Shout out to Power Inherent in the People. youtube.com/@powerofthepeople?si=kxVNSBnQCF5_z8v7 for leading me to finding this lovely document An RTT must see! Hope he does a piece on it! "As a matter of right, for the purposes of vehicular travel." 😜
A message from a friend! for those who are still trapped in the perpetual cycles of debt. washed in an endless sea of bills, fees, and fines. taxed and regulated to the brink of oblivion. You know who you are!
The hamster wheel analogy is a metaphor for a situation where someone is engaged in a repetitive, often tiring, activity without making significant progress or achieving meaningful goals. It's like running on a wheel, expending energy but staying in the same place. This feeling can be associated with a sense of stagnation, frustration, and a lack of purpose. "hamster on a wheel" is a common metaphor to describe a repetitive and often frustrating cycle of activity where a person feels busy and works hard but doesn't experience significant progress or a sense of achievement. It portrays a state of mind consumed by tasks that may feel productive but ultimately lead to exhaustion and a feeling of being stuck
What is the difference between those who truly wish to help and those who wish to control??
The key difference lies in the motivation and the approach. Those who truly wish to help others are driven by empathy and a desire to improve another person's well-being without expecting anything in return. Conversely, those who wish to control others are motivated by a need for power and control, often using help as a means to manipulate or dominate. This manifests in how they offer assistance, respecting boundaries or imposing their will. The former focuses on empowerment and support, whereas the latter aims to restrict freedom and autonomy.
Helping Others (Empathy and Empowerment): Focus on the other person's well-being: Helpers see others as individuals with their own needs and desires, and they strive to support them in achieving their goals.
Encourage independence: Helpers empower others by providing resources, guidance, and support that enables them to become self-sufficient.
Respect boundaries: Helpers understand and respect the boundaries of others, recognizing that everyone has the right to make their own choices.
Motivation by compassion: Helpers are driven by a genuine desire to alleviate suffering and promote the well-being of others.
"Independence Day should be “solemnized with pomp and parade, with shews (shows), games, sports, guns, bells, bonfire and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other from this time forward forever more.” ~John Adams
Nothing but road pirates..... ye be warned! ☠️🏴☠️🟦🟦🟦🟦🟦🟦🟦🟦🟦🟦🟦🟦🏴☠️☠️ The Jolly Roger is the traditional name for the flags flown by pirates, most famously featuring a skull and crossbones on a black background. It served as a warning to other ships that they were about to be attacked and that the pirates would show no mercy. While the skull and crossbones is the most recognizable design, individual pirates often used other variations to represent their specific crews or intentions.
"Good intentions will always be pleaded, for every assumption of power; but they cannot justify it... It is hardly too strong to say, that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intention, real or pretended." ~ Daniel Webster
'the right of locomotion and the right to property coupled with the right to defend it are the guardians of all other rights" ~ Frederick Douglass
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." ~ Patrick Henry
Right to Travel Without License, Registration, or Insurance
1. The Right to Travel is a Fundamental Constitutional Right The right to travel is a well-established constitutional right, recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court as fundamental and inherent to the concept of liberty. Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969): The Court held that the right to travel is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. This right includes the ability to move freely between states and within a state without undue interference from the government.
2. Distinction Between Rights and Privileges The act of traveling is a right, not a privilege. While the state may regulate certain activities for public safety, it cannot convert a fundamental right into a privilege that requires government permission. Thompson v. Smith, 154 Va. 367 (1930): The court stated, "The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon... is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
3. Overreach of State Regulations Licensing, registration, and mandatory insurance requirements impose an unreasonable burden on the exercise of the right to travel. These requirements: convert a fundamental right into a regulated privilege. Impose financial and administrative barriers that disproportionately affect individuals who cannot afford the costs of compliance. Are not narrowly tailored to achieve the state’s interest in public safety.
4. Licensing: An Unnecessary Restriction Licensing requirements are based on the assumption that individuals are incapable of safely operating a vehicle without government approval. However: This assumption is speculative and does not account for the fact that many individuals can and do travel safely without a license. Licensing is a prior restraint on the exercise of a fundamental right, which is unconstitutional unless the state can demonstrate a compelling interest and show that the regulation is narrowly tailored.
Key Precedent: In Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938), the Supreme Court struck down a licensing requirement for distributing literature, holding that prior restraints on fundamental rights are unconstitutional. Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444
5. Registration: An Unjustified Burden Vehicle registration is primarily a revenue-generating mechanism for the state, not a safety measure. It imposes an unnecessary financial burden on individuals exercising their right to travel. The state’s interest in identifying vehicles for law enforcement purposes can be achieved through less restrictive means, such as voluntary identification systems or non-mandatory registration which already exists under title 34 and title 49 of the USC
6. Mandatory Insurance: A Violation of Individual Autonomy Requiring individuals to purchase insurance forces them into a private contract with a third party, which violates principles of individual autonomy and freedom of choice. The state cannot compel individuals to purchase a product or service as a condition of exercising a fundamental right. Key Precedent: In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012), the Supreme Court held that the federal government could not compel individuals to purchase health insurance under the Commerce Clause.
7. Ineffectiveness and Unreasonableness of Regulations Licensing, registration, and insurance requirements are not demonstrably effective in achieving their stated goals of public safety and accountability. For example: Unlicensed individuals are not inherently more dangerous than licensed individuals. Registration does not prevent accidents or improve road safety. Mandatory insurance does not guarantee compensation for victims, as insurance companies often deny claims or impose restrictive conditions.
A. Vagueness and Overbreadth These regulations are overly broad and apply to all individuals, regardless of whether they pose a risk to public safety. This violates the Due Process Clause, as laws must be narrowly tailored to address specific harms. The Supreme Court struck down a vague and overly broad law, holding that it violated due process. Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156
B. Disproportionate Burden These requirements disproportionately burden low-income individuals, effectively creating a system where only the wealthy can fully exercise their right to travel. This violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
8. Less Restrictive Alternatives The state’s interest in public safety can be achieved through less restrictive means that do not infringe on the right to travel, such as: Voluntary driver education programs. Non-mandatory vehicle identification systems. Encouraging, rather than mandating, liability insurance.
9. Precedents Supporting the Right to Travel Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. 35 (1867): The Supreme Court recognized the right to travel as fundamental and struck down a state tax on individuals leaving the state. Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941): The Court invalidated a law that restricted the movement of indigent individuals, reaffirming the right to travel.
10. Conclusion The right to travel is a fundamental constitutional right that cannot be unduly burdened by state regulations requiring licenses, vehicle registration, or mandatory insurance. These requirements convert a fundamental right into a regulated privilege. Impose unreasonable financial and administrative burdens. Are not narrowly tailored to achieve the state’s interest in public safety. The state must demonstrate a compelling interest and show that these regulations are the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. Absent such justification, these statutes should be deemed unconstitutional and invalid when applied to private travelers
Jonathan Mazzilli🐢liberty or death
Jonathan Mazzilli🐢liberty or death
Shout out to Power Inherent in the People.
youtube.com/@powerofthepeople?si=kxVNSBnQCF5_z8v7
for leading me to finding this lovely document
An RTT must see!
Hope he does a piece on it!
"As a matter of right, for the purposes of vehicular travel." 😜
www.scribd.com/document/372727381/public-vehicular…
And check out the links at the bottom of the page for more information!
1 week ago | [YT] | 3
View 29 replies
Jonathan Mazzilli🐢liberty or death
A message from a friend!
for those who are still trapped in the perpetual cycles of debt.
washed in an endless sea of bills, fees, and fines.
taxed and regulated to the brink of oblivion.
You know who you are!
The hamster wheel analogy is a metaphor for a situation where someone is engaged in a repetitive, often tiring, activity without making significant progress or achieving meaningful goals. It's like running on a wheel, expending energy but staying in the same place. This feeling can be associated with a sense of stagnation, frustration, and a lack of purpose.
"hamster on a wheel" is a common metaphor to describe a repetitive and often frustrating cycle of activity where a person feels busy and works hard but doesn't experience significant progress or a sense of achievement. It portrays a state of mind consumed by tasks that may feel productive but ultimately lead to exhaustion and a feeling of being stuck
BREAK THE WHEEL!!
2 months ago | [YT] | 3
View 4 replies
Jonathan Mazzilli🐢liberty or death
What is the difference between those who truly wish to help and those who wish to control??
The key difference lies in the motivation and the approach. Those who truly wish to help others are driven by empathy and a desire to improve another person's well-being without expecting anything in return.
Conversely, those who wish to control others are motivated by a need for power and control, often using help as a means to manipulate or dominate. This manifests in how they offer assistance, respecting boundaries or imposing their will.
The former focuses on empowerment and support, whereas the latter aims to restrict freedom and autonomy.
Helping Others (Empathy and Empowerment):
Focus on the other person's well-being:
Helpers see others as individuals with their own needs and desires, and they strive to support them in achieving their goals.
Encourage independence:
Helpers empower others by providing resources, guidance, and support that enables them to become self-sufficient.
Respect boundaries:
Helpers understand and respect the boundaries of others, recognizing that everyone has the right to make their own choices.
Motivation by compassion:
Helpers are driven by a genuine desire to alleviate suffering and promote the well-being of others.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Controlling Others (Power and Domination):
Focus on self-interest:
Controllers prioritize their own needs and desires, often at the expense of others.
Restrict freedom and autonomy:
Controllers attempt to dictate the actions and choices of others, limiting their freedom and independence.
Use manipulation and coercion:
Controllers may use manipulation, threats, or other coercive tactics to maintain control.
Motivation by dominance:
Controllers are driven by a desire to exert power and dominance over others.
Who's "help" do you want?
3 months ago | [YT] | 2
View 7 replies
Jonathan Mazzilli🐢liberty or death
"Independence Day should be “solemnized with pomp and parade, with shews (shows), games, sports, guns, bells, bonfire and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other from this time forward forever more.”
~John Adams
3 months ago | [YT] | 3
View 0 replies
Jonathan Mazzilli🐢liberty or death
Nothing but road pirates..... ye be warned!
☠️🏴☠️🟦🟦🟦🟦🟦🟦🟦🟦🟦🟦🟦🟦🏴☠️☠️
The Jolly Roger is the traditional name for the flags flown by pirates, most famously featuring a skull and crossbones on a black background. It served as a warning to other ships that they were about to be attacked and that the pirates would show no mercy. While the skull and crossbones is the most recognizable design, individual pirates often used other variations to represent their specific crews or intentions.
3 months ago | [YT] | 6
View 8 replies
Jonathan Mazzilli🐢liberty or death
Fear and government
Check it out at the Tenth Amendment Center
youtube.com/@tenthamendmentcenter?si=dDTxPraFqgLZv…
Consider these while you watch!!
👇👇👇👇👇🤗👇👇👇👇👇
"Good intentions will always be pleaded, for every assumption of power; but they cannot justify it... It is hardly too strong to say, that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intention, real or pretended."
~ Daniel Webster
'the right of locomotion and the right to property coupled with the right to defend it are the guardians of all other rights"
~ Frederick Douglass
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."
~ Patrick Henry
5 months ago | [YT] | 2
View 17 replies
Jonathan Mazzilli🐢liberty or death
Right to Travel Without License, Registration, or Insurance
1. The Right to Travel is a Fundamental Constitutional Right
The right to travel is a well-established constitutional right, recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court as fundamental and inherent to the concept of liberty.
Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969):
The Court held that the right to travel is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution.
This right includes the ability to move freely between states and within a state without undue interference from the government.
2. Distinction Between Rights and Privileges
The act of traveling is a right, not a privilege. While the state may regulate certain activities for public safety, it cannot convert a fundamental right into a privilege that requires government permission.
Thompson v. Smith, 154 Va. 367 (1930):
The court stated,
"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon... is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
3. Overreach of State Regulations
Licensing, registration, and mandatory insurance requirements impose an unreasonable burden on the exercise of the right to travel.
These requirements: convert a fundamental right into a regulated privilege.
Impose financial and administrative barriers that disproportionately affect individuals who cannot afford the costs of compliance.
Are not narrowly tailored to achieve the state’s interest in public safety.
4. Licensing: An Unnecessary Restriction
Licensing requirements are based on the assumption that individuals are incapable of safely operating a vehicle without government approval.
However: This assumption is speculative and does not account for the fact that many individuals can and do travel safely without a license.
Licensing is a prior restraint on the exercise of a fundamental right, which is unconstitutional unless the state can demonstrate a compelling interest and show that the regulation is narrowly tailored.
Key Precedent: In Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938), the Supreme Court struck down a licensing requirement for distributing literature, holding that prior restraints on fundamental rights are unconstitutional.
Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444
5. Registration: An Unjustified Burden
Vehicle registration is primarily a revenue-generating mechanism for the state, not a safety measure. It imposes an unnecessary financial burden on individuals exercising their right to travel.
The state’s interest in identifying vehicles for law enforcement purposes can be achieved through less restrictive means, such as voluntary identification systems or non-mandatory registration which already exists under title 34 and title 49 of the USC
6. Mandatory Insurance: A Violation of Individual Autonomy
Requiring individuals to purchase insurance forces them into a private contract with a third party, which violates principles of individual autonomy and freedom of choice.
The state cannot compel individuals to purchase a product or service as a condition of exercising a fundamental right.
Key Precedent: In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012),
the Supreme Court held that the federal government could not compel individuals to purchase health insurance under the Commerce Clause.
7. Ineffectiveness and Unreasonableness of Regulations
Licensing, registration, and insurance requirements are not demonstrably effective in achieving their stated goals of public safety and accountability.
For example:
Unlicensed individuals are not inherently more dangerous than licensed individuals.
Registration does not prevent accidents or improve road safety.
Mandatory insurance does not guarantee compensation for victims, as insurance companies often deny claims or impose restrictive conditions.
A. Vagueness and Overbreadth
These regulations are overly broad and apply to all individuals, regardless of whether they pose a risk to public safety. This violates the Due Process Clause, as laws must be narrowly tailored to address specific harms.
The Supreme Court struck down a vague and overly broad law, holding that it violated due process.
Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156
B. Disproportionate Burden
These requirements disproportionately burden low-income individuals, effectively creating a system where only the wealthy can fully exercise their right to travel. This violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
8. Less Restrictive Alternatives
The state’s interest in public safety can be achieved through less restrictive means that do not infringe on the right to travel, such as:
Voluntary driver education programs.
Non-mandatory vehicle identification systems.
Encouraging, rather than mandating, liability insurance.
9. Precedents Supporting the Right to Travel
Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. 35 (1867):
The Supreme Court recognized the right to travel as fundamental and struck down a state tax on individuals leaving the state.
Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941):
The Court invalidated a law that restricted the movement of indigent individuals, reaffirming the right to travel.
10. Conclusion
The right to travel is a fundamental constitutional right that cannot be unduly burdened by state regulations requiring licenses, vehicle registration, or mandatory insurance.
These requirements convert a fundamental right into a regulated privilege.
Impose unreasonable financial and administrative burdens.
Are not narrowly tailored to achieve the state’s interest in public safety.
The state must demonstrate a compelling interest and show that these regulations are the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. Absent such justification, these statutes should be deemed unconstitutional and invalid when applied to private travelers
5 months ago | [YT] | 7
View 196 replies
Jonathan Mazzilli🐢liberty or death
The state has once again failed to file their brief or anything else in time..
Let's see where we go from hear!
5 months ago | [YT] | 6
View 102 replies
Load more