Does mandating health care violate constitution eleventh month dating gift ideas

App 122, 493 SE2d 763 review den (1998) 347 NC 670, 500 SE2d 85 Eskew v. Supp 1049 someone whose drivers license had been deliberately suspended or revoked here cannot resume driving by obtaining an international drivers permit.

App.3d 753, 655 NE2d 300 where an arrestee has an international drivers permit in a false name that is a strong indication of an inclination and ability to flee and adopt false identities for which a high bail may be demanded. Himler (3d Cir 1986) 797 F2d 156 having organized a small mob to resist law enforcement efforts to arrest him, having denied his citizenship and denied being susceptible to the laws or courts, and having threatened the judge, all justify the court refusing to allow him bail or pre-trial release. It is good for not more than 12 months (less in some countries) and the driver is still subject to all the traffic laws. [AAA wants a SS#.] Apparently there is a lively Internet scam of selling unauthorized or fake permits and at prices up to 0 cf.

Supp 921 {The international driving permit is issued under the authority of the UN Convention on International Road Traffic, and it serves as an authoritative multi-lingual translation and verification of the persons home drivers license, which means that it has no legal weight without that home drivers license (and, also, a drivers international permit has no weight inside the drivers home country).

Amicus briefs are legal documents filed in appellate court cases by non-litigants with a strong interest in the subject matter.

American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Other cases are even more straight forward: We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question - Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason? Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials?

Government -- in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question -- is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to travel. The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws. If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation.

does mandating health care violate constitution-1does mandating health care violate constitution-8

Consequently, vehicle codes that are being applied to citizens and their use of private property are unconstitutional based upon the fact that no compelling state interest exists due to the restraints already in place as described above. Circuit Court for Taylor County (7th Cir 1995) 73 F3d 669 similarly Commonwealth v. Super 390, 169 A2d 596 see especially essay, Validity of statute making it a criminal offense for operator of motor vehicle not to carry or display his license or registration, 6 ALR3d 506 & suppl.) similarly (right to "property" does not enable perp to drive his car despite its lack of registration, safety inspection, license plate, drivers license, etc., nor to prevent it from being impounded until he complies with the licensing laws) Wisden v. If he wishes, he may walk, ride a bicycle or horse, or travel as a passenger in an automobile, bus, airplane or helicopter. App 1988) 745 SW2d 249 There we go again with the carefully constructed "motor vehicle" language. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. App unpub 6/11/96) (tried to argue that he could not be required to pay a fine nor pay for a license nor for registration in the absence of gold and silver coiage) Lowry v. App 1982) 655 P2d 780 (tried to argue that a traffic ticket required the same tedious red tape, such as notarization or accompanying papers, as a formal indictment or a complaint in a lawsuit) State v. also asserts that he is not required to abide by any state or federal laws.") State v. "it also means that never again will he have to wait in line at the Dept of Motor Vehicles for a renewal") Estes-El v. Presented here are some of these cases: CASE #1: "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." CASE #2: "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." It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U. As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. In Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point -- that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people? Constitution: "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..." Here's an interesting question. Gibson (Ohio App unpub 6/19/95) (seemed to think that by denying US citizenship could immunize himself from drunk driving laws and from traffic court) T. Town of Indian Lake (ND NY unpub 5/11/98) (an international driving permit is not, alone, a sufficient substitute for a drivers license, and requires additionally a drivers license from that persons country or state of residence) Schofield v. The motor vehicle code was promulgated to increase the safety and efficiency of our public roads. It is subject to reasonable regulation by the state, pursuant to the police power granted by the Constitution. Supm unpub 12/3/98) (enforcement of traffic laws is not governed by the UCC speed limits and their enforcement is not a violation of the "right to travel") Barcroft v. App 1994) 881 SW2d 838 ditto (UCC inapplicable to case involving driving unregistered vehicle) Gipson v. Supp.2d 662 (state can require that vehicle be maintained with current inspection and registration stickers and tags) State v. It enhances rather than infringes on the right to travel. We have previously held that the motor vehicle codes are a valid use of police power. What is at issue here is not his right to travel interstate, but his right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways, and we have no hesitation in holding that this is not a fundamental right.") Berberian v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles (1st Cir unpub 9/3/96) 520 US 1157 ditto (state can require drivers license, vehicle registration, display of license plate, etc., notwithstanding argument about "right to travel") State v.

655

Leave a Reply