PrairieSeasons Loc: Red River of the North

I thought so.

louparker Loc: Scottsdale, AZ

You obviously have little or no legal training -- a state court decision is precedent only in the state that the court is located and how much precedent it has in that particular state depends on whether the decision was issued by the state's supreme court (each state has its own state supreme court, which is much lower than the US Supreme Court) or the state's intermediate appellate court. Also, what a state court says about a decision issued by the US Supreme Court is relevant only in that state -- there are a plethora of US Supreme Court decisions that have overturned or reversed decisions issued by state supreme courts. And, the age of a state court decision does matter -- the older a state court decision, the less precedential value it has particularly if higher courts, like SCOTUS or any of the Federal Courts of Appeal have issued contrary decisions.

louparker Loc: Scottsdale, AZ

BTW, I just pulled up the Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 74 N.E. 615 (1905), you cited on Westlaw and as you can see it was issued 110 years ago and involved a collision between an automobile and a horse and buggy, and it does not say anything about any US Supreme Court decision at all, let alone a decision that a driver's license is unnecessary. To the contrary, the US Supreme Court has clearly, in numerous cases, held otherwise.

heyrob Loc: Western Washington

None of that has anything to do with what I said. I never said rulings couldn't be over turned, and as far as a precedent being only allowed in the state it was given is false. Cases are frequently argued on the basis of rulings in other states. So please don't assume facts not in evidence.

If you wish to pontificate, at least answer this question, show me where the SCOTUS ruling Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468, has been reversed? Can you show me a single example of a ruling that has reversed any of the cases originally quoted? Go ahead I'll wait.

louparker Loc: Scottsdale, AZ

Not only do you not understand case law, but you obviously don't know how to read -- I just told you that the Indiana Springs case is NOT a SCOTUS case -- it is a 1905 Indiana state court case, and no, it has not been reversed by SCOTUS because it was never appealed or even considered by SCOTUS. Your arguing the law would be like me (I have practiced law for some 30 years) arguing brain surgery, which, as a lawyer, I know nothing about, although from a medical layman's standpoint, it looks like you might be a candidate for such surgery.

heyrob Loc: Western Washington

I'm amazed at how many people on here want to argue that every state in this union has laws on the books that require a license to drive. No one so far has denied that fact. What staggers my mind is that so many just accept and seem to want to argue in favor of this encroachment upon their basic right as a citizen of this country. We gave the government (state and local) limited powers to govern us, and almost from the start they have gradually and incrementally usurped more and more power to themselves at the expense of our liberties. My only question is why aren't you upset about that fact? Are you so lazy and ignorant that you just want Uncle Sam to take care of you from cradle to grave, and you're willing to put up with the loss of certain freedoms?

louparker Loc: Scottsdale, AZ

What does a state's right to license drivers of motor vehicles have to do with Uncle Sam's (BTW "Uncle Sam" refers to the federal government, not to state government) taking care of us from cradle to grave? So, if you had your way, everyone, regardless of age, physical ability, mental capacity, knowing how to operate a vehicle, whether under the influence, etc. should be allowed to drive a motor vehicle without a license or to have liability insurance? God forbid that you are ever in an automobile crash, and please let me know when you are driving so that I can avoid being on the same road at the same time. I also suppose that you believe that the government does not have the right to require airline pilots to be licensed because we have the Constitutional right to travel, which of course, would include the right to travel in the air.

heyrob Loc: Western Washington

So once more you avoid the question and bloviate. I've been been hit by idiot drivers twice in the past 6 months, I'm a former police officer, and yes, I stand by my statements, no I don't believe you should be forced to buy insurance, but you should be financially responsible, if that means buying insurance then that's your choice. But like before, you completely avoid my point and my question. Which proves you're incapable of actually debating on the points presented. therefore I'm done with you, you're a waste of time. If that means in your mind that you win, then congratulations. Relish in your victory, I still think you're an idiot.

louparker Loc: Scottsdale, AZ

Based on your numerous comments, I don't think you know what the word "debate" means. And as far as debating the points presented, I and others have fully debated every one of those points, at least to the extent that there was any logic to them, but you are not willing to accept the possibility that you or the facts you cite might be wrong. Essentially what you are espousing is not civil liberties or rights but anarchism.

BTW, I would be curious to know how you became a "former" police officer. As a former prosecutor who depended on intelligent--operative word, "intelligent"--police work for my cases, I respect most police officers -- unfortunately, as demonstrated by your biased and uninformed opinions you have expressed here, you didn't make the list.

JamesCurran Loc: Trenton ,NJ

By definition, the SCOTUS cannot be "wrong" on matters of the Constitution, because it says exactly what they says it says.




I can deduct my charitable contributions, hence I'm being taxed more if a fail to make any. Similarly, their are many things which I can deduct as business expenses. If I don't buy them, I pay more taxes.

JamesCurran Loc: Trenton ,NJ

""U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets" is in fact, just the headline on a crackpot article which cites that case (http://yhvh.name/MISSION_AID/RIGHT_TO_DRIVE_NO_LICENSE.pdf)

JamesCurran Loc: Trenton ,NJ

First of all, section 10 applies to the states, not the Federal government, so we can skip that.

As for section 8, it clearly states that the federal government can make money, and does not require that money be backed up by gold or silver. So, basically, you are hanging your argument on the verb "coin" requiring them only to make metal money. However, if we consult the Oxford English Dictionary (fortunately I have a copy), we find that in the 1700s "coin" meant "to make, devise or produce" especially by stamping, which would apply to a printing press as well.



Now, you are just getting silly. First of all, the "from all enemies..." part isn't from that clause. Further, the term "invasion" specifically refers to an organized military incursion.

heyrob Loc: Western Washington

Ya know James, Ignorance is not a virtue. Yes the SCOTUS can and has on many occasions been wrong. Here are 6 great examples:
1. Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)
2. Pace v. Alabama (1883)
3. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
4. Korematsu v. United States (1944)
5. Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation (1978)
6. Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)
Try Googling any or all of them and educate yourself.




Logic isn't your strong suit either I see. You are assessed a certain tax rate determined by your gross income. You are then allowed certain deductions for various expenses, be they voluntary or involuntary on your part. They have no bearing on how much tax you are originally assessed, only how much you actually have to pay after said "deductions". There's a huge difference.

heyrob Loc: Western Washington

Damn you're dense. There are far more references to these examples of case rulings than just the link you shared. And no matter how much you may think the link was a "crackpot article" how do you answer the quotes from said case law? While I still don't understand why you so vehemently defend an encroachment on your liberties, only a fool would deny that which any high school kid could Google the case and read the cases for yourself.

You may disagree with the subject of the thread, but your disagreement doesn't make you right, when countless case histories prove you wrong.

heyrob Loc: Western Washington

Are you really this stupid or are you just playing with us? No I won't skip this, because I want to show what a fool you are with this statement. What Section 10 says is that ONLY the federal government has the power to coin money.

Section 10 in full:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

What this is section is doing, is outlining what powers are granted to the federal government and prohibited to the states.



Blah, blah, blah. It doesn't say the government "can make money", it clearly reserves that power to the federal government, and it's section 10 that quite clearly states "make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts" so please tell me how any of this allows the Federal Reserve bank notes to be legal tender?



You're not paying attention Jimmy, I never said that the "from all enemies" part was from Article 1 section 8 or 10, I quite clearly said it was from Article 4, Section 4, and did you note the parenthesis, those were my words.

As for "Invasion" here's a more complete definition for you:

noun
1. an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army.
2. the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.
3. entrance as if to take possession or overrun:
the annual invasion of the resort by tourists.
4. infringement by intrusion.

Therefore, while it can be a military intrusion, it certainly isn't limited to that narrow definition. So quite clearly saying that 12,000,000 illegal aliens is an invasion is hardly an inappropriate description. You really should work on your logic skills. So who's looking silly now?