Although traffic infractions in Colorado are civil, the Colorado general assembly has determined that certain violations of the vehicles and traffic law are not infractions, but are traffic misdemeanors, which are criminal. For example, driving without a license is a misdemeanor traffic offense, as is not having insurance. Speeding is a traffic infraction and is civil. It is not accurate to say a traffic ticket is civil or criminal, as it all depends on what one is charged with. In Colorado, there is no such thing as a "traffic ticket," as the instrument upon which the charges are assigned, is called a uniform summons and complaint.
It has been said that the "right to travel" can not be converted into a crime. An interesting statement. Actually it can be. Any right can be converted into a crime. The question is, do you know how to properly challenge a statute making a right illegal? For example, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and yet there are laws on the books making the carrying of concealed firearm illegal.
No doubt you have heard it said for years that an unconstitutional law is void and there is no obligation to obey it. However, what I seldom hear is how to properly challenge an unconstitutional statute. All statutes are presumed valid, and anyone challenging the statue carries the burden of proof to demonstrate that it is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. So, one may believe that one has a right to do something because the constitution protects that right, such as the right to travel, but if a law is in place which impairs or infringes on that right, the burden is on the one the statute injures to challenge that law and have it declared unconstitutional. Merely claiming one has a right is insufficient.
With respect to licensing cars and the operators thereof, the government's position is that by merely requiring licensure it has not restricted anyone's right to travel. Rather, under the police power, the state claims a legitimate interest in regulating usage of a vehicle on the public highways and so exercises that interest by deeming usage criminal. As such, the question of licensure does not concern the "right to travel." Rather the ultimate question is, by requiring a license before using your property, has there been an unconstitutional taking of property without due process and without just compensation? Keep in mind, Colorado courts hold that the use of property is a property right as well. License is permission to do what is illegal. Hence, in order to require a license to use your car, both which are property rights, a statute had to make the use illegal, thereby taking the property of use away from you. Further, liberty, which is freedom, which includes use of the public highways, is also property.
A Colorado statute says that a driver license is required when using a "motor vehicle" on the highway. If one uses the property off the highway, there is no requirement for a license, as such use has not been deemed illegal. However, when one wants to use the property on the highway, the State steps in and says, "you are my venue now, and your use of your property in my venue is subject to my rules." Question: to what extent can the State control my use of my property when I use my property on public highways? Can the state control my use to the extent of alienating me from my property? The state says yes. I say no.
"We hold these truths to be self evident" says the declaration of independence, "that all men are * * * endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these rights are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men . . . that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it . . ."
The Colorado government, as well as the government of its sister states, was created by a constitution. The constitution is analogous to a power of attorney or agency. For the purpose of the relationship, the people are sovereign, the government their agent. The constitution both grants power and limits power granted. The state constitutions, unlike the constitution for the United States of America, grants to the lawmakers the plenary power to make law. In other words, the state constitutions grant absolute power to lawmakers to determine what is and isn't reality, while the Federal constitution grants limited power to the United States. In the states, the restraining factors on the power of government are 1) the power must be inherent in the people to begin with (no agent may do what the principal himself could not do; and 2) the people have retained to themselves certain rights, the boundaries of which the government may not transgress. When the government makes and enforces a law it does not possess power to make and enforce, the exercise is void. But, as I said earlier, the exercise of power must be challenged as void. The burden is on the challenger.
It is my position that the Colorado government was established pursuant to the Public Policy declared in the Declaration of Independence. In other words, State government exists for one purpose: to secure the certain unalienable rights endowed in all by the Creator. Because when government becomes destructive to this end, the people have a right to abolish it, should the government become destructive to its established end, whether the people abolish it or not, the power of government is no longer legitimate, and the people have a right to withdraw their consent, as provided by the maxim of law providing that the lesser power is included in the greater.
Back to the license. License is permission; permission is control. In a relationship where one has permission from another to do a thing, that permission is subject to will of the grantor, no matter how arbitrary or capricious that will may be, even to the point of withdrawing the permission and punishing for doing a thing without permission.
The question of permission goes to the question of the right to control. I have an unalienable right to Liberty and use of my property. My neighbor has an unalienable right to Liberty and use of her property. The government has a political right to secure the unalienable right of Liberty and use of property endowed in all by the Creator. How does one balance all these rights? Can they be balanced? By balancing them are some unalienable rights diminished? Are unalienable rights taken. What about the collective rights of the public in general? Does the public have a collective right? Should the public right yield to the private right? Or should private rights yield to the public right? These are the questions looked at by lawmakers, and by courts through antiquity. These are the questions which shape the political philosophies of both the right and the left. What is your particular bent? How will you spin these perspectives to best serve you? (I ask these rhetorically of course)
Contemporary political philosophies are shaped by perceived needs and wants of the policy makers. But let me ask, should political philosophy be shaped by law, or law by political philosophy? In America today, it appears that law is shaping philosophy; the end justifies the means. The Patriot act is "necessary" notwithstanding fundamental Union Policy to the contrary. Necessity is the tool which forges the shackles of despotism.
But this is America, and the Union Policy cannot be overridden by the despot in the name of necessity for in America government is established for one purpose: To secure the unalienable rights endowed in all by the Creator. Should government become destructive to this end, the government ceases to be government and the people have a right to abolish it and begin again. To secure the sanctity of this right, those who laid the cornerstone of Union Policy specifically stated that "governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes, and all experience has shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the form of government to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce the People under absolute despotism, the people have a right, a duty to throw off the government and to provide new guards for the future security. "
As such, there can be only one dominate political philosophy in America, because every government act inconsistent with the fundamental Union Policy is subject to righteous overthrow. That one policy is this: The Creator endowed each man and woman with certain unalienable rights. Government is established to secure those rights. Chief among those rights are Liberty and use of property. Is my exercise of Liberty dangerous? Absolutely! Is my use of property dangerous? Absolutely! I might hurt someone if I am free to exercise my Liberty. I might damage someone if I use my property. Such is the risk of Freedom! And if America were truly Free, America would be a very dangerous place to live, as there would be very little security! But do security and freedom ever dwell simultaneously in the same place?
Every law passed by American Government must be consistent with the Union Policy, otherwise it is a step in the direction away from that for which government is established. Inherent in the law compelling me to be licensed to exercise my personal liberty, and use my personal property for the purpose for which it was intended, is a presumption that the government has a right to compel me to obtain its permission to do that which Union Policy provides that I have an unalienable right. Inherent in the presumption that the government has a right to compel me to obtain permission, is the presumption that I have no unalienable right to Liberty and use of property; that liberty and use of property are merely privileges granted by government. On the face of a statute compelling me to acquire permission to do that which I have an unalienable right to do, is the prima facie evidence that the government has become destructive to the end it was established to secure. Hence, the burden is on the one claiming to prove that the statute itself is unconstitutional and void, as contrary to Union Policy.
These are the issues we should be raising. Not whether the gold fringe flag belongs in the courtroom. Not whether the United States is a corporation. Not whether this nation is bankrupt. These issues distract us from our true power and true mission. Learn how to challenge the statutes which keep America in bondage. Rather than saying that the Patriot Act has destroyed the constitution, we should know how to mount an assault on the Patriot Act with the constitution.
Let me no more hear of how the government is destroying American freedoms! Let me hear how Americans are throwing off the government by conquering statutes with law. The government is a reflection of the collective thoughts of the people who give it power by consensual allegiance. Withdraw consent, renounce allegiance, challenge the law keeping America in bondage. Don't wait until bloodshed is required to throw off despotism. Learn the truth, and the truth will set us free.
David Justice
David Justice
