should help with understanding me

https://bustednuckles.com/2020/05/03/a-little-something-to-keep-in-mind-these-da
ys/

Beacuse if you dont get this, you will never have a hope of understanding WHY I say the things I do.

Im sure youve got at least one example..

Again,, a LAW that goes against the Constitution Is No Law at all...

You can cite chapter and verse Law that requires things of the People,, BUT, IF it goes against the Constitution,, Its Null and Void, at the time of signing,not necessary that it be so labeled in court,, Now, Getting that Out of a court,, well,, thats another matter, entirely, innit?

U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS
“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, 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. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”

Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” –

Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 “… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right” -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”

Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”

Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”



Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). “A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile


I dont have a License to exercise my First amendment,

And a License, BTW, is nothing more than

Permission from the State to DO what would otherwise be illegal.

For the good of the many arguments can be made on many ways,,

Just as it would seem to be reasonable and in keeping people safe, all guns should be abolished,, to some peoples way of thinking,, that doesnt make it right.
The Constitution doesnt Give us rights, nor does it enumerate all of them, it certainly is a statement that the government May Not interfere in our lives in certain places..

Eegore wrote on 05/04/20 at 06:17:33:

"... Is it unconstitutional to isolate legal US citizens that carry a disease that will infect others against their will?  ..."

By the way you said that statement, and your past comments/beliefs.
This statement signifies that YOU believe that,
“… legal US citizens that carry a disease that will infect others against their will …”
Should be severely punished, confined, forcefully isolated, identified, tracked, issued, ’travel’ papers, etc, etc, etc, !

So then, it must also be the case that you believe, that in some States, like Calf, where a act of,
“... knowingly exposing someone to other communicable diseases …”
the punishment has been greatly reduced.  Is totally wrong then ?

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/new-california-law-reduces-penalty-kn...
https://pridelegal.com/california-hiv-laws/

Eegore wrote on 05/04/20 at 08:34:01:

"... this is an example of using extreme circumstance to delegitimize my questions on where government powers should or should not be.

Please explain your POV, on what the, punishment, restrictions, or what government powers should be used when,
someone having HIV, knowingly infects someone else with HIV.

"...I never said anything like that..."
No you didn't.
Nor did I say you did.
I simply came to a logical conclusion, based on:
"...the way you said that statement..."
"...your past comments/beliefs..."
"...this statement signifies that..."

And this:
"... the punishment has been greatly reduced.  Is totally wrong then ? "
And you said: "I don't believe that."

Please clarify.

Eegore wrote on 05/04/20 at 06:09:19:


Serious question Eegore, do you really not understand why Trump refuses to answer questions that undo him. Because if you do then you by extension should be able to understand why JoG does the same. JoG just follows the example of Trump. And as JoG has no oversight he's free to obfuscate as much as he likes, especially with his loyal cavalry always ready to take up each other's slack.

@Eegore,

Well that's a fair enough answer, but that it is the type of rhetorical device used by people who are patently incorrect or wish to pursue obviously incorrect lines of reasoning. We, all of us do cherry pick data to support our arguments, to at least a very small extent, even if it is by omission rather than commission. However people who wish to pursue, for example a plainly racist agenda, will go much further than cherry picking.

To answer your question 'why does JoG do this" is to understand the very notion of 'the pertinent question'. And this is best illustrated by the cute fable of the new household cat.

Previously the mice in the house had a pretty good time until the new cat arrived who was picking them off one at a time. So a grand meeting was called about how to deal with this new threat. All the mice gathered in the secret hole in the pantry to nut it out. There was much discussion when the idea of belling the cat was proffered.

They would bell the cat and thus, while life would not be as good as it was they at least would be able to hear him coming which would give them a precious few seconds to scarper. Well, everyone thought this was an absolutely splendid idea, and merriment ensued and much alcoholic mead was consumed.

That was until an elderly and wise old mouse, coughed and ahemed a bit until he got everyone's attention, out of respect they all quietened down and clearing his throat once more, the old mouse said, "this is no doubt a marvellous idea" which he fully endorses, however he did have one question, "who will bell the cat".  He sat down and everyone went quiet.

Who will bell the cat is what is known as a pertinent question and it never needs to be answered. The very asking of the question is sufficient to undo the false or illogical or specious reasoning on which it is based.

I think you might suspect, Eegore, when you ask a pertinent question and we all know why you'll never get an answer, in the very asking of the question you undo the argument. You'll only get an answer from those who are willing to engage in good faith, and good faith is not something that JoG or the other Trumpeteers are interested in. Yes it's true that Trump did not create this technique, however he gives validation to those with his capacity for racist, ugly, and patently false reasoning.

JoG simply takes it to the ultimate extreme where his stock answer, if he does answer at all is to simply say "lies!" it's all lies. Quite insane really.

 I'm not all that interested in the personal politics of a situation in most cases.  For instance it doesn't matter if someone is racist, or not racist, a DFI TDS UL QWYJIBO, or Conservative when it comes to reading the material they provide, in full, and trying to have an adult conversation about the content of that material.

 The issue for me is the expectation that I ignore the parts of the material they don't like, or didn't even bother to look at.