There is the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution which allows the Federal Government to enforce curtain laws in the individual states; but the States don't have to cooperate with the Federal Government in enforcing such laws, and currently many states are passing laws to prohibit state agencies from cooperating with a number of laws from Obamacare, to NSA, and other issues; there are even states which will not aid the Federal Government in enforcing curtain gun laws.

Thank you for that soul!!! I hope its not too late for my daughter's generation.

Side note, my daughters generation are growing up with only touch screens.
stop and think what these kids are going to be doing at 30-35!!!! Blows my mind

The 14th amendment explained......

http://www.ask.com/youtube?q=14+amendment+explained+youtube&v=lF7UvzbRcKs&qsrc=472

Actually the whole constitution as it was written by representatives of the states under the concept of having a federal government with enumerated powers. All other powers were retained by the states and the people.

The rectangle of light in the acres of a farm was the window of the library of Judge Narragansett. He sat at a table, and the light of his lamp fell on the copy of an ancient document. He had marked and crossed out the contradictions in its statements that had once been the cause of its destruction. He was now adding a new clause to its pages: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade . . ."

at the end of the last Chapter of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged"!

Yeah and it all started here, Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 6 L. Ed. 23, 6 L. Ed. 2d 23 (1824). This is where the BAR started the hijacking of the commerce clause.

But this opinion was the total destruction of the constitution by the commerce clause, Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 63 S. Ct. 82, 87 L. Ed. 122 (1942).

But to really destroy the constitution, you need to add the good old necessary and proper clause. That was the combination used for Odumbocare and both were struck down.

But in Federalist #42 by Madison, there was a very clear definition of what was construed...

"The necessity of a superintending authority over the reciprocal trade of confederated States, has been illustrated by other examples as well as our own. In Switzerland, where the Union is so very slight, each canton is obliged to allow to merchandises a passage through its jurisdiction into other cantons, without an augmentation of the tolls. In Germany it is a law of the empire, that the princes and states shall not lay tolls or customs on bridges, rivers, or passages, without the consent of the emperor and the diet; though it appears from a quotation in an antecedent paper, that the practice in this, as in many other instances in that confederacy, has not followed the law, and has produced there the mischiefs which have been foreseen here. Among the restraints imposed by the Union of the Netherlands on its members, one is, that they shall not establish imposts disadvantageous to their neighbors, without the general permission."

So (((Kim)))...We made it to pg. 2...How much longer before this one slides off the cliff??...

But much has been done to abrogate the freedom of this great land and to confer more power than was ever meant to reside in the Federal government.

First, Amendment XII which bought the political party structure into power. By the original wording in the constitution, every person ran for president and the second highest votes won vice president. More often than not, the two positions were filled by opposing views, a check and balance.

But not to make matters even worse, the states gave up all control they were meant to employ upon the Federal government with the ratification of Amendment XVII by our great banker friends of the Federal Reserve.

Amendment XVII deals with the election of Senators. The founders gave the House to the people but reserved the Senators as representatives of the states. The states were to maintain a leash on the government by the Senate.

Admiralty law, the law of contracts, the UCC, that is the basis of all the statutes. This is what the people need to wake up to. The whole corrupt court system is designed to make people believe that have jurisdicition. However contract law is a civil matter, not criminal but they proceed as if they had criminal authority.

But to truly get screwed in this system, use a lawyer.

And they would be absolutely correct to a certain degree. A driver license is required if you are conducting commerce upon the highways and byways.

And the states do have a right to legislate and regulate "drivers". However there is a big difference in the concept of "driving" and "traveling" other than the semantics.

And it has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights, they don't apply to the people but are a restriction upon the government, not the people. But our founders just to be sure reminded the government in Amendment IX that we have a heck of a lot of rights, everything short of impeding the rights of another.

But that is the whole basis of the problem, registering. If it were a true "law", you wouldn't need to register. The real clue to it being a "legal" rather than a "lawful" matter is having to apply.

LAW. That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each other. That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens, subject to sanctions or legal consequences, is a "law." Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N. E. 705.

In old English jurisprudence, "law" is used to signify an oath, or the privilege of being sworn; as in the, phrases "to wage one's law," "to lose one's law."

The term is also used in opposition to "fact." Thus questions of law are to be decided by the court, while it is the province of the jury to solve questions of fact.

LAWFUL. Legal; warranted or authorized by the law; having the qualifications prescribed by law; not contrary to nor forbidden by the law. Ohio Automatic Sprinkler Co. v. Fender, 108 Ohio St. 149, 141 N.E. 269, 275; McDonnell v. Murnan Shipbuilding Corporation, 210 Ala. 611, 98 So. 887, 889; Hafner Mfg. Co. v. City of St. Louis, 262 Mo. 621, 172 S.W. 28, 33.

The principal distinction between the terms "lawful" and "legal" is that the former contemplates the substance of law, the latter the form of law. To say of an act that it is "lawful" implies that it is authorized, sanctioned, or at any rate not forbidden, by law. To say that it is "legal" implies that it is done or performed in accordance with the forms and usages of law, or in a technical manner.

In this sense "illegal" approaches the meaning of "invalid." For example, a contract or will, executed without the required formalities, might be said to be invalid or illegal, but could not be described as unlawful. Further, the word "lawful" more clearly implies an ethical content than does "legal." The latter goes no further than to denote compliance, with positive, technical, or formal rules; while the former usually imports a moral substance or ethical permissibility. A further distinction is that the word "legal" is used as the synonym of "constructive," which "lawful" is not. Thus "legal fraud" is fraud implied or inferred by law, or made out by construction.

[b/]LEGAL. 1. Conforming to the law; according to law; required or permitted by law; not forbidden or discountenanced by law; good and effectual in law. Freeman v. Fowler Packing Co., 135 Kan. 378, 11 P.2d 276, 277; General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. Schwartz, 118 N.J.L. 25, 190 A. 625, 627.

2. Proper or sufficient to be recognized by the law; cognizable in the courts; competent or adequate to fulfill the requirements of the law.

3. Cognizable in courts of law, as distinguished from courts of equity; construed or governed by the rules and principles of law, in contradistinction to rules of equity.

4. Posited by the courts as the inference or imputation of the law, as a matter of construction, rather than established by actual proof; e. g., legal malice. See Lawful.

5. Created by law. De Vita v. Pianisani, 127 Misc. 611, 217 N.Y.S. 438, 440.

6. Lawful; of or pertaining to law. Kinsley v. Herald & Globe ***'n, 113 Vt. 272, 34 A.2d 99, 101, 148 A.L.R. 1164.

Black's Law Dictionary, Revised 4th Edition, 1968.

Figured it out yet?

I would whole heartily disagree, it was not an error as it gave the government a just power of insuring that commerce between the states was free flowing and the federal government had just powers to regulate foreign trade and with the Indians.

It was so fully understood that Madison gave it very scant words in the Federalist papers, explicitly number 42.

What has happened is a myriad of events that conspire to defeat the very source that gives the government power, the constitution, least of all the railroading of the original 13th Amendment.

I would disagree with you on two points, first the states do have a right to regulate driving but secondly, they have overstepped their bounds.

But the states do tell you the truth, but not the whole truth.

First, driving is a privilege that the states have every right to regulate. The slight of hand is the definition of driving that needs to be regulated, commercial activity.

Second, you must apply to have a license. With that application, you are declaring that you are a driver and intend to engage in a commercial activity. Now that isn't a bad thing as sometimes you want to rent a car or drive a company vehicle, both requiring a driver's license.

Third, and most important, a driver's license is a contract in which you have agree, albeit by coercion, that you agree to be bound by the statutes. Ouch!!

It is not the college kid that has been fed a gross misrepresentation sir. You need to check your premises, one is in error, there can be no conflicts.

And the constitution confers no rights whatsoever to the people, the people conferred certain enumerated rights to the government but not the right to take the people's rights as so explicitly stated by Amendment IX.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Overrides bull every time. And those "traffic" revenue officers are the most fun of them all. And why is it that I can travel down the highway doing 80 where a driver can only do 60 and not have a problem?

Isn't the law wonderful?

The Civil War did many things, some of which are falsely claimed and other more important aspects that they try to hide.

But yes the destruction of the states started with Amendment XII but the major damage started with Amendment XIV. And XIV damaged more from it illegality than from it's wording.

What fines? Not unless you hire a lawyer. If you refuse to learn the law, then you are at the mercy of the law.

Here is a pioneer in not having a license for more than 35 years, may he rest in peace.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Epdh8kG1LI CHARLIE SPRINKLE, I have been traveling without a license for years

No the kid doesn't, he is absolutely correct. The difference being you are presenting pure conjecture and I am presenting that which I defend in any court.

You see in this country, you must have "standing" to fight legal matters in court. But to people like me, the court denies me that standing by insuring I never have reason to be there. If someone is stupid enough to actually give me a ticket, all is dismissed very quickly and that means no standing.

So until you actually understand the law, I would suggest you refrain from offering legal advice.

The XIV Amendment comes in five parts:

"Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This part which was advertised as "making the blacks equal" did just that, but not in the manner which was ill conceived by the people. It did not bring the blacks up to the absolute freedoms of the people, but instead made the people equal in being subjects.

It has also taken the "Bill of Rights" and redefined those as privileges and immunities of the citizens, those "subject" to jurisdiction.

"Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
* changed by XXVI Amendment."

This was just a change to allow any male a citizen to vote except for the Indians that weren't taxed. Now if they paid tax.... But also not the "rebellion clause", and what about the South?

"Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

And this was a little exfacto law to cover the lack of Southern state representation in Congress during the passing of this Amendment. But note the last sentence, this was the blackmail used on the Southern states for readmission to Congress. The States had to ratify the Amendment.

"Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."

Ah, another screw the South clause whereas the South were to be taxed to pay for being defeated in a war started by the Northern Federal complex while at the same time being totally responsible for all their own debts.

"Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

And now the most heinous of the clauses to the Amendments starting with Amendment XIII. Congress granting itself additional powers they didn't have with the constitution.

And that is Amendment XIV.

Can't really agree there as liberals take one way and the conservatives take another. It is only the free man that wishes neither to take or be taken that is truly free.

And the courts can't take that which they do not have. Deny them their jurisdiction, stand up for your rights, know the law.