Btw, amongst the 5-6 of us, definitely a great discussion, this forum could use more like it.

Here's a few on the "driving" aspect of "law" You see they tricked everyone into a "contract" that turned them into "drivers" doing business on the roadways rather than "traveling"



"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment."
Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147



"...We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for examination on the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life, liberty, and property. His Rights are such as the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are the refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

"Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that the State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not in exercise of its sovereignty inquire how those franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of corporate books and papers for that purpose." Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75



"...Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has the plenary control of the streets and highways in the exercise of its police power (see police power, infra.), may absolutely prohibit the use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private business for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary Right of the Citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business for private gain. The former is a common Right, the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former, the legislative power is confined to regulation, as to the latter, it is plenary and extends even to absolute prohibition. Since the use of the streets by a common carrier in the prosecution of its business as such is not a right but a mere license of privilege." Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516



"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived."

Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22;
Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934;
Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607;
25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163



"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579



"... For 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 for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion."

State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073;
Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171;
Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256;
Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516




"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."

Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;
Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82



"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 for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus."

State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864



"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



"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business."

Thompson vs. Smith, supra.;
Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784

'Sheeple" are uneducated beings that are abused by non sheeple - politicians. You can recite every decision handed down by the High Court, the fact of the matter is, our Constitution conveys law making power to the three banches of the poeple by the poeple. If the poeple do not actively play a role in "THEIR" government then "their" government plays the active role and governs at will. Such as today.

I agree with you, onwebcam, that our society has turned a bling eye to government allowing Washingto to dictate to us, the 'sheeple", how things are going to be.

Now would be a good time for American 'sheeple' to open our eyes, take back OUR government from the theiving life long crooks who have overthrown our consitutional rights and civil liberties.

Whether you agree or disagree with the Tea Party agenda, the group exlempifies principles America was founded on - Free Speech, Freedom to assemble, Freedom of expression, freedom to QUESTION elected officials. We have not questioned politician's actions enough to scare them into doing the right thing. McCain is running for his 5th reelection! Why do we keep sending the same idiots back to Washington doing the same thing they did in their previous 2,3,4,5 terms? The sheeple should stand up and vote in all new politicians regardless of experience. It can't be any worse than what we have now.

Oh I'm sorry Mini Mind - I didn't realize you and your "big boy" friends were so busy fixing the problems of the country.

Let me know when you have everything taken care of. I'll just sit back and watch in amazement, as you enlighten us with all of your brilliant solutions.

Carry on douche!

You know your life is a joke when you're considered a moron even by adult webmaster standards.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I pity the people who equate classical liberalism to modern liberalism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by onwebcam View Post
Once again another part of the deception. Are you aware that the Supreme Court that you believe is the highest Court in the US isn't? But if you want decisions made by that court which backs up what I'm saying I'll post many. I've already posted a few.



I will...foolishly bite. What is the highest Court in the US?

Couldn't agree with you more! :thumbsup

Sadly though, the Tea Party is organized and run by the republican party. It is nothing more than a way for the republicans to attempt to expand their base. They are slowly losing their strangle hold on the Christian conservatives so they need other people. The main operating/organizational staff of the tea party are all made up of former Reagan staffers. If these people really were so angry about excessive debt and the rights of the people being taken away, where have they been for 8 years while Bush ran up huge deficits, passed the patriot act and invaded a country that didn't attack us? I'm not saying Obama should get a pass, he shouldn't, but this deficit just didn't spring up 12 months ago. All of this spending and craziness just didn't happen.

There is no hope that the Sheeple will change. Case in point. When they announced the tentative dates that Obama could give the State of the Union speech on there was an uproar because one of them was on the same night that the premier of the final season of Lost was on. Obama had to assure people he wouldn't interrupt Lost. When people care more about a TV show then the state of the country, that is sad. The same people keep getting elected because as much as people say they want change, they really don't. People don't care about the deficit or the national debt. We have been hearing about it all our lives and most people don't see how it effects their day-to-day life. So people stick with what they know. They would rather have a guy in office that they know is screwing them, then take a chance on a new guy who they fear might screw them more.

When it comes down to elections people look at their lives and see how they are doing. If they have a decent job and a decent house and car and if the outlook for their immediate future is good, then they pick a candidate based often on moral ideals and not on their potential ability to lead. Case in point: during the last presidential election CNN was interviewing several different people who considered themselves conservatives. These were all voters in Ohio. Of the 10 or so they interviewed about 7 of them all said the same thing. They said they felt that Obama would be a better president than McCain and that he would do a better job than McCain, but they couldn't bring themselves to vote for someone who is pro-choice. So they were voting for McCain simply because he was pro-life. That is a pretty common situation.

after reading your court rulings, it seems that public highways are only intended for private citizens usage making privately purchased transportation of goods and services illegal...stagecouch and omnibus business illegal on public highways.

I read that as: if I do not own the goods in the back of my truck I am in violation of public highway usage laws. Are we sure we want to enforce those laws to the letter?

You don't like the former Reagan staffers? 8 years? You do realize that the Dems took over the house in, I believe, 2006? And I think you think there's a contradiction in wanting certain freedoms, and the Patriot Act.. There isn't. I'm against government expansion and violation of privacy, etc. I'm also supportive of the Patriot Act during wartime. Yes, we are all aware of the slippery slope argument, saying the government can expand this even during peacetime. Whether the argument is valid or invalid, is another story. However, I have nothing to hide and have no problem with what the government is doing, provided it is only done during the fight on terror. And this spending and craziness has been going on since the 70's. It just manifested itself in the past 10 years thanks to the .com bubble bursting, as well as the subprime mortgage failure.

This is why I thought Reagan was our greatest president. He did what he thought was right, not caring what anyone, and I really mean ANYONE, thought. That's not to say he was offensive, but he exhibited the kind of confidence that's ridiculously rare among presidents, and only possibly matched by FDR.

Eh I wouldn't generalize so much.

Yeah, Reagan didn't answer to anyone - he was a fucking GOD!

This is the Reagan you are referencing, right?...



https://youtube.com/watch?v=QTcL6Xc_eMM

No you see they originally created a "license" to "drive" because the trucks and such were tearing up the roadways. It was a way to tax them for the usage as they were earning from said use. At least this is how it was sold but as with many "laws" they gradually work us into these things. So only if you were doing business on the roadways did you have to have a "license." What they did was make us all corporate entities who are doing business on the roadways when in most cases we are just "traveling" if you aren't getting paid for transporting whatever is in the back of your truck technically you're are still just traveling. You identify yourself as said corporate entity with your "drivers license" combined with your automobile registration and tags.

This rabbit hole goes a lot deeper than you can imagine. Such as they believe that the STATE owns your car (or at the very minimum part owner) and you are just using it. Same goes for your home. The idea that slaves can't own anything.

His policies prove my point:) Way to embarrass yourself by taking everything too literally.

onwebcam, you are beginging to scare me. Borderline conspiracy theorist.

VIVA Reagan!

Quote:
Originally Posted by onwebcam View Post
Once again another part of the deception. Are you aware that the Supreme Court that you believe is the highest Court in the US isn't? But if you want decisions made by that court which backs up what I'm saying I'll post many. I've already posted a few.



I will...foolishly bite. What is the highest Court in the US?

This is the third time I have posted this.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania which predates the US Supreme Court by 67 years.


This is all verifiable FACT. :thumbsup

The Supreme Court of the US is the highest court in the land and as I stated...it decides what is constitutional/valid law...not you or any other entity...including the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania which is a state court.

Yea onewebcam you're a smart guy.. I don't know why this is even a discussion.

Ah yes, I forgot about directfiesta and all of his intellectual contributions to this forum.

"Borderline"? ROFL he's a raving loon.

You are incorrect. The United States Of America is a body corporate run by a body politic. The US Supreme Court is giving "opinions" on "corporate policy."

I'm getting really scared of the current input. I'm crawling back into my hole until spring is over.

Great discussion. Keep it guys. It keeps the world moving forward. Who knows, maybe someone here gets elected and we all run for our holes.

Pig shit.

"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain,
by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution,
the Constitution, it is true, is a compact but he is not a party to it."

Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. The Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah. 14 Georgia 438, 520

How do you like that "Opinion?"

I'm not a big Reagan fan. He did some good stuff, but nearly bankrupted the country doing so and he did sign into the law the largest tax increase in the history of the country. But, as I say, he did some good stuff as well. I do have to admit that I was a kid when Reagan was in office so I don't remember a whole lot about him.

Also, I do understand that the spending has been out of control for a long time. I was saying the last 8 years because I was using that as an illustration that the tea party is nothing more than a new arm of the republican party. When they are in power they have reasons to spend the money and they keep quiet. When they lose the power suddenly they are against it.

I am 100% against the patriot act. As Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." I think there is a way to protect this country without forcing the citizens to give up their freedoms and forgive me if I take the ideals of Franklin over Bush, Clinton or Obama. Like you, I have nothing to hide. I follow the laws and don't do illegal things. Still, this does not mean that I should live this way because I am afraid my government it spying on me. I should live this way out of respect for my fellow countrymen.


The presidents of recent years have started trying to appease everyone. Of course you can't do that. Part of why Reagan was able to get away with the cowboy attitude is that he was popular for a while and he had a strong party base that was going elect him no matter what. The electorate has changed. Both parties have seen their base decline and now a person has to make the independents happy and they are a difficult bunch to read. Still, that doesn't give someone an excuse to schedule their speech around what TV shows are on. That is pretty weak.



I do simply because I think it is true. About half those eligible to vote don't. If a person can't be bothered to take a few hours out of their day every four years to vote for president then clearly they don't care. Of those that do vote about 40% of them vote along party lines no matter who the candidate is or what they say. That is pretty scary to me.

He didn't nearly bankrupt the country. He did put us in considerable debt but he spruced up military spending during the apex of the cold war. He also created 16 million jobs. I would say he's done more for our country than anyone other than maybe FDR and Clinton(if you discount his starting the subprime mortgage crisis).

Franklin didn't envision planes flying into skyscrapers killing 3,000 people. I'm afraid that sometimes we have to look at the present and apply the laws that best serve our country.




That's because after Reagan, everyone was pretty much full of shit.




It's only going to get worse. Every decade, the new generation gets dumber and dumber. I think we hit our apex around the 50s, and it just started going downhill in the 60s. This generation is dumber than mine, mine is dumber than my parents', my parents' is dumber than their parents', etc.

We? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Is there more than one person in there with you? US want to know!

Ignore him. He's quiet possibly the dumbest person on this forum and he lacks the ability to differentiate between fact and reality.

That's because during the 1940's the powers that be extracted all of Hitlers top scientists and doctors (likely even Hitler himself) via Project Paperclip and brought most of them here to continue their experiments. They trained a new generation to continue on. These people really do believe they are superior and want to create a dumbed down, obedient, slave population and not teach the sort of things that I have discussed here. If you need help in figuring out why then you (not referring to you personally just generalizing) are a prime example of their work :thumbsup

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but God made Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve.

I don't have a problem with queers if they keep it in the bedroom, I just don't want to have to look at what they do.

Ok since I believe you're intelligent, I'm going to ask you to please pass what you're smoking.

Maybe bankrupt was an overstatement. He did, as you say, run up massive debt and in my opinion he laid the road map for presidents to come. He showed that if you spend money on the right things, no matter how much money you spend, you can run up the debt all you want and nobody complains. Since then other presidents have found ways to spend money to "keep up safe" or "help the country". He really started the ball rolling.


You are right, and I have often said we have to look at things from the past and then apply them to the future. I still would rather not have my government tapping phones with no warrants and doing whatever they please with no oversight. I know there is supposed to be oversight on these actions, but we are now learning that many of the warrantless wiretaps never have been retroactively taken before judge. So nobody knows who they were tapping or why and it seems nobody cares. Some people envision a safer country, I envision Huxley's Brace New World.





I would say Reagan had his fair amount of being full of shit as well, he just pulled it off better than most.




This I agree with. Two things come to mind. I saw a news story a few weeks ago that said around 40% of high school students nation wide graduate high school with the ability to read and write at less than a sixth grade level. That is pretty freaking sad. Add in that I have dubbed the current generation (those that are 12-22ish) the apathy generation. Many of them seem to not care about anything or anyone other than themselves and nobody seems to call them on their bullshit. A friend of mine is a cop and he had to go into the high school a few months ago to give a talk. While there a student was taken to the office and told the Vice Principle to fuck off. nothing happened. He was told not to use that language and his response was "kiss my ass". When I was in high school, had I said that I would have been suspended and/or given some serious detention. Nothing happened to this kid. My buddy asks why not and they VP told him it isn't worth the fight. I hold out hope that as they get older they will get more in touch with the world, but I'm afraid that won't happen. They don't care about anything and their kids are going to be real monsters.

:thumbsup

Operation Paperclip was the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) program used to recruit the scientists of Nazi Germany for employment by the United States in the aftermath of World War II (1939–45).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip

who cares....its over johnnie

Curses! Foiled again! Well, I don't have to to dabble in rhetoric today pals so I'll leave you with a quote from a movie!

THE WHITE, GODFEARING CITIZENS OF ROCK RIDGE wish to express our extreme displeasure with your choice of sheriff. Please remove him immediately! The fact that you have sent him here just goes to prove that you are the leading asshole in the state!

We? Sure... it's not really a secret, hell 61% of Historians rate the Bush Presidency worst in History or maybe we can just look at the previous election. And as only one of several examples of damage, Bush's bailouts, patriot act...

Are you trying to be funny with the We stuff? Any fool can see the damage Bush did.

He's making fun of your stupidity, as most people often do. Especially when you use the "any... can see that" argument, which really isn't an argument but a child's rant. If you REALLY want to look at polls, Obama has the lowest approval rating of any president in their 1st year, and now in their 2nd.

And for the kicker, your initual statement was that Bush did a lot of damage. You try and back that up by using stats that paint a completely different picture. What's the matter, too stupid to follow your own line of thought? "Bush did a lot of damage, don't believe me, 61% of historians arte him as the worst president ever". You're stupid.

And the bailouts once again, were initiated by Obama. But please, keep ranting, it gives us someone to laugh at for the time being. Now you can see why your posts go largely ignored.

If we are being 100% accurate Bush pushed for a signed into law the 700 billion or so bailout.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergen...on_Act_of_2008

He did, and Obama put it into action, along with his own.

I don't hear no fat lady singing, yet. :1orglaugh