Can't Require a License to Exercise a Right

[idea(l)s]

Sigh.......
You aren't making a case for your position. The people of the state created the bodies and voted the legislators into place. Those elected officials passed the statutes through the defined regimen into law.

I am not making my case? Really, let's recap then: I have shown that The United States in Congress assembled has the power to regulate commerce, you have not offered any argument or proof to the contrary, neither have you shown where they would derive the authority to regulate private lives.

I have shown that the individual states ride on the back of CFR Title to enforce "traffic" laws. You have claimed that the states can "force" those but your rebuttal consisted of a "sigh" and nothing else. I'll ask again: if you believe the individual states can "force" the issue then show me where such power and or authority originates from, I am an eager learner.

You are partially correct in the above quote, the only mistake is that our representatives do not write the "codes", they write the laws into the federal and state registers, these laws then get "codified" and that's how we end up with the codified statutes.

 

[idea(l)s]

Again, buddy, you picked the WRONG site to pull this crap. Most folks here are very familiar with their State codes and know how to find things in them. You will find folks here who absolutely HATE federal authority, yet even they have taken the time to show that you are full of it.

I, for one, will waste no further time on you or your BS. If you decide to get rational, maybe we'll talk about the law in the future. If not, this site comes equipped with an ignore button.<o>

"But I don't want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."

From Alice in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll

 

[wrightme]

There you go: "the authority to regulate motor carriers", you are right on point. This ties in with the fact that they have the authority to regulate commerce, not private lives.

I am very well on subject, Title 58 tells how the DMV was established and by whom and what their "powers" are. It's pretty evident
NRS 481.019  Creation; powers and duties.

1.  The Department of Motor Vehicles is hereby created.

2.  The Department is vested with the powers and authority provided in this chapter and shall carry out the purposes of this chapter.

It is imperative to understand that chapter so that we know their power and authority (god forbid they should ever act outside of that scope...!)

We will deal with Title 43 later.

Title 43 is the one that created the DMV.
Title 58 gives it the power to regulate motor carriers. You are incorrect.

To 'deal' with title 58, you must first speak to 43.

 

[wrightme]

I am not making my case? Really, let's recap then: I have shown that The United States in Congress assembled has the power to regulate commerce, you have not offered any argument or proof to the contrary, neither have you shown where they would derive the authority to regulate private lives.

I have shown that the individual states ride on the back of CFR Title to enforce "traffic" laws. You have claimed that the states can "force" those but your rebuttal consisted of a "sigh" and nothing else. I'll ask again: if you believe the individual states can "force" the issue then show me where such power and or authority originates from, I am an eager learner.

You are partially correct in the above quote, the only mistake is that our representatives do not write the "codes", they write the laws into the federal and state registers, these laws then get "codified" and that's how we end up with the codified statutes.

Correct, you are NOT making your case. As evidence, see your misrepresentation of 58 vs 43. My rebuttal was more than a 'sigh' and nothing else.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If you are such an 'eager learner,' how come you missed the difference between 43 and 58 that I pointed out? Further, how did you miss the 'Amendment X' I cited?

 

[idea(l)s]

Title 43 is the one that created the DMV.
Title 58 gives it the power to regulate motor carriers. You are incorrect.

To 'deal' with title 58, you must first speak to 43.

My bad, you sir are correct. Not all familiar with the Nevada numbering system, it not being my home state.

 

[wrightme]

My bad, you sir are correct. Not all familiar with the Nevada numbering system, it not being my home state.

Um, I TOLD you the correct info, and you STILL replied incorrectly.


Maybe you should spend more time reviewing what others present, BEFORE telling them they are not correct.


But, thank you for agreeing that I cited them correctly. Now, you should see that nevada legislature did create the DMV, using legislation, under authority of the citizens, which did get codified into statute under Tutle 43. Further, they used legislation to identify the DMV as separately having jurisdiction over motor carriers, also under authority of the citizens, which got separately codified into statute under Title 58.


NOW that we are at least properly identifying the Title under discussion, do you have a point?

 

[eye95]

[useless crap edited out]

You seem to have made a decision. You post BS. You get called on it. You post nonsense.

There are plenty of folks here who post from a very similar perspective to yours. At least they post rationally. You, OTOH, are not worth the time or effort to read. Moving on. Permanently.

 

[eye95]

...Maybe you should spend more time reviewing what others present, BEFORE telling them they are not correct...

Yeah. That.

I have a feeling he thought this was a site full of legal ignoramuses whom he could bully around with his pet BS legal theories. Boy, was he wrong.

He would do well to shut up for a while and just read. When he figures out the nature of the crowd around here, he might try again from a more humble perspective.

I doubt he will.

 

[idea(l)s]

Correct, you are NOT making your case. As evidence, see your misrepresentation of 58 vs 43. My rebuttal was more than a 'sigh' and nothing else.

If you are such an 'eager learner,' how come you missed the difference between 43 and 58 that I pointed out? Further, how did you miss the 'Amendment X' I cited?

See my reply above, not familiar with the NV numbering system (although I like to visit, never lived there).

I did not miss the Amendment you cited but it has no direct impact on what the discussion is about since it is well established where the authority to regulate originates, i.e.; CFR Title 49. If anything it affirms my position: The United States in Congress assembled has the power to regulate commerce, the Commerce Clause was a "power delegated to the United States", no question about it.

I offered proof that the states dmv codes ride on the backside of the CFR Title 49, you claim the individual states can "force" their own but have never offered any cite(s) to support your position.

I have offered that The United States in Congress assembled has the authority to regulate commerce (licensing), not private lives, you have not advanced any claim to the contrary.

The State plan which each and every state of the union has in place can also be referenced here:

Title 49 Subtitle B Subchapter B 350

355
355.1 to 355.25
COMPATIBILITY OF STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS AFFECTING INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIER OPERATIONS

And yes, Congress did have you and I in mind as well:

49 CFR part 523.3 (a)

§ 523.3 Automobile.
(a) An automobile is any 4-wheeled vehicle that is propelled by fuel, or by alternative fuel, manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways and rated at less than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, except:

(1) A vehicle operated only on a rail line;
(2) A vehicle manufactured in different stages by 2 or more manufacturers, if no intermediate or final-stage manufacturer of that vehicle manufactures more than 10,000 multi-stage vehicles per year; or
(3) A work truck.

That being said, I can't find any "automobile departments" anywhere, only "motor vehicle departments"

 

[idea(l)s]

Yeah. That.

I have a feeling he thought this was a site full of legal ignoramuses whom he could bully around with his pet BS legal theories. Boy, was he wrong.
He would do well to shut up for a while and just read. When he figures out the nature of the crowd around here, he might try again from a more humble perspective.
I doubt he will.

"But I don't want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."

From Alice in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll

 

[wrightme]

See my reply above, not familiar with the NV numbering system (although I like to visit, never lived there).

I did not miss the Amendment you cited but it has no direct impact on what the discussion is about since it is well established where the authority to regulate originates, i.e.; CFR Title 49. If anything it affirms my position: The United States in Congress assembled has the power to regulate commerce, the Commerce Clause was a "power delegated to the United States", no question about it.

No.


We are speaking of STATE statutes here.

I offered proof that the states dmv codes ride on the backside of the CFR Title 49, you claim the individual states can "force" their own but have never offered any cite(s) to support your position.

I offered cite showing NV code doesn't. And you have not refuted.

I have offered that The United States in Congress assembled has the authority to regulate commerce (licensing), not private lives, you have not advanced any claim to the contrary.

BS. I offered that Amendment X does give the STATE the right to regulate, and you have not refuted.

The State plan which each and every state of the union has in place can also be referenced here:

Prove that NV is riding that.


You forgot all about that bit where NV separately created the DMV to regulate all motor vehicles, and THEN separately gave the dmv the authority to ALSO regulate motor carriers.


You miss. Again. It doesn't matter whether the cfr speaks of similarity of motor carrier laws, when that is separate in NV statute. Go back to the books, read Title 43 FIRST.

 

[wrightme]

"But I don't want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."

From Alice in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll

Repeating the same useless crap is useless.

If all you can do is repeat the same failed 'arguments,' it isn't a discussion about facts.

 

[wrightme]

So right you are!

Then we should see an end to your posts?

 

[idea(l)s]

No.


We are speaking of STATE statutes here.

No matter, they are similar to, and contain the same legalese as the Federal statutes.

I offered cite showing NV code doesn't. And you have not refuted.

Prove that NV is riding that.

The proof is in the Nevada State Plan, every state of the union has such plan in place, submit a foia to your local dmv or the Public Utilities/Safety commission.

Most likely you will find it in the NV administrative code, in NM it is contained in Title 18 Transportation and Highways (I have offered this in a previous post):

18.2.3.12 DRIVING OF MOTOR VEHICLES:
The department of public safety hereby adopts Part 392 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, with no amendments.
[2-3-93; 11-17-93; 2-14-95; 11-17-95; 4-30-97; 18.2.3.11 NMAC - Rp 18 NMAC 2.3.11, 6-29-00]

You forgot all about that bit where NV separately created the DMV to regulate all motor vehicles, and THEN separately gave the dmv the authority to ALSO regulate motor carriers.

Have you looked at the definition(s) of said legal entities, I offered you the definition of "automobile" as can be found in CFR Title 49 (see post above). Do you OPERATE/DRIVE a motor vehicle or do you possess an automobile for private use...?


You miss. Again. It doesn't matter whether the cfr speaks of similarity of motor carrier laws, when that is separate in NV statute. Go back to the books, read Title 43 FIRST

It sure DOES matter what CFR Title 49 speaks of since every state of the union has adopted it through their state plan, see above. Once you discover that your state statutes pertaining to traffic ride on CFR Title 49 you will understand that all of those regulate commerce and do not reach your private conveyance aka the automobile referenced in CFR Title 49, unless you can point me to where any state regulates your or mine private life through the "Department of Automobiles"

.

...

 

[idea(l)s]

Then we should see an end to your posts?

Sorry that post was meant for eye95.

 

[wrightme]

...

If YOU think NV is doing what you claim, it is upon YOU to prove it, not upon me.


Well?

You cited 58, implying that NV was using that to create the dmv and regulate vehicles (not just motor carriers) under cfr49. So far, you have failed to show that connection. I pointed out (accurately) that the title you cited did NOT either create the dmv, OR provide for regulation of non-motor carrier vehicles. You haven't proven your point, and most likely won't.

 

[idea(l)s]

If YOU think NV is doing what you claim, it is upon YOU to prove it, not upon me.

Already did (see above) read part 355:

The State plan which each and every state of the union has in place can also be referenced here:

Title 49 Subtitle B Subchapter B 350

355
355.1 to 355.25
COMPATIBILITY OF STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS AFFECTING INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIER OPERATIONS

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You cited 58, implying that NV was using that to create the dmv and regulate vehicles (not just motor carriers) under cfr49. So far, you have failed to show that connection. I pointed out (accurately) that the title you cited did NOT either create the dmv, OR provide for regulation of non-motor carrier vehicles. You haven't proven your point, and most likely won't.

Already did (see above) read part 355:

The State plan which each and every state of the union has in place can also be referenced here:

Title 49 Subtitle B Subchapter B 350

355
355.1 to 355.25
COMPATIBILITY OF STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS AFFECTING INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIER OPERATIONS

..

 

[wrightme]

..

None of that shows your point. It only addresses motor carrier as in title 58.
To make YOUR point, you would need to show that NV NRS for motor vehicles is linked DIRECTLY to that cfr. You haven't yet.

In addition, all you are doing is attempting to proclaim it to be true. Get on with the actual showing the link between cfr and nrs....if you can.


Declarations are not proofs.


Further, it is much easier to read what YOU type, if you separate it by using the quote tags.



Now, lets look at it a bit closer:

Compatible or Compatibility means that State laws and regulations applicable to interstate commerce and to intrastate movement of hazardous materials are identical to the FMCSRs and the HMRs or have the same effect as the FMCSRs; and that State laws applicable to intrastate commerce are either identical to, or have the same effect as, the FMCSRs or fall within the established limited variances under §§ 350.341, 350.343, and 350.345 of this subchapter.

These are applicable to Title 58. NV has a separate title that covers non-motor carrier regulations. Maybe you should argue about states that fail to make that distinction between the two.

 

[eye95]

[video=youtube;qQGgaI-BcI4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQGgaI-BcI4[/video]

 

[wrightme]

ROFL! LOL! And a few other internet thingies that mean I got a good laugh out of that! Thanks. :banana: