the federal government or of the states that violates the Supreme Law of The Land ... such laws are null and void, and not valid law.
Now this is some of the direct statements by the Supreme Court:
Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." .
Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579:"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile,is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right."
Now these three cases are just a sample .... and many more examples exist which UNDENIABLY declare that a citizen's right to travel is absolute, and includes travel upon the nation's highways and roads without seeking permission or permit. The only persons who could possibly be confused about this are either deliberately playing "dumb", or mentally challenged, because the message couldn't be more simple and clear. Fundamental rights require no permission to exercise, nor can they be restricted or taken away or denied ... this is what distinguishes rights from privileges which do require permission and thus, can be denied. And one cannot be compelled to wave one right in order to exercise another.
So, again, thanks for confirming my claim that the Texas Courts and Law Enforcement are breaking the law everyday, and each time they demand a citizen possess and present a driver license in order to exercise a right that requires no such permission.
No, this "something else" is you presenting prima fascia evidence of either the deliberate use of deceptive statutory language creating a "color of law" fraud, or deliberate criminal conduct on the part of the Texas Legislature and the Courts.
The deceptive angle is of course there .. evidenced by the contrasting Texas Administrative Code pertaining to "driver license" requirements which state:
TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
RULE §15.1 Who Must Be Licensed
All persons, except those expressly exempt by law, who live in Texas and operate a motor vehicle upon a public street or highway must have a valid driver license.
You may take special note, the underlined portion: "All persons, EXCEPT THOSE EXPRESSLY EXEMPT BY LAW ..." does not define what those "exemptions" are, nor who they apply to. But that question has been settled long ago by the Supreme Court. American citizens possess a fundamental and natural right to travel , therefore are exempt from seeking permission to travel. Unlike the texas Statutes to which you presented which state: A person, other than a person expressly exempted under this chapter .... .. the Administrative Code simply says "except those exempted by law". The deception is, all non-commercial activity which constitutes personal travel IS EXEMPTED BY LAW, but they just decided to conveniently leave that part out.
The clear fact at the heart of this matter is, no state law, or county law, or municipal law, code or statute is valid IF it represents a violation of constitutionally protected rights, as per United States Constitution:
Article 6
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary not one word withstanding."
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."
This is what the constitution says about any law or act of legislation by either the federal government or of the states that violates the Supreme Law of The Land ... such laws are null and void, and not valid law.
Now this is some of the direct statements by the Supreme Court:
Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." .
Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579:"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile,is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right."
Now these three cases are just a sample .... and many more examples exist which UNDENIABLY declare that a citizen's right to travel is absolute, and includes travel upon the nation's highways and roads without seeking permission or permit. The only persons who could possibly be confused about this are either deliberately playing "dumb", or mentally challenged, because the message couldn't be more simple and clear. Fundamental rights require no permission to exercise, nor can they be restricted or taken away or denied ... this is what distinguishes rights from privileges which do require permission and thus, can be denied. And one cannot be compelled to wave one right in order to exercise another.
So, again, thanks for confirming my claim that the Texas Courts and Law Enforcement are breaking the law everyday, and each time they demand a citizen possess and present a driver license in order to exercise a right that requires no such permission.
First, those are not all Supreme Court Cases.
Second, you can't just pull quotes out of the context of a legal opinion and apply them to a different situation.
Third, using these cases as a basis for asserting that individuals have a fundamental right to drive unfettered by state laws (such as those requiring licenses) is a common tactic by those contesting tickets or other violators of the motor vehicle code, and has been thoroughly debunked. Not to mention rejected by the courts.
From what I can tell, these quotes are nothing more than misinterpretations of various court cases that have been cobbled together with little understanding of the law by various libertarian extremists and recycled ad nauseum by cut-and-pasters such as yourself.
In Texas (and many other states I believe) there is no legal requirement for a citizen to obtain a "Driver License" in order to operate a motor vehicle for personal use. The "Driver" license applies to commercial drivers operating commercial vehicles in the conduct of commerce.
I agree with GuyNTexas on this one and ya'll know I'm a flaming liberal on most things.
One thing DOES often lead to another and I certainly don't like where this could go. I'm a Mom; rarely drink at ALL; and even I see something wrong with this picture.
Well, perhaps there is hope for you after all ... but we do have a long way to go, given that you may not like where this COULD go ... I'm telling ya, it's already there. There is nothing more despotic and tyrannical than strapping a person down and forcibly taking their damned blood. Think about that for a minute .... not so long ago people understood the violation of their privacy for having authorities demanding identification without reason or probable cause. And there were serious objections and real issues and problems .. constitutionally ... with police randomly stopping people without cause, let alone establishing check points that stopped everyone, without probable cause ... as if simply stopping everyone makes it less a violation of privacy and of freedom of movement without unwarranted harassment by authorities. But now, not only are these check points popping up everywhere .... but the mere suspicion of a crime by a police officer who naturally suspects everyone of crime, seems to be grounds for this ghoulish and gross conduct even the Nazis never did .... they just demanded to "Zee your Paperz" but did not perform medical procedures on you at roadside, extracting your blood. This is craziness on steroids, and needs to be resisted in the strongest terms.
Do you HONESTLY believe the crap that you spew? Seriously???
Oh, wait... You do. I remember you from the chemtrail threads.
I believe what the constitution says .... perhaps you think the constitution is a conspiracy theory, and that constitutionally protected rights are little green men from mars ... that's your problem, and you should see someone about it.
Right, and I asked the question earlier and I still don't know. Since a refusal to take a breathalizer is basically a default guilty plea, why is there a need to draw blood?
The penalty in a simple DUI case is the same either way.
No. You're not pleading anything. You will be punished for two things instead of one.
I believe what the constitution says .... perhaps you think the constitution is a conspiracy theory, and that constitutionally protected rights are little green men from mars ... that's your problem, and you should see someone about it.
Oh brother.
Explain - directly, and without taking snippets of court cases out of context - how requiring a license to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways in any way violates the Constitution. Cite exactly which article of the Constitution is being violated, and then describe - in your own words - how it's being violated.
Unless and until you can do that, you're just wasting your time and ours.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
... but we do have a long way to go, given that you may not like where this COULD go ... I'm telling ya, it's already there. There is nothing more despotic and tyrannical than strapping a person down and forcibly taking their damned blood. Think about that for a minute .... not so long ago people understood the violation of their privacy for having authorities demanding identification without reason or probable cause. And there were serious objections and real issues and problems .. constitutionally ... with police randomly stopping people without cause, let alone establishing check points that stopped everyone, without probable cause ... as if simply stopping everyone makes it less a violation of privacy and of freedom of movement without unwarranted harassment by authorities. But now, not only are these check points popping up everywhere .... but the mere suspicion of a crime by a police officer who naturally suspects everyone of crime, seems to be grounds for this ghoulish and gross conduct even the Nazis never did .... they just demanded to "Zee your Paperz" but did not perform medical procedures on you at roadside, extracting your blood. This is craziness on steroids, and needs to be resisted in the strongest terms.
