It’s Just a Game

February 16, 2005 | Civil Liberties, Constitution, General

There are many topics that I could cover in an article. Certainly immigration, taxation and other worldwide events would make interesting reading. However, I thought that I would deviate a little and talk about basketball.

My stature would not suggest that I had any talent toward the game but when I was in the Navy, and stationed on land, I played everyday and to my surprise and to the chagrin of many an opponent, I was an amazing shooter.

Now lets talk about this game that we are going to play. This is going to be a little different than your standard game so lets layout the scenario. The rulebook is awash in definitions, references, and legalese and is more than 50,000 pages; it started out as a document just a mere 3,500 words long. Of course it was written at the very inception of this game and I am yet to find someone who has read its current rendition, or for that matter anyone who understands a word of the original intent.

The two teams that will compete today are the Governments versus the Peoples. I am the coach of the Peoples and we will be playing away tonight, and as I think of it, we never have home court advantage. For the Governments at center is George Executive, at forward is Ted Legislative and at guard we have William H. Judiciary who is playing his last season. For the Peoples at center is Elden Campbell, at forward is Vince Carter and Ron Mercer, at guards we have Jason Kidd and Travis Best. Our referee for this evening is Joe Policeman.

Some may have noticed that the Governments are playing only three but not to worry they play an impressive game.

The National Anthem is played and the players take to the court. George Executive and Elden Campbell take their places at center court and the ref tosses the ball high into the air. At seven foot Campbell towers over Executive, who stands only about five foot ten inches. Campbell soars into the air and easily bats the ball to Jason Kidd. The ref Joe Policeman blows his whistle and play stops. He calls Campbell for a foul to which Campbell scowls in disgust and asks what the heck he did to be called. The ref turns to William H. Judiciary, the guard for the opposition, and states that he has sighted Campbell for height violation. Judiciary thinks for a moment and concludes that the original authors of the Rule Book could not have imagined that players would reach a towering height of seven foot. Allowing the Governments two free throws enforces the foul and Executive sinks one.

The Peoples take the ball out. Vince Carter passes to Jason Kidd who begins to dribble the ball up court and the whistle once again sounds. Kidd is called for dribbling without a license. I jump from my seat on the bench and go ballistic; the home team crowd, who has of course never read the rulebook, boos me raucously.

I am now in the face of the ref yelling and screaming that he doesn’t know what the heck he is talking about. He points out that in Title 36 of the Rule Book it clearly states that participants in the arena must have a license to dribble on the court, and so the Governments are awarded ten more free throws, two for each of my squad who don’t have this license, the Governments sink five. The score is now six nothing and we haven’t been down court yet.

I call up to the booth and ask what the hell is going on here? They are reading through the Rule Book, Title 36, and sure enough it states that all participants in the arena must have a license to dribble. A note is to reference Title 27, Subchapter B. The game continues as I ask the guys in the booth to look further.

Back and forth the players move up and down the court with the Governments pilling up an impressive score, mostly based on foul shooting. The first quarter ends and the Governments are up 26 to 6.

I have a couple of minutes so I race to the booth to check the Rule Book. I go directly to Title 27, Subchapter B and find that a ‘Participant’ is that person within the Arena. My time is short so I instruct one of my assistants to find Arena defined in the Rule Book.

The second quarter starts, and as the teams head onto the court, Ted Legislative takes a good look at my team and calls time. He eyes their sneakers carefully and asks, “What do you need those assault sneakers for?” The home team crowd begins to chant, “Ban the assault sneakers. Ban the assault sneakers. It’s for your protection. It’s for your protection.” A rule change takes place in mid-course and my team now sports nice comfortable shoes with thick leather soles, they don’t make for good footing on the hardwood court.

It’s not getting any better as the Governments continue to outplay us as the second quarter winds down. I’ve got to re-read that Rule Book.

As we play through the third quarter I receive a call from the booth. They have found Arena in Title 27, Subchapter B, Section 861, Paragraph (f) entitled Miscellaneous.

“OK, what do you have?”

The answer comes, “Arena: That section of a sporting facility, divided into rows and sections, which contains seating for the participants viewing a sporting or theatrical event.

“So, if I am putting this together correctly, if you happen to come and watch this game and want to get onto the court, probably before or after the game I’m guessing, and you want to dribble around they charge you a fee to do so?”

“Sounds about right, Coach,” comes the response from the booth.

Thankfully, the game comes to an end and we retire to the locker room to shower, change and go home to our loved ones.

Playing under these conditions would be an absolutely ludicrous concept in a sporting event. Fans would riot, commentators would berate the rules and and sports reporters would write scathing commentary on the commissioner and the contemptuous conduct of the ref’s for participating in such a sham.

This is how we play the game of politics. This is how the government conducts business everyday and how the vast majority of Americans view and accept the concept of a living Constitution. This is how we have become encumbered with more laws, licenses and taxes than we can tolerate.

To put this into perspective I’d like to start with a quote from Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash. 133, 147. In this case Justice Tillman states in his opinion, with regard to the driver license sham, “Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment.”

We have become a land of ignorance. It seems to me that few understand the idea of liberty and what our Founding Fathers intoned in the Constitution. The agenda of government has been to make that document irrelevant, and it seems to be working. Lawyers are taught that rights are derived from government rather than the fact that powers are granted to the government by the people. Judges become enraged when pro-se litigants enter the court and speak of the Constitution, threatening imprisonment for merely stating your rights.

In Hale v. Hinkel, 201 U.S. 43 74-75, the court stated; “The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life, liberty, and property. His Rights are such as the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are the refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.”

In order to continue encroachment upon our rights, statutes have been washed with legalese so the law is only clear to those willing to read it and research it down to the point of the coach asking for the definition of ‘Arena.’ Lawyers conduct themselves as if their only concern is to validate a system that has become abhorrent to the intent of those who sacrificed themselves to make this a free Republic.

There is no room for interpretation in the law and each term within a statute must have its specific meaning defined within the code and it must adhere to those powers granted by the people. “A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.” International Motor Transit Co. v. Seattle, 251 P. 120. “The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’” City of Dayton v. DeBrosse 23 N.E. 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232.

The courts have repeatedly held that a ‘motor vehicle’ is a mode of transportation for hire by a commercial enterprise. They have commonly held that only a ‘motor vehicle’ can be regulated and the driver licensed. The individual, on the other hand, cannot be forced into some licensing scheme even at the illusion of some public benefit. “The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.” Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22

If you were to take note of the law you would find a wealth of information. For instance in Pennsylvania, Title 75 Chapter 1 General Provision § 102. Definitions  – “Driver’s license.” “A license or permit to drive a motor vehicle issued under this title.” The key to this is to understand that the courts have defined ‘motor vehicle’ to mean something other than what you or I drive as a personal vehicle used in our pursuit of happiness. “Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain.” Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82

For me, it is perfectly clear because I realize that government is confined to regulate only those subjects within its granted power. Private property or locomotion is not a subject that government may regulate. “Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion — to go where and when one pleases — only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135

We have become encumbered by our willingness to be ignorant and to enforce our will upon our fellow citizen so that we may live conveniently within our own little cocoon. Safety and convenience for ourselves is our concern, our neighbor be damned if he chooses not to comply.

‘Nick’