Apparently the EPA Isn't Happy With My Car!!

I have no burden of anything... no recall on my car.. yet!! One license one state laws are effective, one emission standard for all states ARE NOT!!! cars still have California emissions acceptance or federal acceptance on emission stickers affixed to cars!!! who wins,?? a state the car will probably never be registered in California or federal requirements? last I checked states can NOT over rule federal requirements. Car meet fed requirements... by fed standards.. still does!! Newer cars.. thats another issue... do they meet fed requiirements? take you 1970 car and see if its legal by newer, 2017 requirements.. NO, but you can still drive, register it!!

scalabro wrote:Um...no.

VW already admitted guilt.

And....you do not have a constitutional right to drive a car.

If the state wants to deny you a registration or inspection because your car does not meet federal or state emissions standards, they have every legal right to do so.

When you signed your drivers license application, you agreed to abide by state motor vehicle rules.

But go ahead and plead the 5th...

I would disagree concerning the right to drive...because you don't drive, you travel, a clear distinction .. driving = commercial use ; traveling = non-commericial. Its an old argument. One certainly has the right to assemble ... and one has the right to decide the mode of transport to effect this right. Just MO on traveling about the USA.

The gov't will say : you have no right to get to a place by : walking, motor vehicle, airplane etc .. all are wrong. Courts also have noted our right to travel is a right.

And I never signed anything that said I would abide with MV rules. When I encounter such stuff (also phrases like "when you sign this you can be charged with perjury", etc) on gov't forms, I scratch that stuff out.

So VW owners know that they likely would not pass an emissions test....5th amendment should prevail. But that's just me...old school.

Also, in other countries, Israel for example, anything you say to the cops cannot be used against you in court .... they assume, I guess, that anything you did say was coerced anyways.

I would disagree concerning the right to drive...because you don't drive, you travel, a clear distinction ..

ah yes, but would you be traveling west to east in search of more light?

David isn't answering to anyone. He's got bodies stacked around his compound like cordwood.

davidmcbeth3 wrote:

scalabro wrote:Um...no.

VW already admitted guilt.

And....you do not have a constitutional right to drive a car.

If the state wants to deny you a registration or inspection because your car does not meet federal or state emissions standards, they have every legal right to do so.

When you signed your drivers license application, you agreed to abide by state motor vehicle rules.

But go ahead and plead the 5th...

I would disagree concerning the right to drive...because you don't drive, you travel, a clear distinction .. driving = commercial use ; traveling = non-commericial. Its an old argument. One certainly has the right to assemble ... and one has the right to decide the mode of transport to effect this right. Just MO on traveling about the USA.

The gov't will say : you have no right to get to a place by : walking, motor vehicle, airplane etc .. all are wrong. Courts also have noted our right to travel is a right.

And I never signed anything that said I would abide with MV rules. When I encounter such stuff (also phrases like "when you sign this you can be charged with perjury", etc) on gov't forms, I scratch that stuff out.

So VW owners know that they likely would not pass an emissions test....5th amendment should prevail. But that's just me...old school.

Also, in other countries, Israel for example, anything you say to the cops cannot be used against you in court .... they assume, I guess, that anything you did say was coerced anyways.

You have the right to travel, but the "means" by which you travel is not a right. A driver's license is a State issued privilege. Abuse that privilege and unlike your rights, it can and will be taken away. Then you'll find out that it's not a right,.... it's your wrong.

And here's another reality check, this isn't Israel.

Paul

I know of a soon to be 16 yo that understands very clearly that it is a privilege and not a right to drive in the very small empire that is under my control (barely)!!!

It is a right. See 1st amendment .. right to assemble. IMO

Remember..any law that violates the 1st amendment is void.

davidmcbeth3 wrote:It is a right. See 1st amendment .. right to assemble. IMO

Remember..any law that violates the 1st amendment is void.

Not even close to applying in any way, shape, or form that the 1st makes driving a vehicle a "right". Your gonna pull a muscle trying to stretch that much !

Paul

Sunny Boy wrote:
You have the right to travel, but the "means" by which you travel is not a right. A driver's license is a State issued privilege. Abuse that privilege and unlike your rights, it can and will be taken away. Then you'll find out that it's not a right,.... it's your wrong.

And here's another reality check, this isn't Israel.

Paul

Why do I need a license to use what my tax dollars bought and paid for?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement ... States_law

Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them."

For much of American history, the right to travel included the right to travel by the vehicle of one's choice, and courts occasionally struck down regional regulations that required licenses or government permission to travel on public roadways. With the advent of the automobile, however, courts began upholding laws and regulations requiring licenses to operate vehicles on roadways. Constitutional scholar Roger Roots has referred to the forgotten right to travel without license as "the orphaned right."

And for a more in depth look.

http://www.realtruth.biz/driving/supremecourt.htm

Your assuming that just because you have a right to travel, it automatically gives you a right to operate a motor vehicle on public roads. See how far you get with that excuse in the courts if you ever get your license pulled. Then get back to us about it.

Paul

Sunny Boy wrote:Your assuming that just because you have a right to travel, it automatically gives you a right to operate a motor vehicle on public roads. See how far you get with that excuse in the courts if you ever get your license pulled. Then get back to us about it.

Paul

The gov't is not my mommy .... "licensed pulled" LOL in my state, it does not mean much, they can only give one a ticket for driving w/o one .. a $75 civil fine that one does not need to pay in reality.



I don't worry much about gov't "rules" ...

Look the gov't wants you to stop burning coal. If they say you cannot, you gonna stop?

So you admit that having a driver's license is not a "right".

The Government (EPA) hasn't said anything about coal stoves, just coal fire power plants, and that you can't use your modern coal stove for wood unless it's certified for wood also. Otherwise they don't care about coal stoves.

Paul

Otherwise they don't care about coal stoves.

That is an all encompassing leap of faith or you know something no one else does. They know that the amount of coal burned in appliances is minuscule and all they need to do is shut down the big markets. Then no one will stay in business to provide coal for a few nuts that burn it in their houses.

Kevin

So why haven't they already shut down all the big markets, much less the smaller anthracite coal outfits that do a lot of our coal supply ?

And if what you say were true, don't you think that with all the many years of government commotion about many ways to legislate and restrictions to deal with so-called glo-bull warming,... plus the EPA just tightened up the regs for wood stoves,.... don't you think that they'd have included coal stoves, when all it would take is the stroke of a pen ?

And if we're only a few nuts, why did Tractor Supply get into the coal supply business ? Stove sales are up and coal demand is up. I've got three more coal suppliers that have opened up within ten miles of me in the past two years.

If I have to take a leap of faith, I'll stick with my view rather than yours.

Paul

Sunny Boy wrote:So you admit that having a driver's license is not a "right".

The Government (EPA) hasn't said anything about coal stoves, just coal fire power plants, and that you can't use your modern coal stove for wood unless it's certified for wood also. Otherwise they don't care about coal stoves.

Paul

No its a right...I'm just explaining that its not even considered a crime by the guberment.

Let me clarify further: one does not need permission or license to travel about; a DL is/can be required for commercial purposes.

Thank for the note about the EPA and our stoves. But I don't think that they are not trying to get us to shut down our coal stoves through regulation. By regulation of efficiency requirements, emissions, etc. they have shown disdain for coal burners and wood burners. I guess that they want us to go to utilities that are controlled by the guberment.

Hey, take those VW and turn them into steam driven MVs - run by coal ! Choo Choo !