From: Paul A. Thomas (bluewhale@jaxkneppers.com)
Date: Sun Sep 22 2002 - 21:38:39 PDT
Hey Joe.
Someone has to decide that, along with every other 'right' that
comes up. There are people who feel it is their right to carry a concealed
desert eagle in their trousers. I have no real interest in having to carry
firearms to do my grocery shopping, so believe Someone should decide.
Do I leave it to the voters? As I live in California, where
fruits and nuts grow wild... I'm not really enthusiastic about that
choice. Do I leave it to organized crime? sigh: some are honorable, some
or many are not. Do I leave it to the government? What other choice do I
have? I can occasionally vote out someone who crosses me on what I feel to
be really important.. Unlike presidential elections local ones go by the
actual ( ... ok, the sort of actual ) vote count.
IMSHO 'Rights' are what you/we can take or can get. Go to Any
other country and your 'rights' change. Rights are not written in stone (
which is good: they can change with the times ). Instead they reflect what
the Masses feel is proper. If the people of a country decide the fools in
charge need to go then they usually do. We in the US are a result of
that. But... sorry. I just can't see that there are ANY rights other than
that we are willing to give our lives or our loved ones for. Maybe that's
why I have a supply of over-burned burgers stashed out back, to protect my
non-functional deuce from the Feds should they decide unilaterally that I
no longer have the right to own a 50 year old MV.
Don't laugh: I throw a mean burger!
<g> Paul
At 04:41 PM 9/22/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>The question, Paul,
>
>Is who determined that it was EITHER a right or
>privledge?
>
>In fact it all started in NY City about 1923 when the
>state of NY tried to stop the sharp rise in deaths due
>to motor vehicles. Where did they get the authority?
>
>The ninth and tenth amendments to the Constitution say
>there are rights other than those enumerated in the
>Bill of Rights and they are left to the states or the
>people respectively,........ but which go to whom??
>And who has the power to decide? The courts DO NOT
>make law! Only Congress has the authority to pass
>legislation! The checks-and-balances process allows
>the courts to decide the Constitutionality of those
>laws, in the case of the Federal courts. But the
>lower courts only get to try the cases and convict
>criminals, they DO NOT make law!
>
>The feeling is that they snookered us back when there
>weren't enough people involved to raise a stink about
>it and now we're stuck with it.
>
>And they DO HAVE a point,....... granted its a
>technicality. This is why one doesn't need a CDL in
>NYS,......... UNLESS he's driving for hire! If he's a
>farm hand he isn't DRIVING for hire even if he IS
>driving a heavy truck,........ he's NOT paid to DRIVE
>the truck!
>
>
>--- "Paul A. Thomas" <bluewhale@jaxkneppers.com>
>wrote:
> > AAUGHHH.
> >
> > My mistake. I meant to say driving is not a right.
> > Funny how shoveling dirt in your back yard on a 97
> > degree morning can make
> > you more fuzzy than usual.
> >
> > sorry guys
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
>************************************************************************************
> > At 11:42 AM 9/22/2002 -0700, you wrote:
> > Paul:
> >
> > Interesting to see this from the industry's point of
> > view.
> >
> > I must, however, disagree with you re the
> > "privilege" notion. Courts
> > in all 50 states have consistently held that driving
> > is a privilege and
> > not right. Ergo, the state can suspend or revoke
> > your driving
> > privilege. If it were a right, they couldn't suspend
> > or revoke it.
> > Rights are not revocable.
> >
> > I'd love to find a CA case where the courts have
> > held that driving is
> > a right. Keep in mind that our "esteemed" CA
> > attorney general, Bill
> > Lockyer has gotten himself into deep doodoo by
> > stating in public
> > that the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
> > doesn't apply to
> > residents of California!
> >
> > To my way of thinking, if driving isn't a privilege,
> > then it's a
> > right. If you have info the contrary, I'd love to
> > see it.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Dick
> >
> >
> > Oh. Just occurred to me. Were you one of those on
> > the 'driving is a
> > privilege" side in the recent thread?
> > IF it were a privilege then insurance would be
> > something nice to carry,
> > to
> > protect others in the almost impossible event that
> > 'I' caused an
> > accident.
> > I only read parts of that thread, as it seems a moot
> > point to me. (
> > list
> > please bash me if the following is wrong ): AFAIK,
> > NO courts in the US (
> > or
> > the world for that matter ) consider driving to be a
> > privilege. If the
> > courts, which rule on and make law, say it is not a
> > privilege then it's
> > not. If I can't afford a Ferrari I shouldn't drive
> > one. State
> > inspections
> > supposedly make sure my Ferrari is safe to drive. If
> > it doesn't pass, I
> > can't drive it thus protecting others from my poor
> > mechanical
> > skills. Insurance serves a similar purpose: to
> > 'protect' others from my
> > choices/actions.
> >
> >
> > ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> > To unsubscribe, send e-mail to:
> > <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> > To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to
> > <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
> > To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
>http://sbc.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Apr 23 2003 - 13:21:23 PDT