Does Mandating license plates violate " Our right to Privacy"?

[countryclubjoe]

CCJ - your postings would be easier to read IF they were grammatically correct.

The word is "shoot", not "shots". {Pulls his weapon and shots law abiding citizen} {why did you shot him?}

It appears you were clever enough to come to a logical conclusion. Im off to have a couple shots hopefully I won't shoot myself in the foot..

 

[Citizen]

Arrrrghhh!!!

C'mon guys!!!

Either shoot me full of holes (and I can think of no other bunch by who I'd rather be shot at), or....

I've stated that privacy is an altered premise that suits government.

I've also pointed out that accepting government's premise, and arguing from that premise, hands government the most powerful concession of all--letting government define the argument in the first place.

Please, fellas!! Either shoot my argument full of holes, or...but don't leave me hanging. I'm on the edge of my seat, and its killing me!!

Please, please, please crater my arguments. Or, at least reply. I can't take it, anymore.

 

[countryclubjoe]

We weren't referring to you Citizen.

Are you enjoying your life as a slave?

 

[countryclubjoe]

Arrrrghhh!!!

C'mon guys!!!

Either shoot me full of holes (and I can think of no other bunch by who I'd rather be shot at), or....

I've stated that privacy is an altered premise that suits government.

I've also pointed out that accepting government's premise, and arguing from that premise, hands government the most powerful concession of all--letting government define the argument in the first place.

Please, fellas!! Either shoot my argument full of holes, or...but don't leave me hanging. I'm on the edge of my seat, and its killing me!!

Please, please, please crater my arguments. Or, at least reply. I can't take it, anymore.

Here is a great case concerning licensing and fees...

Murdock v Pa ( 1943)
" States do not have the power to " license or tax" a right guaranteed to the people"...

Regards

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Here is a great case concerning licensing and fees...

Murdock v Pa ( 1943)
" States do not have the power to " license or tax" a right guaranteed to the people"...

For those wondering:
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an ordinance requiring solicitors to purchase a license was an unconstitutional tax on the Jehovah's Witnesses' right to freely exercise their religion.

Holding​

Free Exercise claim upheld; A Pennsylvania ordinance imposing a license tax for those selling merchandise when such material is religious in nature violates the Free Exercise clause.

Unless one is going to claim that having to purchase a license tag for their vehicle inhibits their right to exercise their religion freely, the case is inapplicable to this discussion.

This teaching moment is sponsored by the letters, C, C, and J.

 

[countryclubjoe]

For those wondering:
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an ordinance requiring solicitors to purchase a license was an unconstitutional tax on the Jehovah's Witnesses' right to freely exercise their religion.

Holding​

Unless one is going to claim that having to purchase a license tag for their vehicle inhibits their right to exercise their religion freely, the case is inapplicable to this discussion.

This teaching moment is sponsored by the letters, C, C, and J.

What part of " rights" do you not understand.. The case sets precedent not just for freedom of religion but for all rights... A license should not be required to exercise 'any right".. The problem is that people just simply pay as oppose to standing up for their rights... In my humble opinion, you probably "pay"
and you expect all others to pay as well... Wrong Sir!..

My .02

 

[Grapeshot]

What part of " rights" do you not understand.. The case sets precedent not just for freedom of religion but for all rights... A license should not be required to exercise 'any right".. The problem is that people just simply pay as oppose to standing up for their rights... In my humble opinion, you probably "pay"
and you expect all others to pay as well... Wrong Sir!..

My .02

Lead the way, good sir. There are those that have popcorn waiting.

Remember the admonition in Rule #15:
"Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts."

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Lead the way, good sir. There are those that have popcorn waiting.

I have white cheddar, what are you gonna have, G?

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

If CCJ decides to become the right test case there are members here who might even throw a few bucks for his defense fund.

 

[countryclubjoe]

Lets see licensing..

license to hunt, to fish, to walk your dog, to walk on the beach(some areas) to get married,

permits are are another form of licensing..

Permit for adding a deck on your home, to install a swimming pool,--- This is for your own property... Outrageous!

And of course the licensing or permission slip to purchase a gun to exercise our natural god given right to protect ourself and family..

We need to ask ourselves, when will our whole existence and everything we do, need a license or permit.. Probably not in our life time however think of your posterity... Today a license to fish, tomorrow a license or permit to "go on line and use the internet".. Its not that far fetched..

If the government can license you for exercising your "rights", than surely we have no "rights"..

Licensing and permits are simply kinder words for "tax".. If the government can tax you, than they can control you. Enslave you!

My .02

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

CCJ, I'll take it as a given that everyone has a right to travel and I assume you'll do the same.

Does that right to travel give you the right to drive an automobile on public highways?
Does that right to travel give you the right to drive a 12-foot wide automobile on public highways designed for 8.5 foot vehicles?
Does that right to travel give you the right to walk down the middle of an expressway?
Does that right to travel give you the right to drive in the lane used by opposing traffic?

Unless you can answer 'yes' to all those questions, I think you'll have to admit that 'rights' are not the absolute thing you believe them to be.


Just for giggles though, name a right and I'll show you how it's not, and should not be unlimited.
Ready to play?

 

[countryclubjoe]

CCJ, I'll take it as a given that everyone has a right to travel and I assume you'll do the same.

Does that right to travel give you the right to drive an automobile on public highways?
Does that right to travel give you the right to drive a 12-foot wide automobile on public highways designed for 8.5 foot vehicles?
Does that right to travel give you the right to walk down the middle of an expressway?
Does that right to travel give you the right to drive in the lane used by opposing traffic?

Unless you can answer 'yes' to all those questions, I think you'll have to admit that 'rights' are not the absolute thing you believe them to be.


Just for giggles though, name a right and I'll show you how it's not, and should not be unlimited.
Ready to play?

I see where you are going with this, clearly all rights come with responsible and should be exercised in a legal matter... However one should not be required to acquire a license or permit for exercising said right..
One should not be taxed via licensing or permits to exercise God given natural rights..

Murdock V Pa applies to my argument, via the 1st
Griswold V Connecticut-- applies via the 9th

I am a constitutionalist and a firm supporter of individual rights... Please excuse my conjecture but in my opinion you are a Statist" and have been indoctrinated and institutionalized by the state/government.. You obviously are pro state and anti citizen.. You are the polar opposite of SVG and others that support individual freedoms over government intrusions.. Your support of fraud and tyranny is well noted..

To quote the motto of this board " a right unexercised is a right lost"..

Regards

 

[WalkingWolf]

CCJ, I'll take it as a given that everyone has a right to travel and I assume you'll do the same.

Does that right to travel give you the right to drive an automobile on public highways?
Does that right to travel give you the right to drive a 12-foot wide automobile on public highways designed for 8.5 foot vehicles?
Does that right to travel give you the right to walk down the middle of an expressway?
Does that right to travel give you the right to drive in the lane used by opposing traffic?

Unless you can answer 'yes' to all those questions, I think you'll have to admit that 'rights' are not the absolute thing you believe them to be.


Just for giggles though, name a right and I'll show you how it's not, and should not be unlimited.
Ready to play?

A person can travel without a motor vehicle. It was done in this country for over a hundred years.

 

[davidmcbeth]

A person can travel without a motor vehicle. It was done in this country for over a hundred years.

One can roll around on the ground to move from place to place .... so it would be OK for the gov't to limit your travel via this method and only via this method?

No - you decide the mode of transport.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

A person can travel without a motor vehicle. It was done in this country for over a hundred years.

A person can indeed, and it was done for hundreds of years.

That said, I believe that in your haste to post something you failed to post anything relevant.
But, since you mentioned it... Does your 'right to travel' encompass riding a hose on a limited access highway (aka interstate)?

 

[WalkingWolf]

A person can indeed, and it was done for hundreds of years.

That said, I believe that in your haste to post something you failed to post anything relevant.
But, since you mentioned it... Does your 'right to travel' encompass riding a hose on a limited access highway (aka interstate)?

Or board a jet without paying. A person can get from point A to B by other means, and other highways. They are still capable of travel.

 

[countryclubjoe]

A person can indeed, and it was done for hundreds of years.

That said, I believe that in your haste to post something you failed to post anything relevant.
But, since you mentioned it... Does your 'right to travel' encompass riding a hose on a limited access highway (aka interstate)?

In rural Pa, ohio and NJ, I see horses and buggies all the time... I even see police people on horses in NY and NJ...

 

[countryclubjoe]

Or board a jet without paying. A person can get from point A to B by other means, and other highways. They are still capable of travel.

Purchasing a ticket to board a plane does not equate to being charged a fee or tax to travel in ones own automobile for pleasure. Commercial endeavors and or commerce is another issue..

Traveling for leisure in an automobile is a right not a privilege... My .02

Chicago motor coach v chicago
thompson v smith
kent v dulles
schactman v dulles
hertado v california
bennett v boggs

 

[countryclubjoe]

There is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people.. Here are some straight forward case..

" The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonable made, is not to be defeated under the name of laical practice" Davis v Wechsler.

"Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them" Miranda v Arizona

" The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime" Miller v U.S.

" There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.' sheerer v Cullen

More to come.

My .02

 

[WalkingWolf]

Purchasing a ticket to board a plane does not equate to being charged a fee or tax to travel in ones own automobile for pleasure. Commercial endeavors and or commerce is another issue..

Traveling for leisure in an automobile is a right not a privilege... My .02

Chicago motor coach v chicago
thompson v smith
kent v dulles
schactman v dulles
hertado v california
bennett v boggs

Explain in each case where it removed the requirement for licenses, and registration to operate a vehicle on public roads. Heavy Commercial vehicles over 55,000 pounds must pay a federal tax to operate on public roads. Buses in Chicago are required to be registered, inspected, insured, and the drivers must have a CDL.