Heads up to a new term for those in denial

[onwebcam]

"Tenther"

Definition:

One who reads the Constitution as it was written.

You can add this to your list of Truther and Birther.

[mikesinner]

You mean like the right to bear arm before machine guns and sniper rifles were invented.

[onwebcam]

Actually this is what the MSM is using to describe those who believe in the 10th Amendment.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "

But take you're pick really. They are taking them out one by one.

[amateurcanada]

JAY-Z ft. RIHANNA & KANYE WEST
Run This Town

lol

[MikeSmoke]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

Actually this is what the MSM is using to describe those who believe in the 10th Amendment.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "

But take you're pick really. They are taking them out one by one.

So are you in favor of the government removing interstate highways from your state?

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by MikeSmoke

So are you in favor of the government removing interstate highways from your state?

My states gas tax pays for those.

[MikeSmoke]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

My states gas tax pays for those.

It pays for the maintenance, but the federal government paid to build them and that's not a federal right that's enumerated in the constitution.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by MikeSmoke

It pays for the maintenance, but the federal government paid to build them and that's not a federal right that's enumerated in the constitution.

You do know why the highway system was installed, right?

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by MikeSmoke

It pays for the maintenance, but the federal government paid to build them and that's not a federal right that's enumerated in the constitution.

Actually the right to travel freely anywhere in/on one's own conveyance is the law of the land. Predates even the Constitution. Where you have been fooled is the government turning your rights into a privilege.

"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.

"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.

[frankie_gunn]

Originally Posted by baddog

You do know why the highway system was installed, right?

no...why?

[onwebcam]

"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

"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." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

"Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain." Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82; Willis vs. Buck, 263 P.l 982.

"the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary." Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781.

"First, it is well established law that the highways of the state are public property, and their primary and preferred use is for private purposes, and that their use for purposes of gain is special and extraordinary which, generally at least, the legislature may prohibit or condition as it sees fit." Stephenson vs. Rinford, 287 US 251; Pachard vs Banton , 264 US 140, and cases cited; Frost and F. Trucking Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 271 US 592; Railroad commission vs. Inter-City Forwarding Co., 57 SW.2d 290; Parlett Cooperative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by frankie_gunn

no...why?

I'm not sure what Baddog is referring to but I assume easy movement for military vehicle in case of war.

[onwebcam]

How about we go further down that rabbit hole

"The term 'travel' and 'traveler' are usually construed in their broad and general sense...so as to include all those who rightfully use the highways viatically (when being reimbursed for expenses) and who have occasion to pass over them for the purpose of business, convenience, or pleasure." [emphasis added] 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.427, p.717.

"Traveler: One who passes from place to place, whether for pleasure, instruction, business, or health." Locket vs. State, 47 Ala. 45; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 3309.

"Travel: To journey or to pass through or over; as a country district, road, etc. To go from one place to another, whether on foot, or horseback, or in any conveyance as a train, an automobile, carriage, ship, or aircraft; Make a journey." Century Dictionary, p.2034.

"Driver: One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle..." Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 940.

Are you a driver or are you traveling?

[MikeSmoke]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

I'm not sure what Baddog is referring to but I assume easy movement for military vehicle in case of war.

That's correct - their full name is the System of Interstate and Defense Highways.

[MikeSmoke]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

Actually the right to travel freely anywhere in/on one's own conveyance is the law of the land. Predates even the Constitution. Where you have been fooled is the government turning your rights into a privilege.

I'm not debating whether you have the right to travel freely.
I'm saying that the interstate highways were built (and are still maintained) with 90% federal funding, and in my reading of the constitution highway construction is NOT contemplated anywhere. The right to travel freely has nothing to do with whether the federal govenrment has the right to construct highways - I would think that a strict constructionist would believe that the federal government has no business building highways - that it should be left to the states.
So considering the fact that the states "own" interstate highways that were paid for primarily with federal dollars, I would think that you would support one of two positions:
1. Removal of the interstate highways from your state.
2. Your state reiumbursing the federal government the 90% that have they spent to date on constructing and maintaining the highways - at which point the state would actually own the highways and do with them as it pleases.
Either one of those two positions would be consistent with your strict reading of the tenth amendment.

[After Shock Media]

Originally Posted by mikesinner

You mean like the right to bear arm before machine guns and sniper rifles were invented.

Come on the first machine gun was within 100 years of that document, though multi shot weapons and some other very fucked up weapons were in use during that period.
Rifling of barrels allowed for snipers and sniper rifles back then as well.

These very same people had no issue with a citizen owning what would be considered a warship, cannons, and all sorts of high end weapons. They also know damn well how fast weapons get developed. They themselves witnessed leaps and bounds in weaponry.

I get the gun hang up people have, I really do. I just do not agree with most of it and the stats from either side of the debate rely to much on what if's.

Do I really need a fully automatic machine gun? no probably not, though I like having the right and the option. Just like I do not really need to own certain technology that is forbidden to be shipped to certain countries due to concerns of weapons development, but I do.

[Joe King]

Originally Posted by mikesinner

You mean like the right to bear arm before machine guns and sniper rifles were invented.

What if some illegal alien murders you for your pocket change. Lets see what your opinion on gun control will be after that. Oh wait, you will be DEAD.

You see we would not fucking need gun control had the culture of this country not been destroyed. Where I grew up EVERYONE had a closet full of guns. I was using my first gun (a 22 rifle) when I was 5 years old. I never ever heard of anyone getting shot either by accident or with malice.

Go wipe you ass and watch some re-runs of Friends or some other show that is packed with pussies.

[Fletch XXX]

edited out, sleeping...

[Fletch XXX]

ooops read that wrong, sorry still half asleep art the wheel lol

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by MikeSmoke

I'm not debating whether you have the right to travel freely.
I'm saying that the interstate highways were built (and are still maintained) with 90% federal funding, and in my reading of the constitution highway construction is NOT contemplated anywhere. The right to travel freely has nothing to do with whether the federal govenrment has the right to construct highways - I would think that a strict constructionist would believe that the federal government has no business building highways - that it should be left to the states.
So considering the fact that the states "own" interstate highways that were paid for primarily with federal dollars, I would think that you would support one of two positions:
1. Removal of the interstate highways from your state.
2. Your state reiumbursing the federal government the 90% that have they spent to date on constructing and maintaining the highways - at which point the state would actually own the highways and do with them as it pleases.
Either one of those two positions would be consistent with your strict reading of the tenth amendment.

This goes a lot deeper than we'll be discussing here. But I've already answered your questions.

"Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain." Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82; Willis vs. Buck, 263 P.l 982.


"First, it is well established law that the highways of the state are public property, and their primary and preferred use is for private purposes, and that their use for purposes of gain is special and extraordinary which, generally at least, the legislature may prohibit or condition as it sees fit." Stephenson vs. Rinford, 287 US 251; Pachard vs Banton , 264 US 140, and cases cited; Frost and F. Trucking Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 271 US 592; Railroad commission vs. Inter-City Forwarding Co., 57 SW.2d 290; Parlett Cooperative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313.

Originally Posted by MikeSmoke

1. Removal of the interstate highways from your state.
2. Your state reiumbursing the federal government the 90% that have they spent to date on constructing and maintaining the highways - at which point the state would actually own the highways and do with them as it pleases.
Either one of those two positions would be consistent with your strict reading of the tenth amendment.

I'm not sure where you live my state is more fiscally responsible than most. As I stated our interstates are and have been fully funded by gas taxes. I haven't checked their budget in a while but our DOT has been running a surplus for quite a long time. The federal government does send more our way like with the recent stimulus money but it always comes with some sort of strings attached. Do you see how that works? You are playing right into what they want. That is that they are in control and not We the People.

Now if you do want to go further down that rabbit hole I'll be glad to.

Once again from the Constitution describing the US Governments powers.


Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--

I don't see anything in there about interstates.

[Tom_PM]

What denial? That the right wing fringe is actually the right wing center?

You lie!

[ToplistBlog_Com]

I'll say one thing... I've learned more about interstate travel and how it affects state and federal law than I ever thought I would. Keep it coming!

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by ToplistBlog_Com

I'll say one thing... I've learned more about interstate travel and how it affects state and federal law than I ever thought I would. Keep it coming!

You would be amazed at how many of our "law makers" and even "lawyers" don't even know this stuff. Hell I had to explain the 10th Amendment to a law firm who then had to explain it to the law maker whom eventually introduced one of my states 10th Amendment Sovereignty Bills. Which got passed BTW.

You see the objective of Washington is to blur the lines of the Constitution so they can in turn gain more power and control over the States and the people therein.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by mikesinner

You mean like the right to bear arm before machine guns and sniper rifles were invented.

Only if your in a militia.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Only if your in a militia.

Are you an able bodied male under the age of 45? If so you're in a militia and you are just AWOL ATM.

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

Are you an American male under the age of 45? You're in a militia. You are just AWOL ATM.

It is amazing how many people dont understand what was meant by militia. Every able bodied man was a militia.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

It is amazing how many people dont understand what was meant by militia. Every able bodied man was a militia.

Thanks forgot to use able bodied.

[WarChild]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Only if your in a militia.

Not so says the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handgun possession yesterday and decided for the first time in the nation's history that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own a gun for self-defense.

The court's landmark 5 to 4 decision split along ideological grounds and wiped away years of lower court decisions that had held that the intent of the amendment, ratified more than 200 years ago, was to tie the right of gun possession to militia service

...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062600615.html