We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Well yes parvnik,you are right, the sentiment was declared in the Declaration of Independence and was given impetus by the Preamble of the United States Constitution.
Gosh, this is amazing! All governmental fees, requirements and charges are unconstitutional! Milum, you have a real future with the tax-protester crew.
(I’d give you a reasoned answer, but this thread contains ample proof that it’d be futile.)
No. I don’t. First, don’t prevaricate as though you were making a clever argument by saying the Constitution guarantees the pursuit of happiness. It’s not in there. You just plain screwed up.
Second, the preamble does not secure any rights; it has no force of law and doesn’t give impetus to anything. Jacobson v. Com. of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905). If you were to go to court for Dada (pun intended) and tell the judge making him buy liability insurance is in violation of the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution, and the 5th Amendment takings clause, do you know what would happen?
Good God, this is pointless. Milum, you’ve lectured me in the law since you first addressed me on the board, and I can say this for you: you appear to know how to spell the word “law”. After that it goes sharply downhill.
Oh, if only it were an exchange of worthwhile ideas…
The problem, Milum, is that I’m not claiming any right to imperatively declare you wrong. There’s a difference between “You’re wrong because I said so, so nyah” and “The body of case law surrounding the issues you’re trying to paint broadly places restrictions on what you’re saying; you seem to refuse to recognize them.”
Liability insurance doesn’t fall under eminent domain. Why? They’re two completely different things, even ignoring totally the fact that if you don’t want to pay liability insurance, you have the option not to drive a car. If I wanted to, I could attempt to BS an argument about how the “just compensation” of the private property being taken is that the roads are safer, echoing Bricker’s sentiment (not that he was making that argument - it just fits), but that would be misguided. Laws requiring purchasing of liability insurance don’t fall under the takings clause that you’re citing because, in the first place, there is no taking of public property. You’re entering into a contract of your own free will. Around here, at least, you can shop around and find the best deal (though I can’t say what happens in Alabama). Further, you have options besides driving, so you aren’t even forced to enter into a contract. In any case, notwithstanding a vast-conspiracy argument, the government isn’t the entity collecting the insurance money, for the paying of which you receive a benefit (liability insurance). The law is not in conflict with the Constitution.
Because the law is not in conflict with the Constitution, and because the enumeration of powers allows a non-federal jurisdiction to pass this law, the law is (for lack of a better term) perfectly legal.
The problem here is that you’re finding a clause and latching onto it without the benefit of the context that shapes its interpretation and enforcement. While the First Amendment guarantees, inter alia, that Congress will not abridge the freedom of speech, that clause does not protect someone from being prosecuted for inciting a riot or shouting “FIRE!” in a crowded theater.
But Milum, if you feel so strongly that liability insurance violates the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, I encourage you to drive around without liability insurance, get arrested and contest the law.
(NOTE: This is not encouragement to drive around without liability insurance, get arrested and contest the law. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.)
Nice try. But mandatory insurance isn’t a “taking”: you’re perfectly free to go without, so long as you refrain from driving on public roads. Operating an automobile on public byways is a privilege, not a right. State governments are perfectly free constitution-wise to attach prerequisites to the exercise of that privilege.
The takings clause only applies to situations where the government is forcibly taking your property, not to strings attached to the exercise of certain privileges. If, for example, the government wanted to tear down your house to make way for a new highway, it would have to compensate you for your loss because of the 5th amendment. That is not the situation here.
" Operating an automobile on public byways is a privilege, not a right." - Dewey
Not so, Dewey, who owns the highways, Dewey? The people own the highways and can decide whether it is a prvilege or a God given right, not the courts.
Hypothetically speaking…
Milum: Why do you work at Milum’s place?
Da Da: It is the only job I can find.
Milum: Why can’t you ride a bus or take a taxi to work each day?
Da Da: There is no bus service and taxi fees would cost me more money than Mister Milum pays.
Mister Milum: It is quite obvious that if Mister Da Da is not allowed to drive the public roads without the undue burden of oppressive insurance, he will be effectively denied his soon-to-be Constitutional rights to be fruitful and multiply, by way of having a job, and thereby attracting a female, and thereby multipling, and will be in effect prohibited from fullfilling the comandments of his choosen religion, as well of every Citizen’s fundamental right to pursue the acquisition of material wealth in order to enhance the betterment of their progeny as is guaranteed to all citizens by the Preamble of the United States Constitution.
Um…sure you’re referencing the right document here? Sounds more like Genesis, to me, and as far as I can tell, that has no standing in a court of law.
I’ve been following this thread for some time now, and as of yet, have no idea what your beef is. The best that I can figure is that you dislike the complexity of the law as it stands- whether or not that complexity is necessary for the orderly functioning of a unified society on the scale that we are discussing is a possibility that you refuse to consider.
Not all problems have simple solutions- your simple solutions would cause more problems than the evils that they seek to remedy. And it doesn’t really seem to me that they’d solve the issues that you have problems with in the first place.
As consistently ignorant, illogical, and just plain wrong milum’s assertions are, it is always good to remember that he does, in fact, speak to the part of our great nation that hates lawyers and have no qualms about showing their ignorance to the masses.
Take, for example, one Dale E. French. Mr French was cited for driving without a license, without insurance, without a seat belt, and without a certificate of inspection for his vehicle. Mr French, perhaps seeing into milum’s future, decided to challenge all the tickets. He was, oddly enough, appointed a public defender, who, after speaking with Mr. French, begged the court to allow him to withdraw, because Mr. French insisted that the attorney violate the code of ethics and file motions that “appears unwarranted under existing law” and “have no factual basis.” After Mr. French expressed his desire to allow the public defender to withdraw, the Court allowed Mr. French to represent himself. After a flurry of pre-trial motions, including challenges to the sovereignity of Hawaii, he was convicted and fined.
Of course, undaunted by the defeat of his arguments, Mr. French once again represented himself and appealled the tickets. He filed more challenges to his convictions stating: “(1) the proceedings constituted a “kangaroo court,” (2) “as a member of the Kingdom of Hawai’i, the jurisdiction [over defendant] is clearly that of the Kingdom of Hawai’i,” (3) as “a sovereign citizen of [the] U.S.A.” the court lacked jurisdiction over him, and the statutes under which he was convicted violated his right to travel.”
Surpising as it must be to Milum, the appellate court actually heard the case, and, despite the fact that Mr. French admitted to committing all the offenses he was charged with, spent the time to consider his appeal.
As to his claim that he was a member of the “Kingdom of Hawaii” and thus the State and Courts had no jurisdiction over him, the appellate court stated:
The appellate court also rejected Mr. French’s claim that the United State’s Supreme Court should be the Court of original jurisdiction. As much as I would have liked to see Mr. French arguing his traffic ticket cases before Justice Scalia, the appellate court rejected that assertion also.
Finally, Mr. French went with the Milum argument, and asserted that "the traffic statutes involved only apply to businesses and “State vehicals [sic][,]” not to a “sovereign” individual like himself who utilizes his vehicle for “personal needs[.]” He further maintained that if the statutes do apply to him, they would violate his right to travel.
The Court rejected the claim that the statutes do not apply to him because of his “personal needs” and went on to discuss the Milum argument that there is somehow a constitutional right to drive. However, Mr. French, as big as a dolt as he was, appears to outshine milum because he founded his rights in the right to travel, which actually is a right with a constitutional basis.
But, alas for Mr. French and Milum his argument was rejected. They held: "Yet, this right, too, is subject to the State’s police power to regulate an individual’s conduct for the protection of society. That being so, “[p]ursuant to its police power, the State may regulate the operation of motor vehicles for the safety and order of the general public.”
While we can sit here and cite cases and prove milum’s baseless assertions wrong all day, it is good to remember that he is not alone in his inability to create logical and legally valid arguments. After all, somebody has to give prosecutor’s lawyers, judges, and Appellate Courts, somebody to laugh at.
And the people have decided it’s a privilege. Elected representatives passed laws that limit who can drive on public roads – including kids under 16, those who can’t see very well, and yes, those who cannot or will not pay for automobile liability insurance. The courts didn’t create the insurance requirement, the people did. **
So why don’t you pay Da Da better, you cheap bastard?
I’d just like to point out the red-herring dodge that Milum is executing at this point. Rather than deal with the arguments that others have put forth regarding the proper interpretation of the takings clause and numerous other areas of the Constitution on which he’s attempted to hang his hat, he’s attempting to shift the focus to excusing his employee’s desire to break the law.
And, of course, he’s throwing in a completely ridiculous “constitutional” right which is not (to “be fruitful and multiply”). 2:1 he comes back to defend this because it’s in Genesis and the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion.
I believe that the mandatory insurance law is unconstitutional because of the ex post facto restriction.
If it is illogical and unjust to impose legal consequences in retrospect, then any law the that punishes a person for an act that may or may not occur in the future must also be unjust and is illogical.
amulimette, you misunderstand the ex post facto clause. For starters, it only applies to criminal law, and it only means that the government can’t retroactively hold you accountable for a new law.
For example, if your state did not have a mandatory insurance law, and thus you didn’t carry insurance, and then one fine day your state passed such a law (and you promptly went out and bought insurance upon its passage), the state could not criminally penalize you for not carrying insurace before the law’s passage. That would be an “ex post facto” law, and thus unconstitutional.
It is not an “ex post facto” law to require people to take steps to mitigate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions – we can, for example, require buildings to have fire exits. And we can require motorists to carry auto insurance.
Curb your profanity, Unhow! You don’t want to become an embarsssment to your chosen, uh, “esteemed profession” do you?
And my dear amulimette, please forgive Dewey for his poor read of your post. I’m sure his paid legal readings aren’t so undiscerning. I thought your comparison between the ex post facto prohibition and mandatory insurance requirements was inspired. Both point towards the absurdity of passing laws that violate natural laws of cause and effect…
(1) Ex post facto laws are patently absurd because they would allow lawmakers to pass laws today to cover the past actions of a people who were under no such laws when they so acted.
(2) Mandatory liability insurance laws exact penalties in the form of insurance payments today, against the outside posibility that the person doing the paying will one day do damage to another person sometime in the future.
In other words we can’t legislate the past and we can’t make laws that penalize for events that may not happen in the future.
Understand, amulinette, that Dewey’s pratronizing pronouncement that you misunderstand the meaning of ex post facto legislation, was just lawyer cant. Notice Dewey’s use of a series of associations that don’t follow; this is a well known lawyers trick that is particularly heavy handed.
Ah yes people, you must take steps to mitigate the reasonable forseeable consequences of your actions.
What gobbledygook. Well then, we the people can pass legislation that will require you lawyers to mitigate in the form of an issurance payment today that will guarantee your payment to us in case we ever engage you in the future to represent us and then, lo and behold, you commit malpractice.
Sure thing Dewey, fire exits and a law requiring citizens to have a certain amount of wealth before they can drive, or even own, a car. Same thing , huh? Is this a great isocracy or what?
By the way Dewey, Da Da, who you say is Na da, says " Hi".
_________
And thanks, melt, for posting. See you Wednesday at the dance.
No, it’s based on an understanding of what the ex post facto clause of the Constitution actually means. And this is no mere example of latter-day judicial activism changing a prior meaning: the first case interpreting the ex post facto clause was Calder v. Bull, decided in 1798, and it set forth the distinctions I enumerated above. **
Not to anyone with a reasonable command of the English language. **
You certainly can pass such legislation. There would be nothing wrong with that at all. (Indeed, doctors are already required by law to carry malpractice insurance). **
Yeah, actually. Both measures require the person (the property owner or the driver) to pay for things that help reduce the impact of a subsequent tragedy. Fire exits cost money to install and require maintenance. Collision insurance costs money in the form of premiums. Both are designed to aid injured innocent third parties.
