SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.. OR NOT….BUT, JUST IN “CASE” HAHA
HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF—-
WHAT THE POLICE POWER APPLIES TO- (DRIVING) – Since no notice is given to people applying for driver’s (or other) licenses that they have a perfect right to use the roads without any permission, and that they surrender valuable rights by taking on the regulation system of licensure,—- the state has committed a massive construction of fraud. When any person is told that they must have a license in order to use the public roads and highways, The license, being a legal contract under which the state is empowered with policing powers, and is only valid when the licensee takes on the burdens of the contract and bargains away his or her rights KNOWINGLY, INTENTIONALLY , AND VOLUNTARILY. Few know that the STATE DRIVERS LICENSE is a contract WITHOUT WHICH THE POLICE ARE POWERLESS TO REGULATE the people’s actions or activities!!!!!!!!
Few (IF ANY) licensees intentionally surrender THESE RIGHTS. They are told that they must have the license. This is CLEARLY not the case. WOULD ANYONE voluntarily surrender complete liberty and accept any set regulations if given the option? (OUR RIGHT) “The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.” Edmund Burke, (1784) Each law relating to the use of police power must ask three questions: “Is there threatened danger? Does a regulation involve a Constitutional Right? Is this regulation reasonable?” People vs. Smith, 108 Am.St.Rep. 715; Bovier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., under “Police Power” When applying these three questions to the statute in question, some very important issues emerge. First, “is there a threatened danger”? SO, IS the individual using his automobile on the public highways or roads, in the ordinary course of life and business a threat? The answer is No! There is nothing inherently dangerous in the use of an automobile when it is properly being operated. The speed, and noise are easily controlled , under a competent operator, so it is as harmless on the road as a horse and buggy. It is the manner of using the automobile, and that alone, which threatens the safety of the public. The ability to stop quickly and to respond quickly to guidance would seem to make the automobile one of the least dangerous conveyances. ACTUALLY, EVEN SAFER!! YOU CAN CONTROL A MACHINE WITH PRECISION, BUT, NOT A ANIMAL!(See Yale Law Journal, December, 1905.) “The automobile is not inherently dangerous.” Cohens vs. Meadow, 89 SE 876; Blair vs. Broadmore, 93 SE 532 To deprive any persons of the Right to use the road in the ordinary course of life and/or business, because one MIGHT, IN THE FUTURE, BECOME DANGEROUS, would be a deprivation not only of the Right to travel, but also the Right to due process. Next; does the regulation involve a Constitutional Right? This question has already been addressed and answered …… YES!!!!!! The third question is the most important in this case. “Is this regulation reasonable?” The answer is No! Although the Fourteenth Amendment does not interfere with state and police power they choose to enforce, that power must be exercised so as not to invade unreasonably the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, it is established beyond question that every state power, including the police power, is limited by the Fourteenth Amendment (and others). Moreover, the ultimate test of the propriety of police power regulations must be found in the Fourteenth Amendment, since it operates to limit the field of the police power to the extent of preventing the enforcement of statutes in denial of Rights that the Amendment protects. (See Parks vs. State, 64 NE 682.) “With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.” Connolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O’Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887 “The police power of the state must be exercised in subordination to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.” Bacahanan vs. Wanley, 245 US 60; Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway Commission, 294 US 613 “It is well settled that the Constitutional Rights protected from invasion by the police power, include Rights safeguarded both by express and implied prohibitions in the Constitutions.” Tiche vs. Osborne, 131 A. 60 “As a rule, fundamental limitations of regulations under the police power are found in the spirit of the Constitutions, not in the letter, although they are just as efficient as if expressed in the clearest language.” Mehlos vs. Milwaukee, 146 NW 882 As it applies in the instant case, the language of the Fifth Amendment is clear: “No person shall be … deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of law.” As has been shown, the courts at all levels have firmly established an absolute Right to travel. In the instant case, the state, by applying commercial statutes to all entities, natural and artificial persons alike, has deprived this free and natural person of the Right of Liberty, without cause and without due process of law. Thus the legislature does not have the power to abrogate the Citizen’s Right to travel upon the public roads, by passing legislation forcing the citizen to waive his Right and convert that Right into a privilege. Furthermore, we have previously established that this “privilege” has been defined as applying only to those who are “conducting business in the streets” or “operating for-hire vehicles.” The legislature has attempted (by legislative fiat) to deprive the Citizen of his Right to use the roads in the ordinary course of life and business, without affording the Citizen the safeguard of due process of law. This has been accomplished under supposed powers of regulation.