Idaho Dispatch

Your Local Media Ally

Op-Ed: Sickening Fees a Blatant Violation of INALIENABLE RIGHTS

By • April 22, 2021

TO: Honorable Senator Winder, District 20
Honorable Representatives Holtzclaw & Palmer, District 20

Cc: Honorable Idaho Lieutenant Governor, Senators, and Representatives

We now have Idaho Code §49-1234(4) making it a crime to not have (liability) insurance on a personally owned vehicle such that it now requires a $75 fee to “reinstate” the unConstitutionally declared “privilege” to “possess” a personal vehicle.

This Idaho Code is but the “tip of the iceberg”, as it were, which is repugnant to the Idaho Constitution

Idaho Constitution, Article 1 is the equivalent of Idahoans’ State Bill of Rights.

The Idaho State Bill of Rights, indeed, the entirety of the Idaho Constitution, state government and laws are superior to the federal Constitution, federal government and laws. For, it is from the Constitutions of the Several States which the subordinate federal Constitution, government and laws are established and from which their limited authority is derived.

Section 1 of Article 1 of the Idaho Constitution reads(emphasized):
INALIENABLE RIGHTS OF MAN. All men are by nature free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property; pursuing happiness and securing safety.

Possession of property cannot be made into a “privilege”. Period. Especially that a “license” be demanded to be paid upon to possess that property. Indeed, it is also not the authority of the Idaho government at any level to declare what “property” is.

Indeed, “possession” is more than “owning” of that property, it includes the use of the same.

With confidence I do present that the entirety of the Idaho Traffic Infraction Act of 1981 & 1983 within Title 49 is State Unconstitutional.

The requirement to have a license (car plates) and registration to personally possess a vehicle, let alone a “(driver’s) license” to use the same for personal use is state Unconstitutional.

Sure, regulate the business use of a vehicle within moderation, but not that of personally “possessing … property” of he same.

By your individual and collective oaths to uphold and defend the Idaho Constitution, you are required to introduce bills which repeal any and all Idaho and/or lower government laws, rules, regulations, policies, and ordinances which are repugnant to the Idaho Constitution.

Further, you are required to introduce bills which protect Idahoans and preempt and prohibit the federal government and its laws, rules, regulations, policies, and ordinances which it creates that are repugnant to the Idaho Constitution and laws.

Bryan Carter
District 20 Constituent


Tags: Bill of Rights, Bryan Carter, Chuck Winder, Constitution, James Holtzclaw, Joe Palmer, Sickening Fees

7 thoughts on “Op-Ed: Sickening Fees a Blatant Violation of INALIENABLE RIGHTS

  1. Interesting commentary. Clearly… someone’s a libertarian. Full disclosure… I’m not a resident of Idaho. LOVE the state, respect the state, and someday hope to call Idaho my home… and will absolutely be moving there BECAUSE of it’s culture and politics, not to change it. With that said… I respectfully have the same question of this letter’s author that I have of all libertarians.

    Then what?

    You say there should be no requirement to maintain liability insurance. And if you run over someone? You seem very focused on rights surrounding property. So you plow into someone’s car… their means of labor… something they depend on to survive, and you don’t have the financial means to make them whole… Then what?

    State fees for licenses? See your point there. Less of a problem with that. I have no problem with the idea that GOV should have no right to charge a surcharge on the ownership of any property. Feel the same way about property taxes, etc. But the question becomes… when no one contributes the equivalent of a “usage tax” for the “public” resources they consume… then what? Who’s paying for your roads? Who’s paying for the snowplows?

    Essentially… libertarianism is great… in theory and principle… if you’re living in the wood surviving off Elk and Cutties and never leverage a public resource requiring funding through taxation. But that’s pretty much no one. So… then what?

    1. If you want to have classic car and just shine it up and keep in your garage and never leave your property with it…you still have to have it registered and insured? Apparently so. That is clearly unconstitutional.

    2. I have uninsured motorist coverage. Don’t you?

      This is kind of like vaccines: if they work, why do you need to force me to take one?

  2. SHAPIRO vs. THOMSON, 394 U. S. 618 April 21, 1969 . Further, the Right to TRAVEL by private conveyance for private purposes upon the Common way can NOT BE INFRINGED. No license or permission is required for TRAVEL when such TRAVEL IS NOT for the purpose of [COMMERCIAL] PROFIT OR GAIN on the open highways operating under license IN COMMERCE.
    Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137,(1803) The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.
    Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105, (1943) No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it…..code is not law.

  3. While this may seem wrong to some, I feel it is right. I do not think that everyone of any age has the ability to drive. I do not think illegal immigrants should drive; well, or even be here. I hate insurance, but why should those who drive and own vehicles responsibly, pay for all the losses resulting from an accident that is not their fault?

  4. This new law will do nothing to get people to purchase insurance but you can bet the insurance lobby had a say in this as they hope to gain more policy holders. The governor touted his administrations ability to dump a lot of bad legislation that was on the books problem is that every year they add more back so how is this a good thing. This is not going to encourage the people who drive without insurance to purchase it as many are illegals who can’t afford insurance.

  5. The state has been doing this for years, and requiring people to have sr-22 insurance coverage for nothing insurance, and requiring tags and fees, which is not constitutional, but, without support most people lack resources to fight the big bully we call government…I some case they have actually sent people to jail… Which is another travesty ..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.