Subject:
|
Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 8 Oct 2001 12:09:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
364 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> The citizens of the US do not have a right to drive.
Actually, we do have the right to travel by modern conveyance -- a right
recognized under common law since the time of Magna Carta. Applying this
argument to the a.k.a. "driving privilege" is not too complicated -- getting
the courts to recognize the right is another matter. The case never gets to
the highest courts because you only have one appeal as a matter of right,
and the rest are by the leave of the court in question. I guess they don't
want to hear a case that would eliminate millions of $$$ in regulatory fees
and fines -- but what else is new?
I believe I have the right to travel by means of an automobile. The right
has been buried under an avalanche of admiralty law however, and common law
has to be argued into and is no longer taken as a given. When you enter a
courthouse today, you are arguing first under equity law.
There's more, but that's the driving part in a nutshell.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) It wasn't exactly rhetorical...I don't know for sure what's legal in all the European nations. But, if it requires "special permission" then it's a priviledge, not a right. (...) Absolutely. The citizens of the US do not have a right to drive. (...) (23 years ago, 6-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
173 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
