Diving licences are nothing

[Paul Evans]

Québec has implemented something like that. If you're caught diving in Québec you need to have a provincially-issued card now. Of course, any legal program is only as good as its enforcement.........

How does this work if your a tourist coming to Quebec to dive :11:

 

[lairdb]

As my fellow conchdiver, CBulla, has so eloquently stated, come dive South Florida, then ask "Why should boat owners [should] have to have a licence?"

So what. Once again: compelling public interest. If you get hit, sue the pants off them, civilly. Other than that, it shouldn't be any of the state's business.

As far as willing to use force to enforce compliance, not necessarily. The use of force is only authorized in the face of threat of great bodily harm, or death. Enforcing compliance is more of a deterrent than a call for the use of force.

Nonsense. See what happens if you refuse to pay your speeding fine. Eventually, the agents of the state will use force against you.

 

[lairdb]

It was a tangent off the side of the whole license to dive theme, just saying that if divers are required to have a license to dive (even though they could really only kill themselves or a buddy), and drivers (using a large, fast moving projectile on the roads) have to have one, why dont recreational boat operators (i understand boat charters have to have them), as they are also fast moving, potentially lethal vehicles. Its seems weird to ask divers to have a license, but not boat owners, i know who is a greater risk to the general public - also who isnt trained to use such vehicles, just jump on and put it in gear.

This is what happens when people (not you, simbrooks) use language imprecisely. Though they may be using the term "license", that's a mangling of the word's meaning (as most interpret it: as a proof of some basic level of training or skill).

"Fee receipt" or "tax stamp" would be a better term for what's being proposed, though it may be cloaked in the sheep's clothing of "safety".

 

[Scubaguy62]

So what. Once again: compelling public interest. If you get hit, sue the pants off them, civilly. Other than that, it shouldn't be any of the state's business.

Tell you what.., if you could, go and make that argument to Clarence Earl Gideon. I'm sure you could figure out who he is (hint, Gideon v. Wainwright, 83 S. Ct. 792 (1963). For those who would care to know, Clarence Earl Gideon was a Florida inmate who appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court because a trial court denied him representation at trial, contrary to the U.S. Constitution, simply because he could not afford to hire an attorney. He had to represent himself and was convicted of petty larceny. His appeal changed the law and served to create what we know today as the Public Defender's Office, and the reason why police officers say "if you can not afford an attorney one will be appointed for you." Point being, unless someone makes it a matter of compelling public interest, it will not ever be one.

Nonsense. See what happens if you refuse to pay your speeding fine. Eventually, the agents of the state will use force against you.

Actually, I don't know where you live, because your profile isn't filled in, but in Florida, if you refuse to pay your speeding fine, your license gets suspended and it will cost you a lot more to get it reinstated. I don't see any force in that.

 

[lairdb]

Tell you what.., if you could, go and make that argument to Clarence L. Gideon. I'm sure you could figure out who he is (hint, Gideon v. Weinright). Point being, unless someone makes it a matter of compelling public interest, it will not ever be one.

Wainwright, not "Weinright". 372 US 335.

Fuzzy language leads to fuzzy thinking again. People do not make things into matters of compelling public interest -- people, or a person, in the case of Gideon, may raise an issue so that it is recognized to be of compelling interest, but it is or isn't on it's own.

If you want to argue that there is an unrecognized compelling public interest in certifying the skill of boat operators, that's it's own bowl of soup.

Actually, I don't know where you live, because your profile isn't filled in, but in Florida, if you refuse to pay your speeding fine, your license gets suspended and it will cost you a lot more to get it reinstated. I don't see any force in that.

Your license is suspended, you are adjudged in default of the judgement. A warrant is issued. If you further fail to pay, you are subject to arrest and jail. If you do not go to jail, they will take you there; they will use force to take you and keep you.

 

[Scubaguy62]

Wainwright, not "Weinright". 372 US 335.

Corrected

Fuzzy language leads to fuzzy thinking again.

Sounds like Bush's comments to Gore's explanations.."fuzzy math." Please tell me you're not running for president.

People do not make things into matters of compelling public interest

Last I looked, the Supreme Court Justices are people...they were the ones who made the issue one of compelling public interest and told the states what how to interpret the 6th ammendment according to the 14th.

-- people, or a person, in the case of Gideon, may raise an issue so that it is recognized to be of compelling interest, but it is or isn't on it's own.

It may not be, but you just validated my previous argument. Until someone raises the issue, it will not become one of compelling interest.

If you want to argue that there is an unrecognized compelling public interest in certifying the skill of boat operators, that's it's own bowl of soup.

Yes it is, and yes there is.

Your license is suspended, you are adjudged in default of the judgement. A warrant is issued. If you further fail to pay, you are subject to arrest and jail. If you do not go to jail, they will take you there; they will use force to take you and keep you.

Perhaps in your state, but in FL., if your license is suspended because you fail to pay a fine, it's just suspended. You are only required to surrender it, if you're unable to pay the fine, or reinstate it by paying the fine plus the cost of reinstatement. If you get caught driving with a suspended driver's license, you get another ticket for driving with a suspended license. More money for the State, more money for the insurance companies for the next three years of your life. And if you just happen to be a habitual offender, your license gets revoked. Then you can petition for a license to drive yourself from home to work, because Florida is a right to work state.

If we're going to continue to argue points of law, let's do it in elsewhere...

 

[lairdb]

Last I looked, the Supreme Court Justices are people...they were the ones who made the issue one of compelling public interest[...]

No more than the Constitution "made" rights. People have them, other people recognize (or fail to recognize) them. The matter is one of compelling interest, or it isn't -- whether or not people have recognized it as one. A subtle (though important) distinction, perhaps.

Perhaps in your state, but in FL., if your license is suspended because you fail to pay a fine, it's just suspended. You are only required to surrender it, if you're unable to pay the fine, or reinstate it by paying the fine plus the cost of reinstatement. If you get caught driving with a suspended driver's license, you get another ticket for driving with a suspended license. More money for the State, more money for the insurance companies for the next three years of your life. And if you just happen to be a habitual offender, your license gets revoked. Then you can petition for a license to drive yourself from home to work, because Florida is a right to work state.

I don't have quick access to Florida statutes or cases to cite, but from any number of quickly Googleable websites we can find that Florida classifies driving with a suspended license as a "criminal infraction", for which you can be jailed despite it's not being a "crime". That it's rarely enforced doesn't make it any less the law.

If we're going to continue to argue points of law, let's do it in elsewhere...

Agreed.

 

[dweeb]

The police have no right to ask to see our "papers" here in the states, although many of them try.

You're behind the times. The gang of nine changed all that a few weeks ago in an appeal of a Nevada case.

"The Supreme Court is now in session - no man's life, liberty, or property are safe."

 

[dweeb]

In the U.S., the legal hierarchy is something like this:

1. Treaties and Conventions (law controlling U.S. vis-a-vis other nations
2. Federal Law (national law controlling its citizens and residents)
3. State law (law of each state)
4. County law (law of counties within each state)
5. Municipal law (law of cities within each county)

I think you forgot something. First on that list is a little piece of paper that begins with the words "We the People." Furthermore, parts of that document strictly limit when and where federal law supersedes state law.
Oh, and the treaties and conventions only apply if your military isn't able to kick the butts of any objecting nations, as the USA, USSR, and PROC proved for decades.

Governmental bodies make laws under their "police powers" which exist to protect the public's health and welfare. They are reluctant to (and constitutionally prohibited from) make statutory law without a significant public health interest.

Technically, yes, but that doesn't stop them.

For example if one person decides to tie helium balloons to a lawn chair in an attempt to fly (I did not make this up) and kills himself, it is unlikely the legislature would convene to draft a law against it.

1. He didn't die.
2. He was in violation of several existing federal laws, and was prosecuted.

 

[dweeb]

You miss the point (in the U.S., at least.) Review Boatlawyer's message and filter for philosophy.

The question under the U.S. system is "Why should boat owners have to have a licence? I.e. what compelling public interest exists that justifies enforcement at gunpoint?" (Make no mistake, when you invoke the government, that's what it comes down to in the end -- you are willing to use force to enforce compliance.)

Yup, except properly, it should be, "what compelling public interest exists that overrules an individual's inalienable right to be left alone, AND which cannot be addressed by any other means?"