Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

How was the common law changed, drivers license..

Expand Messages
  • Don Schwarz
    Coby, 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,
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 1 5:15 AM
    • 0 Attachment


      Coby,


      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 legislators
      to 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 legislators
      for 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
      wages.

      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.
      ===============================================
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.