How was the common law changed, drivers license..
SHAW v. RAILROAD COMPANY,101 U.S. 557 (1880)
At page 565 of the ruling
"No statute is to be construed as altering the common law,
farther than its words import. It is not to be construed as
making any innovation upon the common law which it does
not fairly express."
MUTUAL LOAN CO. v. MARTELL, 222 U.S. 225 (1911)
At page 233....................
"Legislation cannot be judged by theoretical standards. It must be tested by the concrete conditions which induced it; and this test was applied by the supreme judicial court of Massachusetts in passing on the validity of the statute under review."
At page 235............
"The legislation under review was directed at certain evils which had arisen, and the legislature, considering them and from whence they arose, might have thought or discerned that they could not or would not arise from a greater freedom to the institutions mentioned than to individuals. This was the view that the supreme judicial court took, and, we think, rightly took. The court said that the legislature might have decided that the dangers which the statute was intended to prevent would not exist in any considerable degree in loans made by institutions which were under the supervision of bank commissioners, and 'believed rightly that the business done by them would not need regulation in the inter- [222 U.S. 225, 236] est of employees or employers,' citing State v. Wickenhoefer, 6 Penn. (Del .) 120, 64 Atl. 273, a decision by the supreme court of Delaware. See Engel v. O'Malley, 219 U.S. 128 , 55 L. ed. 128, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 190.
But even if some degree of evil which the statute was intended to prevent could be ascribed to loans made by the exempted institutions, their exception would not make the law unconstitutional. Legislation may recognize degrees of evil without being arbitrary, unreasonable, or in conflict..........."
>>>>>RE: SHAW>>>>>>Ask the legislatorsto indicate the
exact wording of the "drivers license" statute, where the
common law right of travel is now revoked and is now
a licensed privilege.
>>>>>RE: MARTELL>>>>>Ask the legislatorsfor empirical
evidence that a "drivers license" is necessary. What data
exists from the late 1800's that affirms that those people
without a "drivers license" were a DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE
cause of the numerous accidents and is an EVIL, EVIL, EVIL!
Laws cannot be judged by theoretical standards so you
will have to SEE the empirical data that support the :
denial of the right of travel upon the public right of ways
by all means, to include mechanical locomotion.
Where is the data that shows the comparison between
"licensed" and "unlicensed" users of the public right of ways.
If this data does not exist, then the "drivers license" law
is based upon what factual data showing the necessity
of the law?
Massachusetts required "drivers licenses" back to
1903, and as of this date, I have not found any supporting
data showing the efficacy of the "drivers license law".
If I had never had a "drivers license" I would still control
my mechanical locomotion upon the right of ways with
the same degree of skill I've always had.
Only the commercial use of the right of ways can be licensed
as it is a privilege to use the right of ways for one's
Hope this helps. Let Oklahoma argue with the rulings
of the Supreme Court and tell the court they're wrong
about how you deny someone their common law rights,
and why laws must be based upon facts and not
upon unproven theories. The "drivers license" must have
a DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE effect upon the EVIL
caused by unlicensed, non-commercial drivers.
No EVIL, the law has no standing.