TheSamba.com :: View topic

Wed Apr 23, 2008 4:31 pm

_monkey_ wrote: Driving is a privilege, not a right. The Constitution has nothing to do with it.

What part of this do you not understand Jsm?

Look at where you signed your drivers license, you signed a contract that can be revoked at anytime.

Wed Apr 23, 2008 5:20 pm

lonotch wrote: _monkey_ wrote: Driving is a privilege, not a right. The Constitution has nothing to do with it.

What part of this do you not understand Jism?

Look at where you signed your drivers license, you signed a contract that can be revoked at anytime.

the constitution has nothing to do with it?

somewhere you missed that lesson in gov. 101.

the constitution is the frame work of ALL laws, and the driving privilege is governed by LAWS and therefore all the laws that affect the privilege must be in compliance with the constitution.

what part of this don't you understand? both monkey's and your statements are inherently WRONG.

and your statement is as stupid as it is false. I signed a contract that allows them to revoke my driving privilege at any time for violating laws that stipulate that as part of the punishment at the discretion of the court. read it some time. courts, and laws, btw, are governed by the constitution. thought you knew. if you don't like it, go to a police state where your skewed vision of democracy actually works.

oh, and im pretty sure "jism" is against the new rules. if you don't like it, maybe thesamba isn't for you.

Wed Apr 23, 2008 5:41 pm

so which part of the constitiution says that you are entitled to drive? i would like to read it. i don't remember that part. maybe you have one of those new-fangled 'living' versions?

Wed Apr 23, 2008 5:53 pm

Driving privileges are governed and assigned at a state level. There is no federal law regarding motor vehicles that does not also involve another crime. The Constitution has nothing to do with it.

Wed Apr 23, 2008 5:57 pm

_monkey_ wrote: Driving privileges are governed and assigned at a state level. There is no federal law regarding motor vehicles that does not also involve another crime. The Constitution has nothing to do with it.

You mean skater's law degree is no good? :wink:

Wed Apr 23, 2008 5:58 pm

I just don't know why you didn't tell him, Mark.
:lol:

Wed Apr 23, 2008 7:32 pm

localboy wrote: _monkey_ wrote: Driving privileges are governed and assigned at a state level. There is no federal law regarding motor vehicles that does not also involve another crime. The Constitution has nothing to do with it.

You mean skater's law degree is no good? :wink:

wow. you guys truly are ignorant of how laws work:

The Supremacy Clause is the common name given to Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, which reads:
“ This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. ”

The Supremacy Clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The Constitution is the highest form of law in the American legal system. State judges are required to uphold it, even if state laws or constitutions conflict with it.

ergo any law made about anything by the states MUST comply with the rights in the constitution, and as such the constitution has EVERYTHING to do with the laws that govern driving.

now in THIS particular case, I could see a violation of THIS constitutional right:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

oh... and this one:

The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

which means that if it can be proven in court that the law TARGETS only a certain group of people, then the law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

and therefore, it has EVERYTHING to do with the constitution.

you guys simply just don't understand what you're talking about.

Wed Apr 23, 2008 7:45 pm

JSMskater wrote: localboy wrote: _monkey_ wrote: Driving privileges are governed and assigned at a state level. There is no federal law regarding motor vehicles that does not also involve another crime. The Constitution has nothing to do with it.

You mean skater's law degree is no good? :wink:

wow. you guys truly are ignorant of how laws work:

and therefore, it has EVERYTHING to do with the constitution.

you guys simply just don't understand what you're talking about.

I just think he welcomed you to the next level......Have a good day ya' all.

Wed Apr 23, 2008 7:47 pm

scrapmetalvw wrote: JSMskater wrote: localboy wrote: _monkey_ wrote: Driving privileges are governed and assigned at a state level. There is no federal law regarding motor vehicles that does not also involve another crime. The Constitution has nothing to do with it.

You mean skater's law degree is no good? :wink:

wow. you guys truly are ignorant of how laws work:

and therefore, it has EVERYTHING to do with the constitution.

you guys simply just don't understand what you're talking about.

I just think he welcomed you to the next level......Have a good day ya' all.

oh i know perfectly well what he's doing. he just pushes my buttons cause he knows I'm right and as usual comes back with only his misguided opinion skewed by old age and dementia.

whats the saying? "never argue with an idiot, he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience"?

yeah.

Wed Apr 23, 2008 7:50 pm

JSMskater wrote: localboy wrote: _monkey_ wrote: Driving privileges are governed and assigned at a state level. There is no federal law regarding motor vehicles that does not also involve another crime. The Constitution has nothing to do with it.

You mean skater's law degree is no good? :wink:

wow. you guys truly are ignorant of how laws work:

The Supremacy Clause is the common name given to Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, which reads:
“ This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. ”

The Supremacy Clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The Constitution is the highest form of law in the American legal system. State judges are required to uphold it, even if state laws or constitutions conflict with it.

ergo any law made about anything by the states MUST comply with the rights in the constitution, and as such the constitution has EVERYTHING to do with the laws that govern driving.

now in THIS particular case, I could see a violation of THIS constitutional right:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

oh... and this one:

The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

which means that if it can be proven in court that the law TARGETS only a certain group of people, then the law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

and therefore, it has EVERYTHING to do with the constitution.

you guys simply just don't understand what you're talking about.

That was well said................but I'll give you another twist to the construction of the Constitution: RELIGION :wink: All laws are based on religion. If you can make your car a into some kind of "shrine" ..........NOBODY can touch it. :D

Wed Apr 23, 2008 7:54 pm

53 0val wrote: JSMskater wrote: localboy wrote: _monkey_ wrote: Driving privileges are governed and assigned at a state level. There is no federal law regarding motor vehicles that does not also involve another crime. The Constitution has nothing to do with it.

You mean skater's law degree is no good? :wink:

wow. you guys truly are ignorant of how laws work:

The Supremacy Clause is the common name given to Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, which reads:
“ This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. ”

The Supremacy Clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The Constitution is the highest form of law in the American legal system. State judges are required to uphold it, even if state laws or constitutions conflict with it.

ergo any law made about anything by the states MUST comply with the rights in the constitution, and as such the constitution has EVERYTHING to do with the laws that govern driving.

now in THIS particular case, I could see a violation of THIS constitutional right:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

oh... and this one:

The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

which means that if it can be proven in court that the law TARGETS only a certain group of people, then the law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

and therefore, it has EVERYTHING to do with the constitution.

you guys simply just don't understand what you're talking about.

That was well said................but I'll give you another twist to the construction of the Constitution: RELIGION :wink: All laws are based on religion. If you can make your car a into some kind of "shrine" ..........NOBODY can touch it. :D

separation of church and state mang :wink:

Wed Apr 23, 2008 8:20 pm

You're going to have a stroke by the time you hit puberty, JSM.

Wed Apr 23, 2008 8:24 pm

_monkey_ wrote: You're going to have a stroke by the time you hit puberty, JSM.

:lol: :x

Wed Apr 23, 2008 8:52 pm

_monkey_ wrote: You're going to have a stroke by the time you hit puberty, JSM.

that a fact, or your wishful thinking? come on. be honest. :roll:

Wed Apr 23, 2008 8:56 pm

Why would I wish a stroke on a child? It's merely an observation on how seriously you take yourself.

Wed Apr 23, 2008 9:00 pm

Skater......what did the biker have on the back of the jacket? Cuz rides for the ironhorseman this in SD. There is other laws that are enforced that are not in the books.

Wed Apr 23, 2008 9:11 pm

Terry Cloyd wrote: Skater......what did the biker have on the back of the jacket? Cuz rides for the ironhorseman this in SD. There is other laws that are enforced that are not in the books.

sorry dude, I have no idea what you were asking or saying the bolded. could you clarify?

and as for the jacket, he actually didn't have one the day I got hit, but the other times he came over he had two jackets. I dont remember if the leather one had anything on the back, but i distinctly remember a HUGE POW/MIA patch on the jean jacket. He gave me a smaller one.

Wed Apr 23, 2008 9:21 pm

JSMskater wrote: Terry Cloyd wrote: Skater......what did the biker have on the back of the jacket? Cuz rides for the ironhorseman this in SD. There is other laws that are enforced that are not in the books.

sorry dude, I have no idea what you were asking or saying the bolded. could you clarify?

and as for the jacket, he actually didn't have one the day I got hit, but the other times he came over he had two jackets. I dont remember if the leather one had anything on the back, but i distinctly remember a HUGE POW/MIA patch on the jean jacket. He gave me a smaller one.

My cousins ride for the IronHorseman and Satan Slaves.

There is laws that didn't help you with your broken arm right? There is also people that take care of that law that was broken. Understand?

Wed Apr 23, 2008 9:50 pm

JSMskater wrote: lonotch wrote: _monkey_ wrote: Driving is a privilege, not a right. The Constitution has nothing to do with it.

What part of this do you not understand Jism?

Look at where you signed your drivers license, you signed a contract that can be revoked at anytime.

the constitution has nothing to do with it?

somewhere you missed that lesson in gov. 101.

the constitution is the frame work of ALL laws, and the driving privilege is governed by LAWS and therefore all the laws that affect the privilege must be in compliance with the constitution.

what part of this don't you understand? both monkey's and your statements are inherently WRONG.

and your statement is as stupid as it is false. I signed a contract that allows them to revoke my driving privilege at any time for violating laws that stipulate that as part of the punishment at the discretion of the court. read it some time. courts, and laws, btw, are governed by the constitution. thought you knew. if you don't like it, go to a police state where your skewed vision of democracy actually works.

Didn't this all start with some ricers hanging out in a parking lot and probaly causing troubles with some merchants... correct?

Lets say some souped up Honda Civic had a turbo intercooler hanging below the front bumper, wouldn't that give a police officer a reason to search since "technically" any modification to a car is illegal, just as if some drugs were sitting in your ashtray that a police officer could see in plan view? It seems like a reason to search to me whether you like it or not and gives the police officer everyright to search?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to find "illegal" items with some of these cars today or even our old ones.

Wed Apr 23, 2008 10:09 pm

lonotch wrote: JSMskater wrote: lonotch wrote: _monkey_ wrote: Driving is a privilege, not a right. The Constitution has nothing to do with it.

What part of this do you not understand Jism?

Look at where you signed your drivers license, you signed a contract that can be revoked at anytime.

the constitution has nothing to do with it?

somewhere you missed that lesson in gov. 101.

the constitution is the frame work of ALL laws, and the driving privilege is governed by LAWS and therefore all the laws that affect the privilege must be in compliance with the constitution.

what part of this don't you understand? both monkey's and your statements are inherently WRONG.

and your statement is as stupid as it is false. I signed a contract that allows them to revoke my driving privilege at any time for violating laws that stipulate that as part of the punishment at the discretion of the court. read it some time. courts, and laws, btw, are governed by the constitution. thought you knew. if you don't like it, go to a police state where your skewed vision of democracy actually works.

Didn't this all start with some ricers hanging out in a parking lot and probaly causing troubles with some merchants... correct?

Lets say some souped up Honda Civic had a turbo intercooler hanging below the front bumper, wouldn't that give a police officer a reason to search since "technically" any modification to a car is illegal, just as if some drugs were sitting in your ashtray that a police officer could see in plan view? It seems like a reason to search to me whether you like it or not and gives the police officer everyright to search?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to find "illegal" items with some of these cars today or even our old ones.

I agree with you, but if the reality was that ALL people who violate this law were being ticketed equally, it wouldn't be an issue. this was a clear demonstration against "street racers". and while I don't like street racers, automatically assuming that ALL cars with engine modifications are street racers is simply not true.

an entire police task force going in and ticketing people for illegal modifications on the BASIS of breaking up speed racing is rocky water. they were paying customers of the places in the lot, so they weren't loitering, and the officers had no proof any street racing took place. so then why did 50 cruisers show up and blanket ticket everyone in the place? because they were targeting a group. it's like racial profiling. they are profiling tuned import cars.

do you see them breaking up similar gatherings of mustang clubs? no. Do you see them breaking up meet and greet car shows in parking lots of corvette and chevy owners? of course not. those people CLEARLY have modifications that aren't factory, as any Rousch mustang owner will attest, and yet they don't get ticketed.

THAT is the issue here. this law is unconstitutional because law enforcement is using it to specifically target a group, and not applying to all- violation of the 14th amendment and the equal protection clause.