- #456
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,159
- 10,362
There is no such legal quandry: welfare is voluntary.Jasongreat said:
There is no such legal quandry: welfare is voluntary.Jasongreat said:Let me get this right, he wants to search people with no probable cause, only because they are receiving benefits from the government? Where will it end, suppossedly we all benefit from government, should we all expect a visit from a drug tester?
You lost me on that one. Are you saying that search without probable cause is OK because welfare is voluntary?russ_watters said:There is no such legal quandry: welfare is voluntary.
Jimmy Snyder said:You lost me on that one. Are you saying that search without probable cause is OK because welfare is voluntary?
Jimmy Snyder said:And the voluntary nature of the context is the criterion used to decide if the search is OK?
And the reason that such searches are allowed is because driving is voluntary? I live in a house, but I don't have to. I could live in an apartment. Does the voluntary nature of the context negate the protection against searches. No wait, I don't live in a house, I live in an apartment. But it's still voluntary. I could live in a house.WhoWee said:The state can suspend your drivers license if you operate under the influence - even place a device on your car to test you before the ignition switch will operate. In both cases - the state requires you to qualify - then issues the privelage or benefit subject to continued qualification - violation of the rules equals loss or suspension of privelage or benefit.
Jimmy Snyder said:And the reason that such searches are allowed is because driving is voluntary? I live in a house, but I don't have to. I could live in an apartment. Does the voluntary nature of the context negate the protection against searches. No wait, I don't live in a house, I live in an apartment. But it's still voluntary. I could live in a house.
The very fact that I live in a house is voluntary. I could live in an apartment. The very fact that I live in an apartment is voluntary, I could live in a house. The fact that I am walking down the street is voluntary, I could run, I could use a different street. These acts all have a voluntary nature to them.WhoWee said:Is the Government subsidizing your rent or mortgage - if so - your participation would be voluntary.
Jimmy Snyder said:The very fact that I live in a house is voluntary. I could live in an apartment. The very fact that I live in an apartment is voluntary, I could live in a house. The fact that I am walking down the street is voluntary, I could run, I could use a different street. These acts all have a voluntary nature to them.
Does the fact that an action is voluntary in and of itself negate the protection against searches?
Does the fact that an action is voluntary in and of itself negate the protection against searches?WhoWee said:If the Government pays for you to live there - it is reasonable they could take it away if you break the law.
You're completely missing what is "voluntary". If the government program you are participating in is voluntary, they can attach conditions to it (see: driving). Choosing to live in a house instead of an apartment is not a government program.Jimmy Snyder said:The very fact that I live in a house is voluntary. I could live in an apartment. The very fact that I live in an apartment is voluntary, I could live in a house. The fact that I am walking down the street is voluntary, I could run, I could use a different street. These acts all have a voluntary nature to them.
Does the fact that an action is voluntary in and of itself negate the protection against searches?
That's a "not even wrong" question. It implies that the search itself is not voluntary. It is voluntary.Does the fact that an action is voluntary in and of itself negate the protection against searches?
turbo said:Romney had better pull out all the stops if he wants to win the Maine caucuses. Ron Paul has a very motivated following here, and they could easily swing the caucuses to him, since turnout tends to be low.
We judge him by what he says and does. The way I was thinking of and using the term "rhetorical pandering" might not be the most correct. I'm not sure what Romney's base includes (other than Mormons, the financial sector, big business, and the wealthy), but I think that some of his statements are designed to appeal to some base or other that he might not actually be aligned with. Just like, imo, most politicians do (including Obama) from time to time.phoenix:\\ said:What do we judge him by then? That is if we cannot judge him on rhetoric that is meant to pander to his base, then what else is there to judge him by? His record, his wants, etc...? As far as it being "rhetoric pandering", that sort of policy is in direct conflict with his base of limiting the government. My dirty pants are clean...
ThomasT said:We judge him by what he says and does. The way I was thinking of and using the term "rhetorical pandering" might not be the most correct. I'm not sure what Romney's base includes (other than Mormons, the financial sector, big business, and the wealthy), but I think that some of his statements are designed to appeal to some base or other that he might not actually be aligned with. Just like, imo, most politicians do (including Obama) from time to time.
I don't know if Romney actually intends to implement drug testing for recipients of temporary cash welfare. It doesn't seem to me to be an important consideration or one that would actually be implemented, but Romney's statements in favor of it might get him some points with the portion of Americans who aren't particularly fond of government welfare (especially cash assistance) or proposals regarding the legalization/decriminalization of drugs, but who might be considered to be outside what seems to me to be his obvious base of support.
Imo, it's perfectly fair and not a breach of rights to require people getting free money from the government to test clean for illegal drugs. But it's such a relatively small possible problem that I have to conclude that Romney only made the statements he did about it in order to appeal to a certain portion of the voting public, and not because he would actually do that if elected.Jasongreat said:If you don't want people to use government money to buy drugs, you don't take away their rights, you take away the money.
That's what I read. What is it that you're confused about?WhoWee said:I'm a bit confused - isn't Romney supposed to be too moderate for the Conservatives in the Republican Party?
ThomasT said:That's what I read. What is it that you're confused about?
I see.WhoWee said:I'm reading it as Romney's base is moderates and independents - the vast majority of Americans that want accountability in Washington - (I) could be wrong?
WhoWee said:If the Government pays for you to live there - it is reasonable they could take it away if you break the law.
daveb said:Yes, but mandatory drug searches have an implied presumption of guilt, or at the very least reasonable suspicion.
WhoWee said:I'm reading it as Romney's base is moderates and independents - the vast majority of Americans that want accountability in Washington - (I) could be wrong?
daveb said:I'm not sure what Romney's base is, since he's in the Republican Primary. I know he's trying to appeal to the Conservative base of the Republicans, just as primary candidates for a Democratic primary try to appeal to the liberal base of the Democratic party. It seems a no-win situation for at least half (:tongue2:) of the candidates in the general election since then they have to appeal to the middle ground. Essentially, it seems that whoever dodges the flip-flopping they make from primary to general election ends up the winner.
russ_watters said:You're completely missing what is "voluntary". If the government program you are participating in is voluntary, they can attach conditions to it (see: driving). Choosing to live in a house instead of an apartment is not a government program.
Note though that walking down the street is a different issue entirely. Since it is an act done in public, there are certain privacy issues you voluntarily waive by doing it. That's a "not even wrong" question. It implies that the search itself is not voluntary. It is voluntary.
Jasongreat said:I disagree with the driving comment, the USC has said in numerous cases that the right to travel shall not be infringed. Government officials make us believe it is voluntary, but can you name one contract a sixteen year old is capable of signing that is binding? Besides giving up their rights to the fourth and fifth ammendments? According to the constitution I have read, our rights are unalieanable. What does that word mean? Is it that if we can make a case they should be alienated from you they can be? Or does unalieanable mean that even we can not give up those rights? Those two distinctions seem in contradiction, so which is it? We have unalienable rights that can be we can be alienated from, or unalienable means unalienable?
I will ask you the same question I asked WhoWee on another thread, is there any rights we can't be alienated from? There are ten in the bill of rights, are all alienable with the 'proper' disqualifications? If so what is the purpose of the bill of rights?
Char. Limit said:You have the right to travel. You don't have the right to take a car along.
WhoWee said:I think Romney is wise to keep his focus on President Obama - this appeals to all Republicans.
Jasongreat said:Will you please give sources for this statement, the USC has said otherwise. The only time my travel can be restricted, according to the USC, is because I am making money, or a commercial driver. Why is it cars are different? Could not a horse be an danger to citizens? could not a horse and buggy be a danger to citizens? Heck, could not my walking be a danger? Why do you think government has the right to resrtict my travel when it comes to cars? Here are some cases to get you started:
DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS, HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS.
For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:
CASE #1: “The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.” Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
CASE #2: “The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579. It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.
CASE #3: “The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.” Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
CASE #4: “The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right.” Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government—in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question—is restricting, and therefore violating, the people’s common law right to travel.
Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. That means it is unlawful. The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws. The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions—such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few—on a citizen’s constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?
For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue. In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly:
“The state cannot diminish rights of the people.”
And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60,
“Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void.”
Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point—that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people? Other cases are even more straight forward:
“The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.”
Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.” Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946
We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question – Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...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 not one word withstanding.” In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…”
JasonGreat said:According to the constitution I have read, our rights are unalieanable.
Jasongreat said:Will you please give sources for this statement, the USC has said otherwise. The only time my travel can be restricted, according to the USC, is because I am making money, or a commercial driver. Why is it cars are different? Could not a horse be an danger to citizens? could not a horse and buggy be a danger to citizens? Heck, could not my walking be a danger? Why do you think government has the right to resrtict my travel when it comes to cars? Here are some cases to get you started:
DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS, HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS.
For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:
CASE #1: “The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.” Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
CASE #2: “The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579. It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.
CASE #3: “The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.” Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
CASE #4: “The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right.” Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government—in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question—is restricting, and therefore violating, the people’s common law right to travel.
Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. That means it is unlawful. The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws. The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions—such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few—on a citizen’s constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?
For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue. In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly:
“The state cannot diminish rights of the people.”
And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60,
“Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void.”
Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point—that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people? Other cases are even more straight forward:
“The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.”
Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.” Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946
We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question – Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...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 not one word withstanding.” In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…”
Office_Shredder said:This was more convincing before I realized that you just copy/pasted this from another website. I tried finding some of these cases to confirm what they say but I just get tons of websites citing the exact same quotes with no additional information. Do you know where the original opinions/rulings can be found?
AlephZero said:I just read the fist paragraph of your quote, and I the main thing that struck me (assuming that US and UK motoring law are vaguely similar) is that it may well be correct, but irrelevant.
In the UK there is no legal restriction on anybody of any age driving any vehicle almost anywhere they want. The restrictions are about driving vehicles on public highways.
"Public highways" are legally defined very precisely in the UK. Indeed there have been court cases where a local highways department redesigned a road junction by adding a one-way slip road, somebody was been prosecuted for driving the wrong way down it. and they were acquitted because the council had forgotten to go through the correct legal process to register the new bit of tarmac as a public highway. Of course those loopholes get fixed rather fast, once they have been discovered!
russ_watters said:It is commonly believed due to constant hammering of the issue from liberal politicians, but it is very wrong. The data can be found here: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/
The most relevant table is the mean household income of each fifth of the population. Even without adjusting for cyclic trends, the average income of the people in the bottom 20% is 21% higher (inflation adjusted) today than in 1967 when the data started to be collected. For the next two fifths the increases are 13% and 22%.