: SUPREME COURT 'GUTS' THE CONSTITUTION UNDER THE GUISE OF
: PROTECTING US FROM OURSELVES!!!!!
: It is over. We have NO MORE protection from the Overbearing
: Rogue Gov't. The Police State has just been given the 'Blue
: Light Special' by the Supreme Court. Time to roll up the
: streets, take down the flag and move to another (country
: ?). 'Water World' is looking better every day!

(Down, E, down...! :)

They didn't "gut" it so much as hand down a ruling based on something else that they're not telling us - specifically, what it means to be "a licensed driver".

To be a "driver", and to "operate a motor vehicle" is to agree that you're inovlved in "commerce" at the dispensation of the King (Big Brother Gummint). It means to have agreed (by contract signed under penalty of perjury) to abide by the rules and regulations as set forth by the King, in fair exchange (in consideration) for the "privilege" of "driving".

Ask this one question: How can it be Constitutional to be legally obliged to purchase automobile insurance as part of the requirement for licensure to "drive a motor vehicle"?

Constitutionally it's, well, bizarre at best. :) "The law says I must spend my money with this insurance company over here." Can't be Constitutional, can it? More like an extortion racket of some sort, really, not like "the land of the free" at all.

Under this scheme, the King can impose any conditions he might see fit to impose - it's his "game", after all, and he's allowed to make up the rules. We find the phrase "for official use only" on licenses and on date stickers for license tags - what's that mean? Apparently it's construed to mean, "While operating this motor vehicle, the 'driver' is on official business of the King and should be treated as such."

As part of this, the insurance is to protect the King, not to protect the driver - and that's why the King can say, "If ya wanna drive, ya gotta buy this stuff - otherwise, I won't let you drive."

Constitutionally this leaves us in this position:

(1) Driving a motor vehicle is a matter of "private contract", and private contracts are sacrosanct under the Constitution. If the parties to the contract (namely, you-the-driver and King-the-government) agree, there are no grounds for intervention by the Supreme Court.

(2) Since the entire contract has occurred by stealth, one can exit from it - and many have, though not without trouble. Under the Constitution, it is unnecessary to obtain a tag, or a license, or insurance, in order to "make use of my car on the common roads of this country for purposes of travel". However, most "law enforcement officials" are as unaware of this distinction as most other Americans - and they're likely to think they should arrest you for doing this, and will generally proceed to do so. And, they have guns. :)

There are, apparently, ways to fully exit from the system - but they're as complex and uncertain of success as the methods people are using to exit another part of this same system, the "income tax" scheme - until that day comes when sufficient numbers of us wake up one morning already thinking, "No - that's about enough of that" and exit it together and at the same time.